Political Cartoons: Is There Anyone They CAN'T Offend?

Well, I was getting ready to blog (again) on the Alex Rodriguez saga, particularly the response from ESPN's ombudsman on the exclusive interview with Peter Gammons. If that's still you're deal, feel free to click the link.

Anyway, as that post was developing, I caught a glimpse of the above cartoon from Wednesday's New York Post: a tragic combination of two of the major US news stories of the past week.

Among those in the journalistic realm, it doesn't take a trained monkey (pun semi-intended) to figure out that this particular cartoon is going to offend people. A lot of people.

Even those who aren't journalists have seen several political cartoons that have depicted African-Americans as monkey-like. Surely they had hope that with an African-American president now in office, this sort of thing would disappear.

'Fraid not.

Of course, the outrage has been pouring in. In what is a shock to no one, the Reverend Al Sharpton was quick to express his disgust:

"The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this in the cartoon...

"Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to wonder are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?"

Now, one would think in the realm of professional journalism, the Post would acknowledge Rev. Sharpton's opinion as well as apologize for the nature of the cartoon.

One would think...

Listen to the statement by the Post's editor-in-chief, Col Allan:

"The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."

Shnikes!

From some reports, the mood in the newsroom is not quite as supportive of cartoonist Sean Delonas. Sam Stein of the Huffington Post reported this:

"On Wednesday, an employee of the paper told the Huffington Post that the phone lines had been inundated with complaints over what was interpreted as a racially charged jab at Obama. 'As they f--king should be,' said the source."

Given the oft-criticized conservative slant of the Post, it shouldn't be a surprise that if a cartoon of this nature were to appear, it would happen there. But with the startlingly unapologetic response from Allan, it would seem that Rupert Murdoch now finds himself in a deep pile of didgeri-doo.

Unless, that is, the paper prints something akin to this.

A-Roid and Journalistic Ethics: Where to Begin?

As an aspiring sports journalist, I had an entirely different level of fascination with the revelation that Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees tested positive for steroids in 2003, when he was with the Texas Rangers.

Selena Roberts and David Epstein of Sports Illustrated first broke the story Saturday on the SI website, which he confirmed on ESPN Monday. What a scoop! Journalism at its' finest: digging, scratching and clawing to find the truth! Not even the news pixie herself, Katie Couric, could get A-Rod to admit it!

To what extent, however, did Roberts dig, scratch and claw? According to A-Rod, a bit too much.

"What makes me upset is Sports Illustrated pays this lady Selena Roberts to stalk me," Rodriguez told Peter Gammons in an exclusive interview with ESPN (More on this later). "This lady has been thrown out of my apartment in New York City. This lady has, five days ago she was thrown out of the University of Miami police for trespassing. And four days ago she tried to break into my house while my girls are up there sleeping, and got cited by the Miami Beach Police. I have the paper here.

"And this lady's coming out with all these allegations, all these lies, because she's writing an article for Sports Illustrated. And she's coming out with a book in May." (Actually, Alex, the publication date just got moved up to April 14...hmmm) "And really respectable journalists are following this lady off the cliff, and following her lead. And that to me is unfortunate."

So, is Selena Roberts a crazy A-Rod stalker? Why don't we ask her via the Major League Baseball (MLB) Network, The New York Observer and SI.com, shall we?

From the MLB Network interview, as reported by Newsday (NY):

"'I've never set foot in the lobby of Alex's New York apartment. I've never set foot on his property. It's pure fabrication,' said Roberts, who did say she drove by Rodriguez's house after receiving permission from Miami Beach police to drive on public property near A-Rod's house. The Miami Beach police have a "miscellaneous incident" report of that conversation, but Roberts was not cited for anything.

"Roberts also asked for and received permission from security at the University of Miami to enter the school's workout facilities and talk to Rodriguez on Thursday.

"'I think it's a diversion, a shoot-the-messenger type of thing,' Roberts said."

Roberts told the Observer the following with regards to the above quote:

“It’s not at all close to what happened. I wrote it off: It’s a diversionary tactic to throw blame on the messenger. He’s probably upset with me and maybe he wants to divert the attention to the credibility of the article, which is not in dispute.”

Roberts told SI.com this:

"In a meticulous process, we verified and re-verified our information, because this is a human being here, so you absolutely do not want to be wrong. We made a decision to confront Alex with the evidence we had regarding his positive test, and give him a chance to explain. He chose not to."

So, what about Roberts' methods and motives? Are they a product of the modern era of journalism, or is she kickin' it old school?

Now back to the exclusive interview on ESPN. (I swear that was said about 20 times during the hour of Sportscenter on Monday during which it aired.)

Why the lovable Peter Gammons? ESPN has loads of excellent baseball writers, including Tim Kurkjian and Buster Olney, who covered the Yankees for The New York Times for pity's sake?

SI writer Jeff Pearlman offered his opinion on his blog:

"The reason Gammons scored the interview with [John] Rocker (ten years ago) a decade back is the same reason he scored one with A-Rod today: He’s the Larry King of sports television. Softball questions, limited inquisitiveness, an easy time for all involved."

Specifically responding to how Gammons did not react to A-Rod's rant on Roberts, Pearlman said this:

"I’m not sure if Gammons was jealous of Selena for scoring a huge story, but he had to—absolutely had to—follow up Rodriguez’s presumably ludicrous accusations with a question or two or three or 10. 'Alex, are you saying Selena Roberts literally broke into your building? Alex, can I see the paper you’re referring to? Alex, you rip Selena Roberts’ reporting? But wasn’t she, ahem, correct?'"

Gammons gave his answer in an e-mail to the sports blog Deadspin:

"I think in retrospect, I should have interrupted the A-Rod rant. My first question asked if Selena's story were true, he essentially admitted it was, and I believed she was therefore vindicated. I usually don't get into grudges, and felt he was promoting her book, which will be her response. I was trying to get Alex in his own words, but Jeff's criticism has merit that I accept."

Does this mean Gammons is going to start getting tough on his interviewees? It probably won't matter, since he will probably never cover as big a story as this in his remaining years.

Nevertheless, A-Rod has confessed and apologized. Does this make him a sympathetic figure? Will the media respect him a bit more?

Not the New York Post.

This photo of A-Rod preparing for the exclusive ESPN interview at his home was published in the Tuesday edition of the Post and its website. However, A-Rid saw it as an invasion of privacy and had it removed from the site.

I can understand his beef with Roberts, but with the photog? Really?

The intrigue is just beginning on this story, both in the world of sports and journalism. I see it as a primer for what I need to be thoughtful about as I pursue a story like this in my sports journalism career. On the other hand, no matter how thoughtful I am, will it even matter in the mind of the player or team? Won't they just see me as an annoying reporter?

Is that fair?

The Curious Case of Rod Blagojevich or It's, It's a Blago Blitz!

After being knocked out by bronchitis last week, I'm back on my feet and ready to blog, baby!

I have a roommate from Naperville, Illinois. He is one of those people that is fun to rile up because of the way he reacts to things. Let's just say I have been given a lot of ammunition thanks to the alleged actions of the now ex-governor of his home state, Rod Blagojevich. Thankfully, he agrees with me, particularly thinking that this Daily Show clip towards the beginning of the scandal was absolute hilarity.

With such "low-hanging fruit" ready to convict Blago, most would think he'd just roll over and take it, much like former New York governor Eliot Spitzer.

Then came the "Blago Blitz", where Blago, still in office at that point, appeared on just about any show that would give him time: The View, Good Morning America, the Today show, etc. The blitz may have seemed like a good idea at first, but then when he compared himself to Ghandi, MLK, and Nelson Mandela, among other inane things, he seemed to lose all credibility.

Unintentionally funny comments made by Blago in these interviews include, but are not limited to:

"The fix is in." (Today and GMA)

"It is true that among the many potential candidates for the Senate seat, we discussed Oprah." (The View)

Even after his impeachment and removal from office, the long strange trip has continued. Yesterday, Blago appeared on the Today show (again), Larry King Live, Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, and the Late Show with David Letterman. Included in these interviews were some precious one-liners from the man himself:

"I rejected an offer by leading senators to keep my job for two years and essentially be a ghost payroller governor." (Today show)

"And at the appropriate time, the truth will come out. And as it's written in Bible, the truth will set me free." (OTR)

"So the hypocrisy of these politicians is -- is incredible. And I think part of the reason to kind of add quickly is I don't think they want anybody looking into their stuff." (King)

Letterman by far was the most entertaining interview, with such exchanges as these:

Letterman: "Why exactly are you here, honest to God?"

Blago: "I've been wanting to be on your show in the worst way for the longest time."

Letterman: "Well, you're on in the worst way, believe me."

Letterman, not surprisingly, had the chutzpah to go toe-to-toe with the former governor, particularly with Blago's claim that his office was being "hijacked".

"You were not deprived of due process," Letterman said. "I don't believe you have been deprived of due process."

"The more you talked and the more you repeated your innocence, the more I thought, 'oh this guy's guilty,'" Letterman continued.

Could there perhaps be another motive? Some say yes, that a book deal or talk-show gig may be in the works. But who would hire him?

"A great many employers will not hire someone who has a felony charge pending against them," said Chicago defense attorney John Beal.

Well, it worked for the aforementioned Spitzer, who now writes for Slate magazine, even though the job, by his own admission, "sucks".

Going back to the time-honored questions that defined our class, I ask:

*Is the Blago Blitz journalism, or a ratings-monger feeding off an amazingly sensationalistic story?

*If Blago were to get a talk-show gig, does that make him a journalist? Is our opinion on that skewed by his removal from office? Does it for Spitzer?

What You Didn't See on Inauguration Day (Unless You Watched Fox News)

Ah, Inauguration Day!

I scampered back home from my Spanish 322 class in time to watch the swearing-in and Obama's speech live. I watched CNN's coverage, which was surprisingly simplistic. It was amazing to recall what it was like to watch cable news before the incessant crawl at the bottom of the screen or mounds of graphics. I also enjoyed their live look-ins on crowds in places like Memphis, Los Angeles, among others.

But what of the now ex-President Bush? Shouldn't he get at least a little bit of coverage on the day his term ends? The last many of us saw of him was the image of Air Force One flying off to Texas.

Fox News, however, took it the extra mile.

Out of all the cable news networks, only Fox News presented live coverage of Bush's homecoming speech from Midland, TX. Some networks were on semi-regular programming, some reporting on the inaugural parade.

"Sometimes what I did wasn't popular," Bush told supporters. "But that's OK. I always did what I thought was right."

Doesn't this just invite even more criticism of Fox News and provide evidence of right-wing bias?

Or was this the essence of "fair and balanced" reporting on an otherwise Obama-fied day? Does Obama or any candidate deserve such a monopolization of coverage without considering the outgoing president?

MSNBC: Your Inauguration Juggernaut?

We currently stand less than a week from Inauguration Day, and the excitement is palpable, repeat, palpable.

I remember watching the last two inaugurations on TV, flipping around the different news channels to see each one's unique coverage of this historic event.

It seems that if MSNBC has its way, however, a lot fewer people will be flipping around from channel to channel this January 20, thanks to two very intriguing agreements.

The first is between MSNBC and Screenvision, which will put the network's coverage (free of charge) in 27 theaters across the country. For us in Utah, the closest options would be Denver, Phoenix, or LA. No love for the SLC.

The second agreement is between MSNBC and Starbucks. The coffee chain agreed to broadcast MSNBC's inauguration coverage in 650 stores nationwide.

Why such a big push by the Peacock News Network? To keep up the momentum that made it cable's fastest-growing channel of 2008.

"We have to get our product out there and expose it to more people," said MSNBC president Phil Griffin.

In our class, we talked so much about questioning the motives of the major news networks. Were they providing news for the sake of informing the public, or to boost ratings and advertising revenue? At first glance, it appears that MSNBC is doing just that.

Looking at it another way, however, one must remember the historicity of this particular event. This will be an inauguration unlike any other in our history. Not only is it for an African-American, but it is for a change that many people have wanted for some time. As such, should MSNBC be lauded for its attempts to make this event as accessible as possible?

One more factoid before I sign off:

Even after repeated charges of left-wing bias throughout the campaign, there will be an interesting wrinkle in MSNBC's coverage, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are slated to anchor the goings-on from Washington. Hmmmmmmmmm......

Jon Stewart's Explanation of Rupert Murdoch

Over the Christmas break, I wandered into a Barnes and Noble and found an intriguing book. I almost bought it, but then I remembered I'm a poor college student with little money to spare (for now).

It's called The Man who Owns The News: Inside the Secret World of Rupert Murdoch, and is written by Michael Wolff, a writer for Vanity Fair. The book delves into Murdoch's media empire, as well as his personal life.

As we discussed in our class, Murdoch's vast media empire includes The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the venerable Fox News. Pretty powerful guy, right?

Not if you ask Jon Stewart.

Wolff appeared on The Daily Show last night as he and Stewart discussed the book and the source of Murdoch's power.

Wolff claims that Murdoch is "is the most powerful man for the longest period in our era".

Stewart, who famously and frequently takes jabs at Fox News, says that Murdoch is not inherently powerful himself, but is merely a tool of powerful people.

"The leaders in power can always find a Rupert," Stewart said.

So, what do you think? Are Rupert Murdochs born or made? Could any of us in our class become a media mogul by sheer work and determination, or do we have to be chosen by the powers that be? Would we even want to yield that kind of power or be subject to that kind of scrutiny?

I reckon I'll have to read the book to find out for myself. In any case, it looks like another interesting ideological debate between Jon Stewart and Fox News. Let's get it on!

Did Kathy Griffin Say What I Think She Just Said?

Happy 2009 to everyone! I spent my last night of 2008 in my apartment with my girlfriend and one of my roommates and his girlfriend. We flipped channels around until settling for CNN's live coverage of the ball dropping in Times Square. Your hosts: Anderson Cooper and Kathy Griffin.

The unintentional comedy was through the roof, but that's not necessarily a good thing for supposedly serious journalism.

We cringed throughout the broadcast as Griffin's grinding voice seemed to be on autopilot, while poor Anderson Cooper tried in vain to keep the show from coming off the rails with his fake, patronizing laugh.

After the ball dropped, CNN stayed live for another hour to watch celebrations from the Central Time Zone, particularly from New Orleans, where correspondent Sean Callebs seemed to hate the "belligerent" revelers, some of which flipped off the camera.

The performance of hip-hop artist Lil' Wayne, which had been plugged at the beginning of the show, was full of backup exotic-looking dancers in neon outfits, thus leaving it mostly audio-only on the broadcast.

Then, hip-hop artist Coolio was interviewed in Las Vegas, proclaiming he would go down as one of the top 10 performers in the history of hip-hop.

It was also during this hour that those exiting Times Square made their dislike for Griffin a bit more vocal. CNN went to break, but not before Griffin let out this verbal blast to her hecklers. (WARNING: Griffin's remark will probably offend) For those who don't want to click the link (I don't blame you), she made a vulgar remark about what she deemed an appropriate line of work for those who ridiculed her. The exchange was conveniently left out of the replay a few hours later.

Besides the fact that CNN is due for a hefty fine, and that Kathy Griffin probably won't be back next year, why are the cable news channels allowing themselves to broadcast New Year's Eve as if they were Carson Daly or Dick Clark?

We flipped over to Fox News, who had their overnight crew partying just as hard as those in the crowd. MSNBC just played the feed for NBC's celebration hosted by Carson Daly, probably the best move among the big cable news networks.

How can this be considered journalism? Even if CNN doesn't intend for it to be journalism, why do they send a legitimate journalist to anchor their coverage?

The final verdict: Unprofessional, but unintentionally funny.