Matea Gold's Los Angeles Times story today lets readers know what a close call it was that Jesse Jackson's off-color comments made it on the air yesterday.
But for an alert overnight transcriber, Jackson's comments, meant to be private, almost stayed that way. What a loss to the public interest that would have been. Not.
I suggest that the public benefited very little from knowing Jackson's personal feelings on this matter, and that Fox was doing little more than spreading gossip.
Revealing all isn't always useful. Take the rush to report then-President Reagan's remark, meant as a joke, that the bombing of the Soviet Union "begins in five minutes"? Like Jackson's comment, it was said into a live mic, but it wasn't meant to be public.
What if the Soviets had believed Reagan meant it? The satisfaction a few reporters received by covering something the President didn't intend to be public would have been faint consolation had nuclear warheads rained down on our heads.
Sure, Reagan shouldn't have said it, but was it any wiser to report it?
I'm no Jackson fan, to say the least, and this Jackson issue is far less significant than the Reagan issue, but I think broadcasting Jackson's private comments was a bit rude of Fox. Jackson was a guest in the Fox studio, he said something that obviously was not meant to go out on the air, and Fox put it on the air anyway.
It isn't as though Jackson is running for office himself, and we already know Jackson has an inclination toward blunt talk. Fox told us nothing new and nothing important.
If Jackson had said the same thing by the sink in the men's room and a Fox employee overheard him, would the comment still be fair game? Does a live mic make all the difference? Would it matter if Jackson didn't realize his was on, or that it was sensitive enough to pick up whispers?
Are there any rules, or is it fair for journalists to print anything they overhear?
I do know of one rule the journalists put on themselves: The big media outlets mostly don't spy on their own personnel or one another. We can be sure that various powerful journalists have said things about politicians that are just as uncomplimentary as what Jackson said, but the journalists' comments almost never get reported. It's not because they're not newsworthy, as anything revealing the biases of influential journalists would be newsworthy. It's because journalists are extending a courtesy to one another that they don't feel obliged to extend to people who chose another line of work.
As I said earlier, I'm no Jackson fan, and as it happens, I generally like Fox and watch it often. But I don't think journalists should do to others what they would never do to themselves.
Cross-posted at the National Center for Public Policy Research blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
High Road?
July 10, 2008 - 20:34 ET by d1carterWhen in modern times, has the MSM taken the high road?
boo freakin hoo for poor
July 10, 2008 - 22:03 ET by TruthMongerboo freakin hoo for poor jackson
how many times has the GD MSM celebrated "major league a**hole" with glee?!
or how about twisting the "Mission Accomplished" banner dumbfoundingly beyond the frackin partisan pale - IT'S NOW MORE OF AN "ANNIVERSARY" MSM ORGY THAN NEW YEARS EVE FOR F'S SAKE!
yes it was damn wrong for FOX to sink to their level
and I'm behind them all the way - looking forward to the one-year anniversary extravaganza:)!
→ Geraldo was rutal
July 10, 2008 - 20:35 ET by Cool ArrowGeraldo Rivea was unforgiving on O'Reilly tonight.
He blasted Jesse Jackson merclessly for his obvious jealousy. I expected Geraldo would give his usual spiel, but it's like it was somebody else talking.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
my opinion
July 10, 2008 - 20:43 ET by candanceFox leaked that out just for the sake of juicy gossip. Jackson is not a government official or a part of any campaign or even a journalist in the media. He's just famous for being famous.
Also considering Jackson said that (apparently) thinking the mic was off, it was supposed to be a whispered conversation.
Fox should apologize IMO.
Jackson is not a government
July 10, 2008 - 21:47 ET by MidAmericaJackson is not a government official or a part of any campaign or even a journalist in the media.
Au contraire Candance. Jackson is no ordinary private citizen. He is one of the official spokespersons and arbiters of all things racial for the dems and the media. The fact that he was caught dissing his candidate is not a matter to be taken lightly. Obama has decided to be an official 'black' candidate as opposed to a bi-racial one. This puts him under the authority of those people whose job it is to monitor the words and deeds of people of color for acceptability and liberal purity. Blacks who are too conservative or too independent will have their racial heritage revoked and are condemmed to a life shunned and vilified because of the color of their skin. A case in point is Clarence Thomas. His life story is a true American rise to prominence story. But he doesn't think 'correctly' so he is no longer considered a true Black among the left wing in this country and the 90% of the Black people who support this intellectual apartheid.
Did they apologize when
July 10, 2008 - 23:04 ET by kgDid they apologize when they aired O'Reilly gaff? Not a chance. Fox was right on. The media do not want to say anything about Obama nor will report anyone else saying something about Obama. Thank God for Fox news and reporting what the rest of the media doesn't have the gut to do.
Its funny how people want an apology when the shoe is on the other foot.
Oh and I guess running for President doesn't make them political.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
um okay
July 10, 2008 - 23:09 ET by candanceI don't see how airing this does any actual damage to Obama or makes anyone out there think twice about voting for him.
This doesn't have anything to do with exposing criticism of Obama - this was a chance to stir up controversy.
Jackson hasn't run for president in several years and very few people actually take him seriously now.
"I don't see how airing
July 11, 2008 - 15:02 ET by zf"I don't see how airing this does any actual damage to Obama or makes anyone out there think twice about voting for him."
Um, let's see, Jackson has a mainstream image of being a virtual spokesperson for large segments of the black population, showing that even he has problems with Obama does do damage, because black liberals are supposed to be totally united. Not to mention his word has a ton of stroke with far too many black people hence his comments about who is supposedly "their" guy does matter.
"This doesn't have anything to do with exposing criticism of Obama - this was a chance to stir up controversy."
What an inane comment. Criticism by it's very nature stirs up controversy.
"Jackson hasn't run for president in several years and very few people actually take him seriously now."
Nonsense, his is still a regular on the MSM, and still lauded by millions as a African-American hero and his 'charities' have lost none of their stroke.
Amy...
July 10, 2008 - 20:47 ET by Clear thinkerI have to admit that deep down I wished it had been another media outlet that had caught his comments.
And you have to admit, what Jesse said was just too delicious to pass up even for an outlet like Fox.
Fox may not be perfect, but they beat the rest of the media by a mile!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
If not Fox, Who?
July 10, 2008 - 21:00 ET by pbthinkerIt seems to me, I remember another "hot mike" comment between President Bush and Vice-President Cheney about Adam Clymer (some liberal reporter) where Bush called him and asshole, if I remember correctly, and Cheney said, Yeh, bigtime. Anyway, that was played and replayed for days. If this hadn't have been on Fox, I doubt we would have heard a word about it. Who would put it out there, CNN? CNN, who would keep Saddam Hussein's secrets just so he wouldn't close their bureau? The DNC channel? Give me a break, Obama lovers, on the air, wouldn't allow any negative comment about their beloved candidate. The Big 3? Give me a break. Fox broke it, explanations were made and we will now move on. However, Phil Gramm's comments will get a good week or 2 of play and Jesse's will be forgiven.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
Absolutely right, PB
July 10, 2008 - 21:03 ET by jefflebowskiIf Dick Cheney had said the same thing in private, there would be hearings tomorrow and we'd never hear the end of it. Fox should show the entire thing in its entirety as it exposes a tremendous fraud named Jesse Jackson.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Should Fox have Broadcast Them?
July 10, 2008 - 21:10 ET by BlondeAbsolutely.
It's about time the media outed Jesse for the hypocrite he is.
If the "cut his nuts off" comment had been made by Don Imus, Jesse & the Rev. Al would have been screaming to the rafters for an apology, after requiring the offender to crawl through broken glass while performing self-flaggelation with a horsehair whip.
Sauce for the old goose, there, Jesse.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
→ Big difference
July 10, 2008 - 21:39 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe Dr. Phil can help Mr. Jackson stop hating the skin he's living in.
He's gotta hate it that his latest screwup backfired and raised his enemy even higher.
Now he's scrounging around for any camera he can find that will let him explain that his frustration is only for those people who have been oppressed.
He's made is milions. He could sit back and laugh at all the believers he ripped off. But now he's discovering there should have been more to life than what he enjoys now.
On The Waterfront. Brando?
No, Death of a Heavyweight. Anthony Quinn.
Fox, BOR
July 10, 2008 - 21:20 ET by jaywlAlso on tonight's show, O"Reilly's guests included Michael Eric Dyson, PhD. That means he must be smart, as when he said this: "There was a study made, an exhaustive study, last year that (said) non-custodial black men devoted more time (and attention) to their children than any other ethnic group." My parentheses enclose what I am not sure of, I have confidence in the rest. I can't believe that statement, as said. If it were true I suppose all men should leave the family home at once in order to establish a relationship with their children. I guess they spend a lot of time in the park or a ton of money at Six-Flags. It can't be spent in school, or the library, or at Dad's home doing homework because many other studies have shown the absence of the father is a sure ticket to failure in school, in the job market, and in the most important job of raising the next generation of children. All of those studies also show the absence of the father means just that, the father is not there. He can't be a non-custodian spending more time with the kiddies than anybody, because he's GONE! I wish when such idiotic statements are made the host would take the time to refute the BS. If the host is too slow on the uptake, his producer or somebody could whisper in his ear "Bull crap, Bull crap."
take heart...
July 10, 2008 - 21:26 ET by gopsteveTake heart, maybe because it was linked to from the Drudge Report, maybe not, but I read the first few pages of comments after the LA Times article, and I saw maybe two upset about the release of the comments...and they were not defending Jesse, more mad at FOX
I wonder
July 11, 2008 - 08:45 ET by txcoI wonder if the same people that are mad at Fox for releasing this story are also mad at the New York Times for releasing stories on US intelligence secrets.
Just proves that BOR...
July 10, 2008 - 21:41 ET by MightyMouth...is one of the most wishful thinking populists there is. His "no spin zone" is by default worthless as a zone that won't take a side. BOR's "folks" are side takers and they dont care for the left. BOR is a fake because he won't take the same side the "folks" take. Oh, btw he cuts off all that oppose his opinion, right or left.
There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
"His "no spin zone" is by
July 11, 2008 - 07:58 ET by ckc1227"His "no spin zone" is by default worthless as a zone that won't take a side. BOR is a fake because he won't take the same side the "folks" take. Oh,
btw he cuts off all that oppose his opinion, right or left."
Sounds like taking a side to me...his own. There's nothing fake about that.
"There was a study made, an
July 11, 2008 - 07:51 ET by ckc1227"There was a study made, an exhaustive study, last year that (said)
non-custodial black men devoted more time (and attention) to their
children than any other ethnic group." My parentheses enclose what I am
not sure of, I have confidence in the rest. I can't believe that
statement, as said."
I'm guessing he means that, of all non-custodial men, black men devote the most time, which really isn't saying anything. It's like bragging about being the tallest dwarf.
Now, if he's saying that non-custodial black men spend more time with their children than fathers who live in the home, then he's full of crap. Frankly, I think he's full of crap about most everything he says anyway.
On his court show, Judge
July 11, 2008 - 15:13 ET by zfOn his court show, Judge Mathias (hardly a right-winger) said that there is a preponderance of young black men in jail and the common connections between most of them is that their fathers are absent from their life.
Now I would think he, as a left winger, and as a young man was was troubled himself and as someone who works in the criminal justice system (and has for years) would know more about the reality of the situation that some ivory tower muttonheads conducting some "study."
I think that one thing that
July 10, 2008 - 21:53 ET by Susan II think that one thing that everyone seems to miss on this Jackson thing, is the action he made with his arm after making the "cut off his nuts" statement. He jerked his arm, acting out how he would do it. Of course the MSM liberal media, who has slobbered all over Jackson for years wont' do it, but I'm just surprised more has not been made of this. Of course, I do believe that if it would have been a white person, Jackson would be screaming about it, and have them most likely arrested for threat of bodily harm
Little more than spreading
July 11, 2008 - 00:44 ET by mattmLittle more than spreading gossip? Uh uh. Jackson has a huge following and if this incident helps to show the public what a slimebage he has always been - from spitting in food he was serving to whitey in his youth, to his Hymie-Town remark, to his love-child(ren?) to this latest remark, then FOX has done the public a great service.
As to "What if the Soviets had believed Reagan meant it?" They did believe he meant it. Reagan held firm and the Soviets blinked, and the Wall came down....
It's newsworthy
July 11, 2008 - 09:22 ET by BS DetectorSince, as you stated, Jackson isn't running for and doesn't hold a public office, the only reason he would be on a news channel would be as an analyst or selling something. That being said, his personal opinion is the only thing that he could offer. Unless he's there in an official capacity for the Racebait / Push Coalition. The public benefits greatly from knowing that Obama supporters are angry at him. No other networks are reporting this to any great extent. I would agree that this probably wasn't the best way to do that but sometimes it helps to hear it from the horse's as....mouth.
Were the comments broadcast
July 11, 2008 - 11:43 ET by lotrWere the comments broadcast live (in near-real-time after the usual delay), or were they discovered by upper management after the fact, and then, after careful consideration, were intentionally broadcast later? If it is the former, then I don't fault Fox News -- it's not like he dropped the F-bomb that would have to be bleeped out without any consideration. The decision whether or not to censor the dialog to protect his privacy may take more than 10 seconds to make. If it is the latter, then I would have to agree that it would've been more gracious to abstain from the temptation -- although I too ain't no fan of Jackson, his "conversation" was nevertheless intended to be confidential.
lotr
July 11, 2008 - 14:11 ET by candanceJackson was in a studio preparing do an interview on Fox & Friends. As they were waiting to begin, they had put a mic in front of him but Jackson thought it hadn't been turned on yet. If you watch the video, he leans in and whispers to his friend making it obvious he wanted it to be a secret.
The sound guy overheard the conversation coming through and thought it was too juicy to erase.
candance
July 11, 2008 - 15:53 ET by lotrAnd juicy it was, there's no denying. I guess the temptation was just too great.
This was newsworthy
July 11, 2008 - 12:22 ET by americaneagleThis was newsworthy in the sense that you have a person who has publicly backed the Obama campaign to the hilt showing his real feelings in a more private setting. It is always news in a campaign season when there is dissension within the ranks of a particular camp, and this feeling from Jackson that Obama was "talking down to black folks" is news. Why should Fox have covered up dissension in the Obama ranks, when it was obvious for all to see? It is not Fox News's job to prop up the Obama camp and keep them from harm; that's why MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN exist...we need SOMEONE to give us the unvarnished truth!