Where is the cold case journalism?
I don't like the liberalism of CBS News or the anti-veteran attitude of the network's owner Viacom but I enjoy watching several shows on the CBS network when I happen to catch them. One of those shows is normally broadcast on Sunday and it's called "Cold Case."
From the web site description:
The Hollywood part is that Det. Rush always solves the cold case by the hour's end. It's fictional, but I like to think that police somewhere are always looking at old cases. Several women were raped and killed in the Baton Rouge area before anyone thought to wonder that perhaps a serial killer might be at large. It was the local newspaper that tied it together and finally got the police looking for a single killer. DNA from a suspect questioned in a cold case eventually tied a suspect to the crimes but not until after several more women were killed.
I don't expect journalists or media organizations to always find the culprits on cold cases but I want them looking, and they really don't. I'm sure time and money are two reasons. Motivation, I'm sure, is another.
Journalism is a profession not unlike that of the police or firefighters where it's mostly about the here and now, putting out fires, looking for that "news peg" that ties the story into today's issue or news broadcast rather than tomorrow's issue or news broadcast or next week's issue or news broadcast. Yesterday's news is left for puppies and wrapping fish.
The problem is that most of the culprits at the base of these cold cases realize what a short attention span media have. They probably count on it. If they can get through this current round of headlines, perhaps the media will go away. The media does, eventually, and the problem is not always rectified.
One of the best examples of this were reports done by CBS' own Steve Kroft, now a 60 Minutes regular but previously a lead reporter on CBS' yuppie version of 60 Minutes called West 57th.
Just days prior to the beginning of Iraq I, Mr. Kroft, then working for West 57th, came on the television with a chilling report on how inadequate the chemical warfare suits are that are supposed to protect America's military. I was absolutely livid when I saw this report. Mr. Kroft could have waited to report to Saddam Hussein that the U.S. chemical warfare suits were inadequate, or he could have reported the story long before the invasion were to take place and alerted the public that changes needed to be made. He didn't. The war was the news peg and he went with the story. That report, in my opinion, threatened to put the U.S. troops in harm's way. Luckily, Saddam didn't use any chemical weapons, or at least any chemical weapons of which we knew.
Several years passed, no follow up report from Mr. Kroft. Or at least no follow up report from Mr. Kroft until just days before Iraq II. Then working for 60 Minutes, Mr. Kroft again reported just how inadequate the chemical warfare suits are that are supposed to protect the U.S. military. I could've strangled the man. He had years, years to follow up on that report and bring it to the attention of the public just how bulky, hot and inadequate those suits are. But he didn't. Has he followed-up since then? No. I anticipate he's waiting until the next time the U.S. forces may face a chemical attack when he will come on the television and broadcast to everyone listening how inadequate the chemical warfare suits are.
A short media attention span, a willingness to report a good story even if means sacrificing the lives of people, or a case on early-onset "sometimes-ers." You tell me.
Such is the case with the short-selling of the airline stocks in the days just prior to 9/11. At that point, it was headline news and top priority with the FBI and the media. One hot story and then ... silence.
Then, of course, there was the alleged suicide of the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Jeremy "Mike" Boorda. A flurried month of articles and then nothing. The press in Washington is supposed to have the power to topple presidents but no reporter ever interviewed any of the witnesses directly involved in finding the CNO's body. And the Navy refused to release the autopsy results and the alleged suicide notes. Several months passed and there's a report in The Washingtonian, claiming to contain contents of one of the alleged suicide notes but still no autopsy. May 19th this year makes the ninth anniversary of the CNO's death and there hasn't been a single report since the article in The Washingtonian was published other than an Associated Press report reporting what The Washingtonian reported.
There are a number of cold cases, some big and some small. The owners of the nation's media have the funds to investigate these cold cases and they don't. And that, in my opinion, fails to serve the public interest.
From the web site description:
COLD CASE is a drama about Lilly Rush, the lone female detective in the Philadelphia homicide squad who finds her niche when she's assigned to "cold cases"--crimes that have never been solved. Previously, she used her instinctive understanding of the criminal mind on current murders. Now, she's interrogating witnesses whose lives and circumstances have since changed, making use of today's new science and finding fresh clues to solve cases that were previously unsolvable, all of which appeals to this smart, driven detective. She's also prepared for the consequences: that her work will open up old wounds and may lead suspects to commit new crimes.
The Hollywood part is that Det. Rush always solves the cold case by the hour's end. It's fictional, but I like to think that police somewhere are always looking at old cases. Several women were raped and killed in the Baton Rouge area before anyone thought to wonder that perhaps a serial killer might be at large. It was the local newspaper that tied it together and finally got the police looking for a single killer. DNA from a suspect questioned in a cold case eventually tied a suspect to the crimes but not until after several more women were killed.
I don't expect journalists or media organizations to always find the culprits on cold cases but I want them looking, and they really don't. I'm sure time and money are two reasons. Motivation, I'm sure, is another.
Journalism is a profession not unlike that of the police or firefighters where it's mostly about the here and now, putting out fires, looking for that "news peg" that ties the story into today's issue or news broadcast rather than tomorrow's issue or news broadcast or next week's issue or news broadcast. Yesterday's news is left for puppies and wrapping fish.
The problem is that most of the culprits at the base of these cold cases realize what a short attention span media have. They probably count on it. If they can get through this current round of headlines, perhaps the media will go away. The media does, eventually, and the problem is not always rectified.
One of the best examples of this were reports done by CBS' own Steve Kroft, now a 60 Minutes regular but previously a lead reporter on CBS' yuppie version of 60 Minutes called West 57th.
Just days prior to the beginning of Iraq I, Mr. Kroft, then working for West 57th, came on the television with a chilling report on how inadequate the chemical warfare suits are that are supposed to protect America's military. I was absolutely livid when I saw this report. Mr. Kroft could have waited to report to Saddam Hussein that the U.S. chemical warfare suits were inadequate, or he could have reported the story long before the invasion were to take place and alerted the public that changes needed to be made. He didn't. The war was the news peg and he went with the story. That report, in my opinion, threatened to put the U.S. troops in harm's way. Luckily, Saddam didn't use any chemical weapons, or at least any chemical weapons of which we knew.
Several years passed, no follow up report from Mr. Kroft. Or at least no follow up report from Mr. Kroft until just days before Iraq II. Then working for 60 Minutes, Mr. Kroft again reported just how inadequate the chemical warfare suits are that are supposed to protect the U.S. military. I could've strangled the man. He had years, years to follow up on that report and bring it to the attention of the public just how bulky, hot and inadequate those suits are. But he didn't. Has he followed-up since then? No. I anticipate he's waiting until the next time the U.S. forces may face a chemical attack when he will come on the television and broadcast to everyone listening how inadequate the chemical warfare suits are.
A short media attention span, a willingness to report a good story even if means sacrificing the lives of people, or a case on early-onset "sometimes-ers." You tell me.
Such is the case with the short-selling of the airline stocks in the days just prior to 9/11. At that point, it was headline news and top priority with the FBI and the media. One hot story and then ... silence.
Then, of course, there was the alleged suicide of the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Jeremy "Mike" Boorda. A flurried month of articles and then nothing. The press in Washington is supposed to have the power to topple presidents but no reporter ever interviewed any of the witnesses directly involved in finding the CNO's body. And the Navy refused to release the autopsy results and the alleged suicide notes. Several months passed and there's a report in The Washingtonian, claiming to contain contents of one of the alleged suicide notes but still no autopsy. May 19th this year makes the ninth anniversary of the CNO's death and there hasn't been a single report since the article in The Washingtonian was published other than an Associated Press report reporting what The Washingtonian reported.
There are a number of cold cases, some big and some small. The owners of the nation's media have the funds to investigate these cold cases and they don't. And that, in my opinion, fails to serve the public interest.
---
posted by NEWS4A2, blood-sucking journalist @ 20:15
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home