Journalism 101

Who?  What?  Where?  When?  Why?  How?  That's journalism simplified.  I took journalism in Mrs. Kirtley's 8th grade class and learned that, even in the Jr. High Newspaper, a journalist will answer those questions.  It's that simple.  When was the last time you read or watched or heard a news report that answered those questions about an important event?  Let's take a look at a couple of current events and see what we have learned from our "journalists."

Last night our federal government avoided the fiscal cliff.  The United States would have "gone over the cliff" if an agreement on taxes and spending cuts was not reached between the Democrats in the White House and in the Senate who want to deal with our $16,000,000,000,000 (the 12 zeroes make more of an impact than just "trillion," doesn't it?) debt and the Republican controlled House of Representatives who want to cut spending to deal with the $16,000,000,000,000 debt.  The president campaigned on a balanced approach that would ask the wealthiest to pay more in taxes and cuts in spending to start to rein in the out of control debt.  Both sides agree that deficit spending is "unsustainable."  Who?  The House of Representatives, the Senate, and President Obama.  What?  Agreed on a deal that would raise tax rates for individuals making over $400,000 a year and families making over $450,000 a year.  Agreed on "future" spending cuts to be negotiated by the end of February, conservative estimates of $10 of tax increases for every $1 of spending cuts or realistic estimates of $410 in tax increases for every $1 cut.  That's Washington D.C.'s definition of a "balanced approach."  Where?  That is an easy  one, in Washington D.C.  When?  Another easy one, last night.  How?  Through negotiations between Vice President Biden and Senator McConnell in the Senate and a yes vote in the House that included all Democrats and 84 Republicans.  Here's the important one that is almost never answered by "journalists."  Why?  Why do Democrats, including the president, insist on raising taxes on high earners even though the increase in taxes collected will not fund even one month's spending?  Why did 84 Republicans, including the Speaker of the House, go against their principles and agree to raising taxes on 77% of the population when you include increases through the loss of the payroll tax cut and the new Obamacare taxes in addition to the negotiated tax rate increase on the "rich" or "more fortunate" with no guarantee of ANY spending cuts at all?  "Journalists" have not answered the why, so we can come to our own conclusion.  But first lets look at a couple of more current events and answer these same basic questions.

Who?  Adam Lanza.  What?  Killed 28 people, himself, his mother, six adult teachers and school staff, and 20 kindergarten students.  When?  The morning of December 14, 2012.  Where?  Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut.  How?  With a gun.  Why?  Starts getting a little unclear here again, but if you look to the solutions offered by the president, lawmakers like Harry Reid, Senator Diane Feinstein, New York City Mayor Bloomberg, "reporters" like Piers Morgan of CNN, and the majority of Hollywood, since their solution to the mass murder problem is more restrictive gun control laws; the gun is the answer to both how and why.  We all know it's the answer to how, although it's not clear exactly what type of gun was used, maybe we can look into that question in another post.  Is it really also the answer to why?  Can an object, a tool, be a reason why?  Is a rock why Cain killed Abel?  Is an ax why Lizzie Borden killed her family?  Is a knife why someone killed O.J. Simpson's ex-wife?  Is a derringer why John Wilkes Boothe killed Abraham Lincoln?  Is an airplane why terrorists killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001?  Seems a little illogical to have a weapon as a reason.  So let's take a look at another set of questions.

Who?  Progressives, President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senators Biden and Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, reporter Piers Morgan, Hollywood in general.  What?  Promoting tighter gun control laws, up to the complete overturning of the 2nd Amendment.  When?  As soon as possible.  Where?  In the United States.  How?  Through federal law or regulations, or as the president put it, "under the radar."  Why?  Supposedly to prevent another tragedy like the Sandy Hook Elementary murders.  But if the gun is not the reason for the murders, can eliminating or restricting access to guns be the solution?  If it's not, then what is the why, for the what - gun control laws?

The answer to why takes a little more work, a little more thought.  I was taking the journalism class shortly after the Watergate scandal, and actually read Woodward and Bernstein's All the President's Men in 7th grade.  One thing I learned from reading that book is that lust for power is a common motive, or a common reason why.  Another is greed, or lust for money.  Hatred is a motive.  Rage is a motive.  Jealousy or envy is a motive.  Sometimes there might not be a motive, just flat out evil is the reason why.  Of course there are good motives too.  The most basic is love, whether it's the motive for working to take care of your family or the reason for donating to the local food bank.  At its most basic, love is the motive for any positive action.

So back to the why for the first "what" in this post, the fiscal cliff deal reached by our legislative branch and the president.  Why would both parties agree to raise taxes and not cut spending when both sides agree that our deficit is a major problem and raising taxes will not reduce it?  Let's be generous and say the reason is love.  Both sides don't want to cut social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, unemployment benefits, and on and on and on because they have such a heartfelt love for their fellow man.  Basically our government is the parent that just cannot say no.  They give their children (us) everything we want and some things we don't want, even though they have maxxed out all the credit cards and it will be up to our grandchildren and great grandchildren to pay them off.  But they do it because they have such love for all of us.

Yeah.  Right.  What's the more likely motive?  Lust for power, lust for money, or most likely a combination of the two. What better way to consolidate a politician's position than by taking from a small group to pay for benefits to a larger group.  If there was anything learned this past November, it was, as one pundit said "personal responsibility will lose out to Santa Claus every time."  

The second "what" listed above, Adam Lanza's killing spree.  Why did he do it?  There are reports of mental health issues.  Speculation about medications he may have been taking.  The bottom line is that the only possible motivation for killing 20 kindergartners is evil.  Pure evil.  Killing his mother and even the officials at the school could be motivated by rage, jealousy, or hatred, especially when combined with mental health problems and medication.  But killing children?  Evil.  There is no other explanation.

That brings us to the motive for the response to the murders.  Just as there is no way to legislate "good," there is no way to legislate to prevent "evil."  Good and evil just are.  They exist.  But as humans, we all feel the need to do something to prevent a mass murder, especially of children, from ever happening again.  Many, maybe even the majority, of the people pushing for new tighter gun control laws are doing so out of the need to just do something, anything, in response to the tragedy.  They know, deep inside, maybe even subconsciously, that there is absolutely nothing we can do to completely eliminate evil.  Because there is nothing to be done to stop the "why," they target the "how"-the tool, the gun.  Again, the basic motive here is love, the need to make sure that no other young lives are lost and no other families or communities have to feel the pain of such loss.  But for some; the president, Senators Reid and Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, Michael Moore, and others, the motivation once again is a lust for power. They have the need to control us, their subjects.  As the president's former chief of staff and current mayor of the United States' murder capitol (Chicago), Rahm Emmanuel said, "never let a crisis go to waste.  They give you the opportunity to accomplish things you would never be able to accomplish otherwise."  Those motivated by a lust for power are pushing hard to accomplish legislation with this fresh crisis that they have been trying unsuccessfully for years to accomplish.  They are using those with other motivations to help them.  Once again, Stalin's definition of useful idiots applies.

I think in the next few posts, we should take a look at other current events and issues and see if we can answer not just the who, what, when, where, and how, but the why as well.

And In This Corner.....

 As a boy growing up, I loved professional wrestling.  Back in the day before cable made professional wrestling a national phenomenon, it was a local production.  I discovered wrestling on one of the local stations out of Amarillo, Texas.  In those days, the local heroes were the Funk family.  They were led by the wrestling legend, Dory Funk who was semi-retired when I was a kid.  The NWA world champion was his son, Dory Funk Jr.  I rarely got to see his matches on our Saturday afternoon wrestling programs.  So my favorite and the favorite of all the boys in Gruver was Dory Jr.'s little brother, Terry Funk.  Wrestling was the ultimate story of good against evil, and the Funk family was definitely the good guys.  No one in their right mind would be caught cheering against any of the Funk family.

Dory Funk Sr. and Dory Funk Jr.

Terry Funk

After a few years of being a huge Terry Funk fan, my family moved to Graham.  One of my adjustments was the loss of my Saturday afternoon wrestling programs.  My Grandma Mae introduced me to Channel 11 out of Dallas and professional wrestling, LIVE from the Sportatorium!  I was really excited to see in the TV Guide that Terry Funk was going to be in the main event.  You cannot imagine how shocked and disappointed I was to learn that my hero, Terry Funk was the villain!  To make matters worse, the evil Von Erich's were the local heroes.  Talk about conflicted.  After living in Graham for awhile, I became a fan of Fritz Von Erich and his sons Kevin, David, and later Kerry.  Instead of practicing Dory Funk Sr.'s spinning toe hold, all the neighborhood boys became masters of Fritz Von Erich's dreaded Iron Claw.  

Fritz
Kevin, David, & Kerry Von Erich

No one in the Channel 11 viewing area would dream of cheering for any wrestler, other than one of the Von Erich's.  In the mid 1980's, pro wrestling went to a nationwide audience with favorites like Hulk Hogan and villains like Andre the Giant (another hero from my Amarillo wrestling memories).  The WWE exploded on cable channels and overtook the locally produced programs.  Wrestling became even more cartoon-ish with purely evil villains and purely good  heroes who eventually would win the hearts of the fans, even while losing matches due to incompetent referees.  Somewhere along the way, maybe because fans no longer had a "local" hero, things changed.  Fans split into two camps.  Of course the majority of fans supported the hero, the good guy, but some cheered on the bad guys.  The good guy was seen as too clean, too wholesome.  Pro wrestling seemed to push promote the villains even more than the heroes.  A large number of fans took pride in their support of the villains.  Eventually, this attitude seemed to bleed over into other sports.  In Texas from the 1970's through the late 1980's, everyone was a fan of the Dallas Cowboys.  People who moved to Texas from other areas might follow their former hometown favorite, but eventually they almost always became Cowboy fans.  Sure there were a few oddballs that grew tired of the way the Cowboys were worshiped, and became vocal fans of Bum Phillips' Houston Oilers, but they were rare.  But as the "pro wrestling" mentality became more prevalent, some football fans started buying Redskins' gear or worse, Steelers' merchandise.  Fans weren't necessarily cheering for a team, but they seemed to be cheering against the local favorite.  

When we moved to Colorado, I saw the perfect example of this attitude.  Of course in Colorado, the Broncos are the NFL team to follow.  At the time we moved, the Broncos weren't too far removed from their Super Bowl championships with John Elway as quarterback.  In the store I managed, Broncos' gear was the top seller, but it was followed very closely by the Broncos most hated rival, the Oakland Raiders.  The majority of the Raiders' fans weren't so much Raiders' fans as they were Bronco haters.  As a football or just overall sports nerd, I would talk about the Raiders, current or past and most of the Raider "fans" had no clue about their chosen team, either current or past.  I think it's just an example of the contrary attitude that most people used to outgrow after their teen rebellion years.  I think an increasingly large number of people no longer outgrow the rebellious stage, but take pride in their unique-ness.  

This attitude has spilled over from the entertainment of professional wrestling to legitimate sports, to the rest of everyday life in America today.  It's a little jarring to read history and learn about men spending the evenings in the local tavern discussing and debating religion, politics, science and so many other subjects from a base of knowledge.  Most Americans were self-educated.  They listened, they read, they were interested in gaining knowledge.  The quote from Emerson that I mentioned before, "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds," was a popularly held opinion.  A person's position on an issue should evolve as that person gains knowledge.  That no longer seems to be the case.  There is no longer a debate.  A person is a Global Warming believer or denier, a 9-11 truther or a Muslim hating Conservative, a Tea Partier or a Progressive, a baby killing pro-choicer or a woman hating right to lifer.  Having a debate about these issues is not a bad thing.  What is so destructive right now is how uninformed our positions are.  Rather than having an honest debate, we pick a side and defend it to the very end.  When the chosen side is not backed up by a base of knowledge, the debate soon turns to the name-calling we heard so much of during the most recent campaign season.  When opinions are not backed by knowledge, manipulation becomes much easier.  Honesty is not necessary if the public is not curious enough to do their own research.  

It is very discouraging to talk to people about the recent election and learn the basis of their choice.  It is almost never "for" someone or something, but "against" the other person or policy.  If our society is going to survive, we must have intelligent debate on issues.  We have to have intellectual honesty from ourselves and our candidates.  We have to force our politicians to be honest.  If they talk about the rich paying their "fair share," make them say what they believe is fair.  Is raising taxes on those making over $250,000 a year going to help solve our fiscal problems, or is it in the interest of redistribution of wealth (are they,  or are we honest enough to call it what it is - Marxism) to buy votes?  Is it all right for your candidate to listen in on cell phone conversations, or hold those suspected of supporting terrorists indefinitely without charging them with a crime, gather information from private e-mails, or to send our troops to war without the approval of Congress, but not ok for the candidate from the other side?  We need to read and learn enough to know what we believe and what we support.  Then we need to read and learn what candidates from all sides not only say they will do, but what they have done and are doing.  The sad thing is that we live in an age where all this information and more is easier to find than ever before in the history of mankind, we are just too lazy or uninterested to find it.  

I have seen interviews with a woman who said she thinks the president did an "acceptable job" in the Benghazi situation.  "Ben Ghazi is hard to predict, you can never tell what that man will do."  I have a friend who voted for Obama because Romney would cut programs that help single women.  But she works a job that pays her in cash, so she doesn't pay taxes on it.  I have relatives that vote Democrat because "I'm a fiscally conservative bleeding heart liberal."  How can anyone claim to be fiscally conservative and support the president and his $6 trillion and climbing debt?  I have another relative that when questioned about individual policies holds positions to the right of the most conservative Libertarian, yet votes Democrat every election because Republicans only care about the rich.  I know several people that didn't vote at all because there was "no difference between the candidates."  These are the pro wrestling voters, their votes have no basis in fact, only in emotion, or possibly in rebellion.  The political consultants call these people "low information voters."  Stalin had a more accurate, if less politically correct description.  He called them "useful idiots."