 |
Kass Kicks Ass
By JOHN F. KUCZAJ
Thursday's "Chicago Tonight" was a treat as Phil Ponce talked with the Tribune's John Kass for the entire 30 minutes (Disclosure: I work for a non-publishing division of Tribune). While Kass did seem a bit uneasy, I couldn't tell if it was modesty at the glowing feature on him or just being in front of the camera. No matter, as Kass' knowledge and intelligence more than made up for his fish-out-of-water appearance. What is certain is that Ponce really didn't need his usual long, lumbering questions. Don't get me wrong - Ponce is good, and his questioning style is perfect if you want a pinpoint answer, but this show really needed the shallow, lazy questioning that every single one of Chicago's TV sportscasters utilize on a daily basis. All Ponce needed to ask to get Kass going was questions like: "What do you think about Mayor Daley?" or "Tell me about your dad." It's obvious that Kass has a ton of things to say and I'm sorry that under the confines of his Tribune column, we are only getting a fraction of his knowledge and ideas.
I'd love to see Kass do an "O'Reilly Factor"-like show on CLTV in addition to his column, yet the time demands for a daily TV or radio show might adversely affect his writing. Besides, he's a rare old-school journalist, and I would bet that TV or radio doesn't excite him much.
Maybe John Kass feels as uneasy on television as he looks, but that kind of thing eventually goes away with more experience. His intelligence, his knowledge, his blue-collar background and his old-school feel helps him succeed-and among the group of good TV news journalists in Chicago, Kass blows most of them away.
Missed Opportunity
By JOHN F. KUCZAJ
The Sun-Times scooped everyone again this week, breaking the story about Fr. Pfleger not being re-upped at St. Sabina (easy to do when Fr. Pfleger calls you and plants the story). The front page headline on Tuesday, "Cardinal Ousting Rebel Priest" was a real disappointment to me, especially in light of the fabulous tabloid-style banners that the paper has done of late.
What the headline SHOULD have been: "PFLEGER PFIRED?"
Recommended Reading
By JOHN F. KUCZAJ
I think everyone who reads the opinions on this web site should definitely read Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News." I say that to both the people who think Goldberg is full of it and those who think he's right on.
I think he's just about right on.
In reading reviews of the book, I think it is fascinating to see how the contrasting reviews of the book have played out. Those people who like the book and agree with Bernie key on the examples of Bias given or add more examples of their own. Those people who don't like the book and don't agree with Bernie launch personal attacks on him. I happen to believe that the evidence of Bias that Bernie Goldberg has in the book is SO irrefutable that critics are left to do nothing but attack his character. That's exactly what Tom Shales, Michael Kinsley and others have done and I have found it disappointing that good, respectable like them resort to using the last defense of a hack writer - a personal attack. Sort of like a debate between politicians ending with one stammering and then saying, "...yeah, well F--- You!
Read the book with an open mind. I disagree with some of the things he said, but he also brought up points that I hadn't realized. It's not an unauthorized expose by a sleazy tabloid writer, it's a well-thought out tome about a business that a very good journalist cares a lot about.
My thoughts on a few chapters:
Chapter 1: Goldberg compares the news guys at the networks to the mob guys on the Sopranos. A bit ham-fisted, but the comparison subsequently turns out to be apt.
Chapter 2: Goldberg tells Dan Rather about the Wall Street Journal op-ed and Dan freaks. The mob reference becomes clear as Dan states over the phone, "We were friends yesterday, we're friends today, and we'll be friends tomorrow," which is equal to a great big kiss on the lips from Don Corleone. Andrew Hayward outrageously states that had Goldberg mentioned in the piece that he agreed with him about news bias, "That would have been like raping my wife and kidnapping my kids!" Who says news guys can't be melodramatic? Dan Rather begins the damage control by characterizing the views as a "Political Agenda." And Goldberg most definitely is now an "Enemy of Dan".
Chapter 5: How Bill Clinton Cured Homelessness. In 1988 the New York Times ran 50 stories about the homeless, 5 on page one. In 1998, 10 stories all year, 0 on page one.
Chapter 6: Goldberg writes about AIDS and how we're scaring everyone and trying to make it seem like it's more mainstream than it really is. Statistics show that AIDS isn't a problem in middle class suburbia as the magazine shows want to tell you, but rather with the high-risk groups. Of course, most of America looks down on those groups...
Chapter 7: Race bias via political correctness is explored here where a veteran cameraman shoots an Alabama chain gang and is told by clueless news producers to get shots of white prisoners (found only one) then later covering Virgin Island looting after a hurricane is asked why all the looters are black? Maybe because 95% of the island is...
Chapter 8: Goldberg cites survey results to illustrate why the media does not think like the rest of America. He cited a Freedom Forum survey of Washington journalists that noted that 89% of them had voted for Clinton in 1992 compared to the 43% of US voters among other things. In an issue that I covered here 2 issues ago, in 1985 the LA Times surveyed 3000 journalists and 3000 non-journalists on a variety of items. On Affirmative Action, 56% of the non-journalists were for affirmative action while a whopping 82% of the journalists were for it.
Interesting.
Chapter 9: Male bashing. Way out of hand. Goldberg cites a time on The Today Show when Katie casually asked a woman jilted at the altar, "Have you considered castration as an option"? Warren Farrell, a former NOW board member wondered in a book what would happen had Matt asked a jilted groom if he had considered "the option of cutting off her breasts"? Self-deprecating humor is one thing, but yes, the male bashing is starting to get out of hand. Is there a double standard? A man writing a play about a 13 year-old having a homosexual encounter with a 24-year-old would be considered disgusting. Change the gender and you've got yourself a thoroughly acceptable vagina monologue. Right...
I think you get the picture. You can agree with him or not, but the issues Goldberg brings up are issues that should be explored. Why does Dan rather think the Wall Street Journal is a conservative paper, but the New York Times is middle-of-the-road? Why did Peter Jennings identify the conservative Senators at the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial, but not the liberals? Why is NOW never identified as a liberal organization in debates against identified conservative groups?
I've written a whole lot here, but I haven't even scratched the surface on this book. Interestingly, as you read it you might experience some Déjà vu-especially if you are a cable news channel viewer--some of the issues that Goldberg brought up have been debated on the news channels (sometimes without mentioning the book) since the book came out in January.
Chicago Media Examiner e-mail delivery
Send a blank e-mail message to chicagomuse@hotmail.com from the e-mail address you want the Chicago Media Examiner delivered to. Whenever a new issue of the Chicago Media Examiner comes out, it will be e-mailed to you automatically.
Take a look at the previous issue: Monday, February 11
Take a look at the issue before that: Friday, February 1
* Pseudonym
Published weekly...or so.
If you'd like to contribute, e-mail your article to the editor
|
|
|
|
