By-Ass

If I hear one more thing about the bias of the media, I think I'm going to eat a container of sour cream with a whole bunch of overripe bananas mixed in there and then throw up on some old lady at a bus stop.

Don't judge me-- it's how I feel, so I can't be wrong.

NPR is liberal. Fox News is conservative. Mainstream media-- like "The Today Show" and "ABC World News Tonight" and all those annoying shows with John Stossel have routinely been accused of having a "liberal bias". That Andrew Breitbart (who, you know, has a few more followers than me, but whatever) went on "The Today Show" on Tuesday and repeated the oft-repeated line about the mainstream media's liberal bias when discussing his role in bringing down Weinermobile. Really, I think we talk so much about bias in the media that, after a while, we don't even know what the fuck we're talking about.

Not that this stops anyone, of course, nor should it. This is America, after all, where the less we know, the more we talk. And God Bless Us, everyone. Except that Tiny Tim, who hardly ever says shit, so fuck him.

If you've taken any 100-level journalism course, you of course know that journalism is supposed to be objective. What does that really mean, though? You're supposed to report a story, give both sides, let the reader make up his or her mind. Ja, Mein Fuhrer? Sounds simple, no? Well, it's not. If you ever listen to news on the radio, you can tell by an announcer's inflection what he or she thinks of the story, or what the news organization's parent organization would like the announcer to reflect in his/her recitation of the news item. Oh, Knight Ridder: stop telling David Hasselhoff how to drive.

I don't think it's anything revolutionary or anything that will have Dianne Sawyer taking off her top to say that there is no such thing as true journalistic objectivity. "The News" is always trying to get us to think a certain thing. For example, "The News" wants us to sympathize with people who "Overcome Adversity." Remember the homeless guy with the golden voice that every asshole from here to Omaha was Tweeting out their tuchuses about? Oh, yeah, remember when "The News" lionized him until he was given a job or two and some respectability?

Oh, yeah-- remember when he relapsed because he was given money but no counseling, support, or life skills to assist him with his new, improbable circumstances?

Oops!

Which was more reported? The YouTube sensation of finding him panhandling, or his (most recent) fall from grace?

Right.

The unfortunate latest turn of events in this story created what is known as cognitive dissonance, that is to say, it didn't fit with the "packaged" news item that "The News" wanted to feed you. It was like finding a sprig of cilantro in your chocolate mousse. And nobody wants that. Except food pervs.

I was thinking about this tonight because I just happened to spy a story that piqued my interest on Yahoo! News. (Can you really trust any "news" source that ends in an Exclamation Mark?[!])

"Cop Fired After Helping Fellow Officers in Distress"

From the opening sentence that follows this clever hook of a headline (hey, got me[!]), it is abundantly clear what this 'news' organization wants you to feel: that this officer was fired unjustly.

"It was a Saturday on campus when David Sedmak, a Rice University police officer, heard "Officer down, officer down!" on his scanner: Two members of the Houston Police Department had been shot downtown. Sedmak rushed to the scene to help his fellow officers."

"Wow! That guy's a hero!" Yahoo! News wants you to say, either out loud or in your head. The article picks up right where this statement you just made ends with:

"But Rice [University!] didn't see Sedmak as a hero. Instead, the university fired him, citing "dereliction of duty."

*GASP!* They "didn't!" you're supposed to say.

Oh, but they did. And, call me a contrarian, but I think they were right to do so.

See, the only reason Officer Sedmak heard that two Houston Police Officers were shot was because he had a scanner in his car. Had he just had his Rice University Police Department issued radio on him, he would not have known, because this Officer Down call would not have been broadcast over that frequency. Sedmak's response was unnecessary, seeing as half the Houston Police Department was flying to the scene of this double shooting (both wounded officers survived, by the way).

So, Sedmak responded to a call for help from another department, which might have been okay had he radioed his dispatcher to tell him/her that he was doing so. But Sedmak didn't make radio contact with his dispatcher, or his supervisor. He just sped off into the night to assist the officers. Which is an unfortunate error, because Rice University dispatch had no idea where Officer Sedmak was for around an hour, during which time they probably thought he was lying dead somewhere, and who knows what frantic efforts went on to raise him and/or search for him. When a police officer doesn't respond to dispatch over the radio for an hour, that's a crisis, because he's usually either incapacitated or dead.

Sedmak's heart was in the right place, but his body wasn't. As a law enforcement officer for nearly 17 years, that man should have known enough to contact dispatch and request permission to proceed to the scene of the shooting. But he didn't. And, in a job where following protocol is paramount as a safety issue, there needs to be accountability and consequences. Should he have been fired? I don't know. Maybe he should have received a reprimand. A suspension. Re-education. Or, maybe he should have been fired. Maybe there's other shit in his personnel file that we don't know about, and this was the straw that broke the sergeant's back.

The thing of it is: the Yahoo! News article, and its author, Zachary Roth, is guilty, through tone and text, of telling us what we ought to think and feel. And I don't need them telling me what to think and feel, just like I don't need Tiny Tim blessing me when I don't want to be blessed.

Thanks anyway, though.

Whatever Happened to Just Being Sad?

News moves at a blistering pace these days.

Soundbytes. Blips. Thumbs moving at incredible speeds on teensie QWERTYs. Tweets. Updates. Messages. Blip. Bling! Glang. Streaming tickers on the HD flatscreens in front of the elliptical machines at the gym. NPR. FOX. Everything in between, and everything beyond.

We're practically gagging on information and spin and doctrine and palaver. No, we are gagging. And, yet, we are anything but gagged. All of us, spewing and spouting, our mouths hundreds of paces in front of our minds-- left in the neuron dust. Bye-bye, brain. Won't be needing you very much today.

Googling "Gabrielle Giffords" at 4:35pm on Monday afternoon yields 76,900,000 hits. Approximately. Unbelievable. Incomprehensible. What is all of that? Is it information? Is it what we need to know, or want to, or dare to? What it is, I don't know. Now, after I hit "Publish," it'll be 76,900,001 (approximately) and I am disgusted with myself, almost to the point of wretching, for contributing to this profane noise, this internet abuse of a woman in a medically-induced coma, abuse of the corpses and memories of the victims of this appalling tragedy, this obscenity.

Hi. Here I am, another lout, contributing to the bloody mess. What a punk.

I swore up and down that I wouldn't. Of course I did. After all, it is just my style to eschew and reject what "everyone else" is talking about, as if I am some sort of badass, counter-culture barometer. Please-- what a fucking, very unfunny, very transparent joke. I promised myself I would write about something silly, maybe about different uses for bras (put one in the freezer overnight and then set it on the coffee table, fill it with candy. Haha-- what a comic genius) or some commentary about-- I don't know, inane food products or the way people look at you after you exit the restroom at work. I thought, "Yeah, well, that's what my readers want or need right now-- some levity to distract them from saturating over this deplorable situation." Like I'm going to come save you from the New York Times. Like I'm Chevy Chase, falling over a ladder.

Please.

I guess I realized that I ought to stop horseshitting myself, and you, and accept that there was, in fact, something about all of this that I wanted to say. It hit me while I was listening to Terry Gross interview some schlocko journalist about the very loose gun laws in Arizona, and, "would stricter gun laws have maybe prevented this tragedy?" She asked him questions about concealed weapons, and whether or not the Glock semiautomatic handgun would have been outlawed under this provision, or that, and how this "alleged shooter" in this incident did purchase his gun legally, but didn't have a concealed weapons permit and under what circumstances could a police officer (if one had been at this event) have stopped the suspect and frisked him after seeing that he had a concealed weapon, and I got so fucking furious I wanted to scream:

TERRY: IT IS CALLED A "CONCEALED WEAPON" FOR A FUCKING REASON, THAT REASON BEING THAT IT IS CONCEALED ON YOUR PERSON AND OUT-OF-VIEW OF OTHERS, LIKE, SAY, A POLICE OFFICER, EVEN A NON-EXISTENT, FICTICIOUS, HYPOTHETICAL POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS NOT EVEN AT THE SAFEWAY WHERE ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WERE SHOT.

Then she pissed me off even more by asking, "Well, what about unconcealed weapons? What sort of questions would a police officer ask someone who had an unconcealed weapon?" This stumped her guest.

"Well, I don't know, maybe they wouldn't ask anything."

I was very upset by this point. How ridiculous was this conversation? I just couldn't take it anymore.

Was it the fault of the store that sold the gun?

Was it the fault of the second Walmart that sold the ammunition?

Was it the fault of the parents for not notifying authorities of bizarre behavior?

Was it the fault of mental health practitioners for not notifying the state or the criminal justice system?

Was it the fault of the court that threw out the arrest for drug paraphernalia?

Was it the fault of lax mental health reporting duties?

Was it the fault of law enforcement for not adequately stationing officers at the scene for VIP protection detail?

Was it the fault of the Secret Service and/or the FBI that does not provide routine protection details state-level politicians?

Was it the fault of Sarah Palin and her stupid fucking little target symbols on that map that I can't stand to hear another word about on Facebook or anywhere else?

Was it the fault of the vitriolic state of political debate in this country?

Oh. My God. Oh, my God.

Please.

We are so thirsty for answers, to insatiably horny over assigning blame, so unstoppably greedy when it comes to our relentless, pounding search for scapegoats and reasons and division or healing that any reason, any dignity, any sense of proportion or pause is just thrown right out the window. Mr. President, a moment of silence is a good start, but it's hardly sufficient. Maybe you should have ordered a day. Or a week. Could you, sir, have ordered us some time to just be sad?

What the hell ever happened to just being sad?