Monday, February 28, 2011

Media Continues Falsehoods Regarding Wisconsin Union Protest

Shame on you Bob Schieffer.  You're supposed to be one of the most seasoned journalists at CBS News, which is why you host the Sunday news show "Face the Nation."  Yet on Sunday, February 27, you still couldn't seem to get facts right on the Wisconsin Union Protest and appear to be carrying the water for the union advocates.

In his interview on Sunday, Schieffer asked New Jersey Governor Chris Christie if he agreed with the Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's plan to reduce spending in his state by ending collective bargaining.  Although he praised the Wisconsin governor, Christie said he was not going to tell people in another state how to run their affairs.

The problem with Shieffer's question is that it was based on a blatant falsehood. The Wisconsin's governor's proposal does not completely end collective bargaining rights, nor can it be reasonably described as union busting, which is how Schieffer and many others in the media have referred to it.  Scott Walker's plan does remove health and benefit packages from collective bargaining with public employees, but there will still be collective bargaining between the unions and the state regarding salaries.  The only restriction would be that if the union tries to negotiate a salary greater than the cost of living increases, it must be approved by voters in the district in which the bargaining is taking place.  After all, the taxpayers provide the money for public employees; the funding just doesn't fall out of the sky.

Nevertheless, Bob Schieffer didn't know the facts, or he chose not to include them in the broadcast he hosts and serves as the managing editor.

A journalist, especially one with the staff Schieffer has, is supposed to know all the facts before conducting an interview.  A journalist also is not supposed to take sides and appear as an advocate for, in this case, either the unions of the state of Wisconsin. 

Schieffer is not the only one who ignores the facts.  Anchors on the major networks and CNN also mislead the public on the collective bargaining issue. 

Many news anchors have also pointed out how much President Barack Obama supports the unions in the Wisconsin controversy, which is no great surprise considering how beholding to the unions the Democratic Party is.  An amusing aspect of the Obama stance arises when one realizes that federal employees, who ultimately report to the President, have no collective bargaining rights at all. I guess you can spell hypocrisy on the issue O B A M A.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Four Americans Killed by Somalli Pirates and nothing from President Obama

It's been about three days now that four Americans were killed by Somali pirates in waters off the coast of East Africa, and still President Barack Obama has said nothing himself about the tragedy.

One of the pirates involved in the killings was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "From now on, anyone who tries to rescue the hostages in our hands will only collect dead bodies.  It will never, ever happen that hostages are rescued and we are hauled to prison."

Despite such bravado, the only senior American official to say anything was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who called the killings "deplorable," and then called for international cooperation among nations to fight the pirates who terrorize ships off the East African coast.  It was the standard we are outraged but won't do anything statement.  Somehow I get the feeling that if either Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush were still President, there would be fragments of some pirate ships floating in the water after a counter attack by American war vessels.

Although we have a news media in this country that was overwhelmingly invested in getting Obama elected President, even some liberal commentators have questioned the weakness of the President during a very chaotic period.  In addition to the murder of the four American, there is turmoil all over the Middle East as despicable dictators have fallen or are about to fall.  It appears they will be replaced by nothing more than anarchy since these despots have not allowed for a sound government structures to evolve in their respective countries.

Some longtime observers of foreign affairs are looking at the world situation and forecasting that the chaos in the Middle East could descend into a major world war.  Despite these fears, Obama has said very little, and when he has spoken, his words seem meek and ineffective, even to some of his strongest supporters.

It appears that Obama has different priorities.  He spent much of the week informing Americans that he won't have his justice department defend the constitutionality of the "Defense of Marriage Act," a law designed to prohibit federal recognition of gay marriage.  Evidently that is where Obama believes he should focus his attention during this perilous time in the world.

Last year, my wife told me about a bumper sticker she saw on a truck while driving down Carefree Highway in the far northern part of Phoenix, AZ.  It read:  "OBAMA, One Big Ass Mistake America."  I certainly thought that the bumper sticker was funny, but it may have been a little harsh.  Today, I believe it is right on target.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

This Winter Hits Global Warming Activists Hard

Chicago is experiencing it snowiest February since snow records started being kept in that city in 1884.  In fact, this marks the fourth year in a row that Chicago has recorded 50 or more inches of snow, which is also a record for the city.

This winter and most of the last four have been very harsh for the Midwest and especially the East Coast, yet promoters of global warming are still proclaiming that we are heading toward a world disaster in the next 20 years if we don't heed their warning and change our dependence on carbon-based fuels.  Try telling that to the people in San Francisco who may see their first snowfall since 1976.

Despite the recent progression of harsh winters, the advocates in our news media have declared the debate over global warming to be over. There is a scientific consensus, they say, that global warming, or is it now climate change, is a fact, and that mankind's tampering with the planet is responsible for this predicament.  Some reporters have gone so far as to equate global warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers. Some have even claimed that the unusually cold and snowy winter is evidence of global warming.  Talk about a logical contradiction.  I guess no matter how cold it gets, global warming advocates just won't relent with their predictions of doom.

Do the past four winter mean a trend toward a colder climate, or is this just an aberration and global warming will continue unabated soon?  I don't know.  I am just not that well-versed on climate and weather to make any predictions.  However, I am not going to believe a man like former Vice President Al Gore, who has reportedly made anywhere from $10 to $100 million on his advocacy of global warming.

Who do you believe and what do you believe?  Given the different interpretation of the same data over my lifetime, I don’t know how any lay person, one who is not trained in climatology and meteorology, can come to a definitive conclusion.  Scientists who are trained in these fields disagree about whether there really is irreversible global warming and whether or not man really has any control over it.

Many in the news media are so invested in the global warming predictions that they continue to proclaim a scientific consensus despite evidence to the contrary. More than 650 international scientists went on record  criticizing the climate change claims  by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  One of the dissenters, former member of the panel Japanese scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, referred to the climate claims as one of the “worst scientific scandals in history.”  One of the most prominent scientists who formerly worked at NASA, Dr. Joanne Simpson made it very clear that she is very skeptical about the global warming claims.

Another NASA scientist, Dr. James Hansen is one of the biggest proponents of global warming, and he, too, has rather impressive credentials. He has a bachelor’s degree in physics and mathematics, a master’s degree in astronomy and a doctorate in physics, all from the University of Iowa. He has been a leading scientist with NASA since 1981.  He recently published a book that call for immediate action to combat global warming or face catastrophic consequences for humans.  If  I am ever going to believe anyone has a valid prediction about global warming, it will be Dr. Hansen, not Al Gore.

Unfortunately, there is so much money involved in the outcome of the global warming debate that we may never have an honest and objective accounting of the research involved.  Media reports over the past year indicate how Gore has benefited from his stance.  On the other hand, there is certainly legitimacy to the contention that people heavily invested in fossil fuel corporations will automatically dismiss any claim of man-made climate change.

If we truly had journalists and communicators instead of media lapdogs and a never-ending parade of advocacy spin doctors, we could examine all the theories and educated guesses that are being made about global warming without setting up the advocates for condemnation if they happen to guess wrong.  Yes, there is a lot of research funding and other type of resources on both sides of the issues, but that does not automatically make the advocates deceptive and evil people. 

Since I can’t read minds and hearts, I would like to suggest that we have many well-educated, highly experienced scientific experts who disagree, and only time will tell if they are guessing right or wrong.  Are some of them being co-opted by large sums of money?  Maybe, some are. Unfortunately, we do not, in my estimation, have the type of journalists in the media who will be open to examining all the new data and documentation as well as all the scientists releasing such information and treating it all equally. 

Today, we have too many advocates in the media who are more concerned about which advocacy position is being supported or debunked than in examining realistic weather trends. In the meantime, I recommend that Al Gore not schedule a trip to Chicago any time soon. 

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Will the Media Ever Stop the Kennedy Camelot Charade

I tuned in ABC World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer on February 22, and once again Sawyer started gushing about another story concerning the John F. Kennedy administration, referring to it as keeping the era of Camelot alive.  It appears that someone found a film of Jack and Jacqueline Kennedy together at an appearance the night before JFK was assassinated, and, of course, this merited a spot on a major newscast even though the Middle East is falling apart and every major state in the union is going bankrupt.

It's sad enough that the media in this country created such a phony image of the Kennedy family as American royalty, and the JFK administration as somehow a reenactment of the Camelot mythology.  Now, despite decades of contradictions to that image, many in the media, like Diane Sawyer, still prefer to believe the charade than embrace reality.

In the years since the Kennedy assassination, those of us who choose to get our information beyond the evening newscasts of the three major networks have found out what a fraud the Camelot image really was.  Kennedy and his first lady hardly had an idyllic marriage, and the three major Kennedy brothers, Jack, Bobby and Ted, were known as much for their infidelity as anything else.

I worked very closely at one time with a person who was a minor player in the Kennedy administration, and I asked him if it was true that Joe Kennedy, the patriarch of the family, gave Jackie Kennedy a million dollars so she wouldn't divorce Jack before his presidential run in 1960.  He told me that he couldn't confirm it absolutely, but that was what several Kennedy advisers told him while he worked for the President.  There was a story that JFK even jumped the fence on the night of his inauguration in January 1961 to be with another woman.

Nevertheless, the media continues to perpetuate a false premise no matter what information comes out to debunk that premise.  The media created the JFK administration as Camelot, and many in the media refuse to let go of the canard.

This is one of the most disturbing aspects of the modern news media that I've come to know over my four decades as a communications professional.  When they create a premise, they will stick with it no matter how false the facts prove that premise to be.  The United States has no monarchy, and neither the Kennedy family nor any other family is American royalty.  No matter, the media refuses to let go of the myth.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Media Ignores Legality of Liberal Church Involvement in Politics

Today is election day in my hometown Chicago.  A new mayor and other city officials will be elected although there will be a runoff in April if no mayoral candidate gets more than 50 percent.

Even though I now live in Phoenix, AZ, I can keep up with politics in Chicago through the Internet and on WGN-TV, which is just about on every cable service in the country.  That one of the great things about being born in Chicago.  WGN is everywhere.

Last Sunday, I noticed, as I have all my life, the stories about certain candidates visiting black churches throughout the city on the Sunday before an election to elicit black support.  The WGN-TV reporters conveyed the stories as if there was nothing wrong with this practice.  Unfortunately, they either don't know or don't want to deal with the possibility that this practice may be illegal under the regulations of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Churches are granted non-profit status by the IRS, but that status can be revoked if the a church engages in partisan politics.  The regulations do, however, permit churches to engage in advocacy politics and become involved in legislative activism.  I worked for the Catholic Church for more 12 years and can relate that every state in the union has a Catholic Conference that serves as the legislative arm of the Church, lobbying for and against issues only.

During my tenure with the Catholic Church, the Church leadership was always cautious about allowing any political candidate to speak from the pulpit.  They were wary about liberal advocacy groups and the media challenging the church's tax exempt status if it gave voice to a candidate who was pro-life or against gay marriage.  The two diocese where I worked would regularly send out notices to parishes at election time warning them not to allow candidates to speak at their churches or to promote specific candidates from the pulpit.

The IRS would permit candidates to appear in a church if all candidates for a position were allowed to participate at the same time, something like a candidates' forum.  However, that's not what happens in Chicago every election cycle.  The media gleefully shows what amounts to black candidates and certain selected white candidates holding campaign rallies at what are clearly churches.  Most of these churches are predominantly black.

 In November of 2009, the Bishop of Brooklyn, New York, Bishop Nicolas A. DiMarzio, praised from the pulpit a Democratic legislator who helped push through a bill in the state assembly that was favorable to the Catholic Church.  He did this on a Sunday before an election, prompting an atheist group to call for an IRS investigation and engendering several stories in The New York Times and other media outlets questioning the Bishop's right to do what he did.

It appears that there are two different sets of IRS regulations, one for the churches the media likes, and the other for the churches that espouse positions the media doesn't like.   Once again the predominance of advocates in our news media prevents an honest examination of why IRS regulations aren't being equally enforced.  When the media and government regulators choose to ignore law breaking or are selective in pointing it out, it undermines respect for all laws.  Whether they choose to understand it or not, selective reporting of law breaking also undermines the public respect for the media.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Could the Media Please Give us the Facts in Wisconsin

The disruption in Madison, the state capitol of Wisconsin, is now continuing into its second week with no apparent end in sight.  Yet as much as I watched, listened and read about the events, I still don't get a clear picture of what is causing the state workers to complain.

The situation in Wisconsin provides a clear example of what is wrong with our modern day news media.  We have so many advocates and so few journalists in the press these days that it is almost impossible to get the facts from a single source.

I really haven't been able to get much from the mainstream media outlets other than useless emotional soundbites that put nothing in perspective.  Nevertheless, by researching on the Internet, here are some important items I have found out, but I am not exactly sure if all this data is correct....frustrating!!!

It appears that the average Wisconsin public school teacher makes about $51,000 in salary and $38,400 in benefits for a total package of roughly $89,000 per year, and that is just the average.  In addition, Wisconsin public teachers contribute only one percent of their salary toward pension benefits and only six percent of their very good health care benefit package.  As someone who has paid more than $600 a month for family health care coverage, roughly 50 percent of the benefit's cost, when I had a full-time job, I find this amazing.  By the way, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin would like the teachers to contribute up to 12 percent of the cost of their health care insurance, which is still a phenomenal deal by today's standards.

Keep in mind that between summer vacation and other vacation periods throughout the year, Wisconsin public school teachers get about 13 weeks vacation.  During the summer, they could get another job to supplement their income, but why?  They already receive better money and benefits than the average worker in the private sector, and that average worker is not getting 13 weeks of vacation.

The complaint of the demonstrators that the Wisconsin governor is trying to take away collective bargaining rights might be really the only legitimate complaint there is.  However, when you are dealing with employees who happen to be paid by the tax payers, you find that roughly 24 states do not allow for any collective bargaining with public employees.  The new Wisconsin measure would allow collective bargaining for salary, but not benefits, at least I think that is the case from the contradictory stories I have been reading about the Wisconsin situation.

What many people may not realize is that even liberal icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned against public employee unions, saying that "a strike of public employees manifest nothing than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government." looks as though the public school teachers in Wisconsin are doing everything they can to obstruct the education of Wisconsin children, an education they are apparently being very well paid to provide. 

Friday, February 18, 2011

Where does the President get these Press Secretaries?

I was never really impressed by former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.  He often stammered through answers and, at time, seemed totally ill prepared for that day's questions from the White House media.  However, compared to the new White House press secretary, Jay Carney, Gibbs is a master communicator.

During the regular White House press briefing on February 17, Carney was asked whether President Barack Obama shared the negative view of multiculturalism that three European leaders have expressed over the past several months.  Carney's response was that he was not aware of such comments.

Now let me see if I have this right.  For weeks, the media in the United States and Europe has reported statements by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy about how multiculturalism has failed in their respective countries.  Their opinion was that those immigrating from other lands were not assimilating into their respective nations' cultures, but were trying to impose their own culture on their new homelands.  Carney, however, was unaware of the comments these world leaders made even though they have been repeated in just about every major media outlet.

I've been involved in corporate communications for more than 36 years, and Jay Carney, I've got news for you:  it's your job to be informed about such comments from world leaders, especially those of our NATO allies.  How did Carney possibly reach such a high position when it is already painfully obvious that he is not prepared to fill it.

During most of my career, especially when I reached the level of senior communications professional, I always stayed abreast of subject matter that had any effect on the organization I represented.  It was my job to make sure that the organization's leadership stayed informed of items they didn't have the time see, hear or read. 

What most people don't understand is that not only the President of the United States, but the leadership of most major companies and organizations, are so busy that they don't have any available time to stay up to date on the every news item that might affect their decision making.  During most of my career, I would send a daily news briefing of the latest information of any concern to our organization that was being published in selected major newspapers throughout the country.  As far as I'm concerned, that is a given, especially if you hold such a sensitive communications post for what is the most powerful man in the world.

I have an idea for President Barack Obama.  Hire me.  I was born in a hospital on Stony Island Avenue on the southeast side of Chicago, only blocks from where you own your Chicago home.  We already have something in common.  I am a White Sox fan, too.  I guarantee you I can do a far better job of relating to the press than Jay Carney has so far, and I won't be caught unprepared.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Some Liberals in Media Seem to Fear Different Views

I admit that I'm a news junkie.  I have been reading newspapers since I was eight years old, and now I watch every news channel available, listen to talk radio and read as many news websites as I can.

Over the past decade, two media major media monitoring websites have arisen to prominence.  One is "Media Matters," which proclaims that it exists to fight conservative misinformation in the media.  The other major media watchdog website is "NewsBusters," which is dedicated to fighting liberal bias in the media.

As you might suspect, "Media Matters" has a litany of posting denouncing Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and anything remotely conservative on the radio, television or in the newspapers.  The same is true for "NewsBusters," which has items that take to task just about anything that smacks of liberal bias at the three major networks and CNN.  Not surprisingly,  "Newsbusters" focuses much of its ire on MSNBC, which many people, including myself, consider to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee, which is why some sarcastically refer to MSNBC as MSDNC.

I see nothing basically wrong with either website.  You know from the beginning that each has a bias.  Each website admits it.  You can read their postings and then go the media outlets being denigrated and find out for yourself if the complaints are legitimate.

However, there is one major difference between the two.  If you look on the "Media Matters" website, you will see a posting called "Drop Fox"  When you click on the box, you discover that "Media Matters" is engaging in a campaign to get advertisers to stop supporting Fox News.  In a very real sense, they are on a jihad to get Fox News off the air.

All of my life, I have been told that liberals are the most open minded people, and yet their media watchdog website is out to destroy a news outlet they don't like.  What are they afraid of at "Media Matters.?"  Why should they set out to close down a media outlet simply because it carries an opposing point of view?

"NewsBusters" certainly does its fair share to belittle and berate MSNBC.  However, you will not see any corresponding campaign on the conservative website to shut down MSNBC or any other liberal media voice.

Whether I agree with a media outlet's point of view or not, I don't want to see any of them shut down.  I already miss Keith Olbermann even though I have very seldom agreed him.  I miss Phil Donahue and wish he was still on television.  This country is the quintessential marketplace of free expression, and shame on you, "Media Matters,"  for wanting to silence anyone.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Media irrationally celebrates racial and ethnic pride

If it is irrational to belittle or berate someone solely based on the color of skin or ethnic background, why is it any less irrational to celebrate someone for the same reasons?

February is “Black History Month.”  Hispanic heritage is usually celebrated in September, and Irish look to St. Patrick’s Day while Italians celebrate Columbus Day.  It is one thing for the media to report on racial and ethnic advocacy days and months, but it is quite another thing to celebrate these moments as the media does.

The question I have is why?  The media is supposed to look at things dispassionately or, do I dare say, logically.  What is the logic of celebrating human characteristics that people can’t control? 

Let’s take Black History Month.  During the month, the media focuses on the achievements of specifically people with black skin.  Of course doing so begs the question:  did they achieve something great in life solely because they have black skin?  That’s what the implication is, and if blacks who achieved did so because of their skin color, then why haven’t all black people achieved greatness?

The same can be said for celebrating ethnic heritage.  I am half Irish and half Polish, and I had nothing to do with either half.  I also am white, and while I am not proud of it; I also am not ashamed of it either.  How can I have pride or shame over the skin color with which I was born?  It is not an achievement to be white, black, Irish, Polish, Jewish, Chinese or any other race or nationality.  If it is, I’d  like someone to tell me how you achieve whiteness or blackness.  I did not achieve whiteness; I was born that way. I don’t know anyone who has achieved whiteness, with the possible exception of the late Michael Jackson.

I understand that there is a legitimate emotional component to celebrating racial or ethnic heritage if certain people once felt the sting of being put down or discriminated against solely for one’s skin color or nationality, but as I said beforehand, that is irrational.  So while it might be a momentary emotional lift for someone to say that he or she is proud to be black or white or Irish or Mexican, there is no logic in considering it to be an achievement.

It appears that our modern day media seems more concerned about pandering to racial and ethnic groups than in examining the rationale for racial or ethnic pride.  In my lifetime, I’ve come to know many wonderful and accomplished people of all races, colors and ethnic backgrounds, and until someone can prove otherwise, I don’t think their skin color or heritage had much to do with their success.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Most Media Ignores Law Breaking by Planned Parenthood

Can you imagine the media outcry if any reporter in the print or electronic media found out that a Catholic bishop arranged for an underage girl to have an abortion after she had been impregnated by a priest?  And what if that same bishop failed to report the sexual abuse to civil authorities? My guess is that such a story would appear on the front page of most major newspapers in the country, and it would be one of the top stories on the networks news broadcasts.

 The coverage would not only focus on the hypocrisy of arranging for an abortion, which the Catholic Church considers a heinous sin, but the bishop, and rightfully so, would be pilloried by the media for covering up a crime, statutory rape.

Unfortunately, most of the media is ignoring what has been a major story for years, and that is the failure of workers at Planned Parenthood clinics to report cases of statutory rape to civil authorities when underage girls go to their facilities for abortions and contraceptives.  Many of the these workers know that these young girls are having sex with adult males, but refuse to report it.

In recent weeks, very few media outlets have reported that Planned Parenthood workers in New Jersey and New York were discovered advising people working undercover for a pro-life group how to get around child sex laws.  In a sense, the employees were helping the couple excuse and cover up underage sex trafficking as the pro-life people were representing themselves as a pimp and underage prostitute.  The undercover video these pro-life activists took appeared on some news outlets, but not many.

The Planned Parenthood employees in these instances were fired, but the reports tended to ignore that Planned Parenthood appears to have repeatedly failed to meet mandatory reporting requirements in most states for many years. Just about every state has mandatory reporting laws that require social workers, teachers, physicians, health care workers in general, child care providers and even clergy to report any suspected child abuse, including sexual abuse, to law enforcement officials.  The employees at all Planned Parenthood facilities would be considered health care workers since these outlets provide a variety of health services

Unlike many in the media, I am not capable of reading other people's minds and hearts, and so I can't say exactly why many in the media ignore what should be a major story.  I can suspect that an overwhelming number of reporters in the media today support what Planned Parenthood does, and this support just might influence their decision to downplay the story if not ignore it completely.

For years, reporters with whom I have worked have heard me say that there are too many advocates in the news media and precious few journalists.  This situation with Planned Parenthood may just be another example of how advocacy in the media skews the news the public receives. 

Since Planned Parenthood accepts tax payer money, the public has the right to know when the organization breaks the law.  Unfortunately, too many advocates in the media don't think so.

Monday, February 7, 2011

ABC defames Arizona with false story

On Friday evening, February 4, ABC News broadcasts its usual "What Would You Do" show, starring veteran newscaster John Quinones.  The major feature was a manufactured scenario by ABC in a Tucson dining establishment during which a fake security guard would approach Hispanic-looking people and demand to see documentation to prove they were in the United States legally.

The segment was designed to call into question Arizona legislation signed into law last year by Governor Jan Brewer, a law mimicking federal law in that it requires people to provide proper identification to prove they are legally in the United States.  Before the law was put into effect, it was amended to prohibit any law enforcement officer from solely stopping anyone to prove they are in the country legally.  A person or persons must first be stopped on suspicion of some other law violation before an officer can question immigration status.

The ABC fake scenario was blatantly false on two fronts.  In the first place, security guards cannot lawfully ask anyone to prove immigration status, and in the second place, the Arizona law specifically prohibits law enforcement officers from stopping someone solely to check immigration status.

Unfortunately, it appears that Quinones didn't read the law as it was amended, or he chose to ignore the amended version. What ABC did was a totally dishonest representation of the Arizona law, but look it this way, if Quinones loses his ABC gig, he can always join the Obama justice department.  The attorney general, Eric Holder, didn't read the law either before he condemned it.

Friday, February 4, 2011

Media now stains Tucson

Did you know that Tucson is to blame for the shooting that took place there on January 8.  I thought that Jared Loughner was allegedly responsible for the crime that killed six people and critically wounded Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords.

Well, at least to some in the media, Tucson is stained by the tragedy. Somehow the overwhelming number of people who live in that Arizona city and had nothing to do with the incident must still bear some responsibility, according our modern day media.

I have never understood the media's preoccupation with blaming a geographic location with a violent tragedy that occurs within its boundaries, but it has happened throughout most of my life.  The first occurrence that I remember was in 1963 when the media declared that Dallas should be forever be shamed by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22 of that year.  It didn't matter that you could see practically all the people lining the parade route that day crying when they learned of the shooting.  Many in the media stained everyone living in the area simply because the tragedy took place there.

Of course, just because the media makes such declarations doesn't mean that rational people accept it.  I grew up on the southeast side of Chicago, just 10 blocks from where Richard Speck killed eight nurses in July 1965.  While everyone in the community was stunned by crime and we rallied around the neighbors affected by the tragedy, I don't recall anyone who believed they shared responsibility for the crime.

The media doesn't always try to stain a geographic area for a crime, especially if it is an area where many of the media elites live or find appealing.  Robert Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles in June 1968, but somehow the media didn't believe in tarring that city with the crime.  The same is true of New York where John Lennon was killed in the early 1980s.

To stain any geographic area for a violent tragedy that occurs there is a false premise that is totally bereft of logic, and yet the media continues to do that.  To contend that the residents of that geographic area who had nothing to do with the incident still bear some responsibility is equally foolish if not more so.

I would be interested in debating anyone from the media who has fostered this false premise.  I doubt that I will get any volunteers, however, because it is very difficult to defend the irrational.