« Videogames for Sale | Main | Dr. Arnzen (in lieu of Spurlock) »

September 30, 2005

Journalistic integrity, eh?

As we all know, I hate the media.
I also hate this guy.


But I guess it's that slant of the liberal media. What a bunch of BS, that is.

The media sways with the party in power. That's how it goes. If I ever find this man, I will run him over, put it in reverse, and run him over again...

There's a very, very special place in Hell reserved for him.


Contrarily, it's good to see there are still reporters doing their jobs and having a real set of core beliefs.


And what a shocker, it was Dick Cheney's chief of staff who leaked the name of the covert CIA operative.

But you know, this administration really has saftey and security in mind, especially when you leave no national guard to defend the home front and start letting slip the names of undercover agents.

What a crock.

Posted by KevinMcGinnis at September 30, 2005 5:26 PM


Actually, Bennett was probably referring to this analysis, found in the book Freakonomics. The link is just an excerpt. The whole book is worth reading.


Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at September 30, 2005 10:45 PM

Regardless, it's still Hitlerian to generalize one race or creed or anything

It would be like if I said "If you want to help cut coffee and tea sales at DV8, abort all the children of Greensburg."

I'm not so sure he was referencing that analysis, but he may have been. The "study," though, has a motion of being somewhat impractical. It's like I say about Freud - I think Freud was full of BS. He could never admit his theories were wrong so he'd say he was testing for something else. The study is leaving out important details - are these "crimes" misdemeanors or felonies?

It's very much like comparing Arrow Length over time...

There's no real claim being made, but you can find a correlation between arrow length and time. Long arrows have more aritime, whereas shorter arrows travel further in less time.

Hitler did studies and said the Jews needed to be gotten rid of. That doesn't make it right.

This guy mentioned a study loosely linking abortion to crime. He generalized it to all black people. That doesn't make it right.

(as you can see by the time-stamp, it's very late and I'm very tired.)

I was surprised to see you had no comment on the NYT reporter being freed from jail and for revealing her source.

Posted by: Kevin McGinnis at October 1, 2005 3:28 AM

Again, the whole chapter from which the online article was excerpted is well worth reading. It's an uncomfortable subject.

Bennett, as a talk show commentator, wants an audience, so he says controversial things. I didn't hear the context in which he spoke, but there's a difference between making an if-then statement and claiming that people SHOULD perform the "if" part of the action you're describing.

But in this case, historically abortionand birth control have been advocated by eugenics groups as a way of preserving resources for whites. That's why the findings presented in Freakonomics are so disturbing (and so easily misapplied).

And by the way, the author of Freakonomics never advocates the abortion of all children who are at risk for growing up to commit crimes. He concludes that the cost to society is far worse than the benefit, But that's part of the creepy premise of Freakonomics -- that causes and effects are linked in strange, non-obvious, and, well, *freaky* ways.

Note that just because Bennett works in the media doesn't mean he's a journalist. Here's a good analysis of the situation, which explains the context, where Bennett makes clear that aborting black babies "would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do," but says that doing so would reduce crime. (He's missing one of the points of the argument -- race isn't the determining factor, *poverty* is.)


Regarding the NYT reporter -- when things calm down in News Writng, I was planning on spending some more time on the topic.

Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at October 1, 2005 9:06 AM

And to further play Devil's advocate...

If it were your sole purpose to reduce crime, you could abort all white children born into wealthy familes. You could stop Ken Lay before he grows up.

I my reference to "journalist" was moreso directed at Judith Miller, as I had addressed Bennett as a member of the "media," but it's one of those terms that, sadly, gets intertwined.

Posted by: Kevin McGinnis at October 1, 2005 12:24 PM

The whole Bennet issue is a grotesque expression of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

I look forward to your comments on the Plame incident when we discuss anonymous sources and journalism ethics later in the term.

Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at October 1, 2005 12:37 PM

Kevin, I don't know what motives Bennett had, but could he be that insensitive or desperate for ratings? People don't always think before they speak. And as Rene Cappon points out in Chapters 5 - 7, they often don't think before they write. The words we use are so important. Words can hurt very deeply.

Posted by: NancyGregg at October 6, 2005 1:00 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)