WORD
ON THE STREET
by Holiday Dmitri
The Booster - Wicker Park
March 20, 2002
|
|
WORD
ON THE STREET |
Lately, I've been sorting my new emails into two categories: indignant letters from Critical Mass sympathizers, including one man who suggested I do an acrobatic, triple-x maneuver with my body to get my head un-stuck from the muck, and tantalizing solicitations from prepubescent girls begging to do much more with that same body and its other segments -- belonging to the male -- that I don't have. OK, so the latter messages were all SPAM ... But what I'm trying to say is that you can't please everybody, and I never thought I would. While some may consider this attitude as a subversive intent at marinating in controversy, I regard it as acknowledging the obvious. One young man from Critical Mass, whom I wrote about in my column "Wheeling and Dealing," kindly informed me -- and those who might care -- that "Holiday Dmitri holds a shallow bar for quality reporting" and is quick to get her "controversy-starved" hands upon certain things she "clearly cannot comprehend." In addition, I received emails spewing foul language Ms. Manners would have a heart attack over were she to read them, questioning everything from my authenticity as an honest journalist to my role in the corruption gambit by the All Knowing and Ever Powerful Media Machine. Well guys, I am going to have to say no. No, there is no power play on my end with the media machine. Yes, I have my own biases (done in the format of an op-ed column) and other media men have theirs. It's no shot in the dark that reporters and editors -- while trying to be unbiased -- bring their biases and life experiences to their reporting. And it's no surprise that the media is biased, that this bias is liberally and PC-slanted. I could go off on a tangent. I could write a book on this. But that's already been done (both the tangent and the book, but I was referring to the book), and I have to admit, done a hundred times better than I would have been able to write it. Just yesterday, I finished the New York Times bestseller "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News," Bernard Goldberg's memoir-cum-expose on the reality of the media's liberal bias. The Emmy Award-winner Goldberg worked at CBS News for 28 years, where through an insider's eye he saw the mainstream media's turning of the other cheek on its primary mission: objective reporting. No, it's not a conspiracy. There is no deliberate attempt to slant the news. News isn't just a collection of facts, Goldberg wrote. It's how reporters and editors see those facts, interpret them, and whether they deem them newsworthy or not. Goldberg notes, for instance, that the mainstream press label Republicans and conservative as "right-wing," while Democrats are hardly mentioned as "left-wing." He also points to how coverage of a group like NOW is shown in good light, while conservative women's groups -- if seen at all -- aren't identified as orthodox sources. We don't want to pitch a PC curveball, because if we do, our audience might think we're batting in the same league as "kooks, bigots, and racists" like conservatives Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan. One of my favorite quotes in the "Bias" was from tough guy-journalist Sam Donaldson. Donaldson, who once pissed off a howling pack of feminists by calling a female park ranger a "rangerette," tells us in his autobiography, "Hold on, Mr. President!," that years later he "failed to ask a single challenging, provocative question of leaders of feminist organizations" regarding a controversial rape story. "I've been very careful about offending women," he admitted. "I'll challenge presidents any day, but taking on half the world is asking too much." Anyway, "Bias" is a little over-the-top dramatic at times, but as a sort of whistle-blower book it upholds journalism's finest tradition. It also brought to life -- for me anyway, conservatives have thought this for years -- some startling facts. I mention the book because it recognizes that bias is widespread. I mention it also because, yes, I am writing a biased column. But back to the emails, and now to the assertion of dishonest reporting: All I have to say is that my only regret was not bringing a tape recorder. I do want to concede to one reader however, who saw the error -- meant in truth, but stated as hyperbole -- in the concluding statement of "Wheeling and Dealing" ("In the meantime, I'm sticking to the cars, the planes and anything that gets me to where I want to be faster."). It wasn't properly explained: I understand that driving is not the quickest or best means to every end, I was merely trying to exaggerate my point through hyperbole, and countering the Critical Mass guy (who told me his idea of a utopian society would be car-less), that the automobile has its advantages. And yes, an Oldsmobile will get me to San Francisco faster than any Schwinn will. Still another e-mail, this one to my editor, stated that, "In the end, although [Holiday] writes a column called 'Word on the Street,' she is not in the street at all. She's in a box, looking for parking." For
the record, I have neither owned nor operated an automobile in nearly
a decade. Where does that box me? |
| |
