What Happened to the Fly on the Wall?
By Allen
J Duffis
Published: May 2, 2008
|
Article
tools |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
A statement defining the most important attribute of a news reporter, has for decades stood the test of time - until the advent of television news reporting. It aptly defined the required objectivity of a news reporter via his journalistic posture when covering a news story: 'He must be the fly on the wall.' In order for a reporter to be truly objective and eliminate any of his own prejudices spilling over into his story, he or she must remain aloof from the circumstances of the story and its participants - like the fly on the wall. He has only to observe, listen and ask pertinent questions, and then report what he or she has seen, heard and been responded to by any of the participants. And most certainly he or she must 'never take sides' to the detriment of his objectivity. Unfortunately, today's reporters have almost completely abandoned this age-old, time proven valid principle. In modern news reporting's present day ratings driven 'cult of personality' imperative, personal opinions of the reporter (or talking head as they used to be referred to) is taken by the major networks as far more important than raw objectivity. The networks encourage them to become 'News Personalities' rather than just news reporters, like the legendary Walter Cronkite, Roger Mudd and Mike Wallace. 
A particular case in point is the highlighted career and reporting styles of MSNBC's Chris Matthews (Hardball) and Keith Olbermann (Countdown). Both of these men with huge viewership followings have decided that Barack Obama "should" be the Democratic Party nominee for president, and that contender, Hillary Clinton, regardless of the qualifications she may or may not have for the position, should fold up her campaign tent and simply fade away into the political night. Just in case the point I am trying to make is not clear to some, here it is again: two network 'opinion specialists', masquerading as 'nonpartisan newsmen' have taken a side in a hotly contested presidential campaign. They have taken it upon themselves to declare that - Barack Obama - not Hillary Clinton - should be the Democratic Party nominee for president. The key point of their not so stealth partisanship is that they don't come right out and state their obvious preferences. Instead each, in his own way, works very hard at belittling the candidacy of the contender they don't want to win - which in the present instance happens to be Hillary Rodham Clinton. What they don't seem to be aware of is the reverse of their pronounced prejudices. By taking the stands they, their between the journalistic campaigns have effectively made Barack Obama the one thing he didn't want to be - the Affirmative Action Candidate. The Art of Reporting the News In November of 1999, the United Nations Department of Public Information published a paper by Ann Grier Cutter entitled Journalist: Must Remain Neutral in Conflict? The question it addressed was to the effectiveness of reporting from both journalistic and moralistic vantage points. "The rise of objectivity as a journalistic ethic occurred in the last 60 years. Journalists, seeking to improve their status as purveyors of information, found that their credibility increased with non-partisan reporting. Objectivity and related norms of neutrality and fairness are now considered inviolable by journalists as part of their profession's commitment to discovering and reporting the truth. But they are also impossible ideals. Reporting is constantly influenced by the ongoing subjective decisions a reporter must make, such as whom to interview, which quotes to include, and what pictures to discard." 
Objectivity is an interesting choice as a sacred value for a profession that has no other established standards of credentials or training. If however it is to be the chosen sacrament, choice dictates that it should be followed religiously. In support of this well defined point of view, I again quote the article: "In their observance of objectivity, journalists can be grouped into three camps. The first assigns a strictly passive, neutral role for journalists; the second believes that reporting can be objective and create an incentive to take action; and the third abandons objectivity as the core value in war reporting... Objectivity in journalism is a form of neutrality, a "fly on the wall". According to Leslie Gelb, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, "journalists are in the business of news, not truth. When journalists forget that, they do very misleading and destructive things. News is what you can honestly find out that day. This is a constant process that bows to reality and doesn't impose any view on that reality." All of these outlooks and presented options are based upon war reportage, and they are limited to that arena. But internal political reportage is another matter entirely. Most intelligent reasoning people can can readily understand that first option has to be the prevailing one for internal news reporting. Why? Because the manner in which one reports a war affects how nations and groups involved are seen by the public. But nonobjective internal reporting of politics interferes with the effective capability of the public to make intelligent and informative decisions as to who will administrate their country. In general, Political Reporters within their own countries are in fact citizens who, due to their profession, have been appointed as the disseminators of of information - the very lifeblood of a democracy. In the end, as individuals, they too will cast a single vote toward the outcome of an election - and that single vote should be the sum total of their 'personal' viewpoint. But when they disseminate news reports with an open bias that highlights their personal political prejudices toward one candidate over another, they can do as much damage to a country as any enemy can on the battlefield. Therefore, by abandoning their objectivity and misusing the power of the press accorded them to press their personal viewpoints upon the public through one-sided journalism, they can affect the outcome of elections. Such actions should be looked upon as immoral and patently - undemocratic. Unfortunately for American electoral process, at present, this is exactly what is taking place within its presidential race. And in my opinion and that of many others, Senator Hillary Clinton has been the repeated victim of - 'ambush journalism.' Hillary Clinton vs. The Favorite Son of the Left 
A year ago, Senator Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner in the Democratic Party to be their anointed nominee for the office of President of the United States. She would be a first of her sex, to have a fair shot at that powerful office, and she had, indeed, paid her dues. She was a successful lawyer and graduate of two of the highest rated universities in the nation, First Lady of Arkansas for the twelve cumulative years of her husband's governorship, a well traveled First Lady for eight years of his presidency, and New York State Senator for almost seven years. Normally for anyone, this impressive resume would signal a win. Unfortunately for Senator Clinton along came first term Senator Barack Obama, and her easy run up to the nomination became a full blown contest of unprecedented proportions. After outlasting all of the other contestants in this heated race, she was left with only Obama to contend with. Normally, dealing a political death-blow to a lightweight freshman senator with no major accomplishments on his resume would not pose a major problem; but the dynamic had drastically changed. Hillary Clinton was no longer the darling of the Neo political Left, Barack Obama was, and he was also - Black. In order to present a more balanced appearance to her candidacy, Mrs. Clinton repositioned herself more to the political center. Obama on the other hand was unabashedly Far Left leaning, and in fact, he was considered one of the most liberal senators in congress. In short order, Hillary Clinton's formerly solid Liberal political base within the Democratic Party began to abandon her candidacy in open favor of Obama. The difficulty the Democratic Party bosses never expected to run into was the intransigence of Senator Clinton. She refused to accept her party's dictated fate; namely to roll over, play dead, endorse their chosen standard bearer and quit the race. This stance astonished them because the game had been played this way for more than a century, and they had no prepared response to Clinton's obstinacy. 
Added to Hillary Clinton's many 'crosses to bear', the liberal oriented press began to, between the lines, take cheap shots at her candidacy: clearly they preferred Barack Obama. This open prejudice was obvious in the early debates between Clinton and Obama, when the moderators threw out the most difficulty questions, pointedly, to Hillary. This allowed Senator Obama to plan and evaluate his own forthcoming responses in the light of the one's she gave. But the negative journalistic barrage did not work, because Hillary Clinton kept on winning in the face of terrible odds, negative poll numbers and pundit outrage. Clearly, this candidate was tough beyond the expectations of her detractors and had something else going for her, and slowly the light in front of her began to glow. The Democratic Party heads which included their leader, Howard Dean, began to realize that, Hillary Clinton, was more than just a candidate for the American presidency. Among her staunch supporters - and there are many and they were legion - she was an iconic cult figure for American women. Obama's Dilemma: No Way Out Senator Barack Obama had it rather easy at the beginning of his candidacy. Like it or not, because he was Black (just as Geraldine Ferraro rightly stated), very few of the usual opening political shots of a primary race were taken at him. Even in his own party, his fellow contestants walked softly during the early debates. And as they were knocked off the political primary stage, or voluntarily dropped out one by one, his star began to shine more brightly. Then, without warning, his run for the White House really took off. First there was the 'angry Black woman' push from Oprah Winfrey, who actually initiated Obama's initial theme, "It's time for a change." It was, however, the senator's campaign staff and advisors who would eventually change it to a more catchy phrase. And it was this same group who took a page from Howard Dean's presidential run book of 2004, by clocking onto the Internet to raise funds. 
Soon, Obama was raising unprecedented amounts of money from the Internet via the Black Community, the college campus crowd and young upper middle income professionals. These groups all flocked to his support in unprecedented numbers, and Barack Obama began to play to his new found constituency - and he began to win primaries and Caucasus with his newly revamped theme - "Change we can believe in.". So when John Edwards campaign funds were depleted and dropped out, the only challenge he faced was Hillary Clinton - and she refused to give way. Like World War ll's famed Darby's Rangers final battle, when they ran into the cream of the German Army so did Obama run into a modern firewall. The firewall in question was the Clinton Political Machine - also known as the house of 'tried and true' Dirty Politics. This was where he made his first mistake - he didn't take Hillary Clinton's challenge seriously. Everything went well for Obama until he hit the New Hampshire primary, and Hillary Clinton - cleaned his clock. No one had expected her win, least of all the Obama campaign. She fooled everyone including the newspaper polls and all of the lauded political pundits - with the notable exception of columnist and former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan. At this point, Obama made his second mistake, he refused to fight dirty. His reasons for refusing at first to for refusing to do so were twofold: one, he preferred the high-brow high road of continuous speeches, hammering home his aims as president, and his second reason to avoid getting down in the dirt kicking and scratching was - he simply didn't know how. Sen. Obama now he faces the most damaging blow to date against his candidacy in the form of his former pastor, one Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose church he and his family have admittedly attended for over 21 years. It would appear (on video tape) that the reverend has a bucolic view of the United States, and has gone so far as to accuse the American government of some deliberate crimes against humanity. And taking these vitriolic statements aside, the Senator and his family claim never to have heard such remarks coming from Rev. Wright - in the 21 years they attended his church.(Click to read Rev. Jerimiah Wright's church 'Original' website - before it is completely removed) Needless to say, Obama has some not so easy to observe personal problems that, in the long run, may inflict far more damage to his candidacy. One in particular is that the senator appears to note really like mixing with - common people. Strategy to Strategy: Clinton vs. Obama No one seems to notice that Senator Clinton virtually never tries to dress in the style she most certainly can afford. Instead, she dresses like a woman who had purchased her frock from Wal-Mart, or at best K Mart, and the press has taken much liberty in making fun at her expense because of this dress style. Senator Obama on the other hand dresses as though he had his expensive custom tailored suit 'painted on' that morning just before he came to work. It should also be noted that Senator Clinton does not mind being photographed doing common 'human like things', such as making faces, allowing her wrinkles to be seen and looking haggard after long periods with inadequate sleep. On the other hand, Senator Obama goes out of his way to look incredibly neat. Who notices this difference? Just about every working White woman, mother and two job holding White man and father in the country, and a good number of Black ones too. Hillary Clinton looked far more like 'them' than Barack Obama did. The point is Hillary Clinton follows a grueling campaign schedule and looks like hell for it. While, Senator Obama keeps to that same schedule, but always comes out looking neatly pressed and fresh. Normally, if this was an age issue it would work for the likes of Obama. But unfortunately for him, Hillary Clinton still looks more and more like the people she's attracting to her base - 'Blue Collar' dirt under the fingernails working people. What Quality is More Important - Likable or Touchable? 
It can be argued from recorded history, that after an elective office is attained, very few of the public ever get to actually reach out and touch the officeholder - physically. But during the run up to that office, it's a given that politicians have to - 'press the flesh.' Hillary Clinton does not mind being touched and genuinely appears to like being physically embraced by admirers. She dives into crowds as though they were a welcoming pool of water on a hot day, and more than likely this tendency makes her Secret Service protectors a bit nervous. Barack Obama on the other hand appears just the opposite in his reaction to crowds. It is clear to anyone who takes the time to notice - this man does not like being touched by other than a brief handshake. In fact, when someone gets close enough to give him a hug, he immediately braces them away from himself defensively - always trying to keep that minimum or maximum distance as the case may be. 
When Senator Clinton speaks to a crowd or audience in a debate, she responds to questions by first pointing out to the person who asked the question, then slowly sweeping the grouping as she completes her response. By doing so, she in a virtual sense reaches out and touches everyone gathered there. Senator Obama however usually tries to avoid direct eye contact with the individual who makes a query. Instead he looks briefly in that persons general direction, then almost characteristically up a bit as though thinking of a response, then in general at the audience when delivering his response. He will however speak directly to a reporter or narrator who asks a question. The truth of the matter is that the woman so many refer to as a 'witch' with a capital B, actually comes off as far more human that anticipated every time she is seated next to Obama on a stage. And this desired 'personality softening by proximity' has not escaped the notice of her campaign strategists, or for that matter Hillary herself. And this is why she so desperately wants a 'Lincoln - Douglas' style 22nd debate. The lady knows exactly what she's doing. Should Hillary Quit? Why should she? This is what the American system of politics is all about: a fight to the finish whether it be between opposing political parties or, as in the present case, within a political party. After all, who would you rather have as a leader in these dangerous and trying times, a tough contender who refuses to capitulate in the face of what appears to be certain defeat - or one who simply surrenders to the numbers? To quote the famed New York Yankees catcher of old, Yogi Berra, "It ain' t over till it's over!" 
We the people, and more often the political parties themselves, have a dangerous tendency to forget that in matters of government, the country as a whole is more important than the political party. What's good for the party is not necessarily what's good for the country. When choosing a leader we must strive to elect the best and most determined follow through-individual we can muster from our citizen ranks. And we must never allow dubious poll numbers, opinionated political pundit predictions and 'openly biased and politically prejudiced television news talking heads to dictate our decisions. Hillary Clinton has managed to come back four times from what the pundits and poll taker's predicted would be her presidential run death knell. When are they going to take note that they have been wrong every time? Enough already with the polls and predictions. I say forget the objectivity blind news reporters and talking heads, they're not running for office. If they want a say - let them vote like everyone else - and shut up until the votes are counted. I don't know how it will all turn out on May 6th in Indiana and North Carolina. But if Senator Clinton should ask my humble opinion as to whether she should just throw in the towel, I would be moved to shout out to her - "Hell no! If you can, take it all the way to the convention. Those bastards need a lesson in Constitutional civics!"
|
