One of the problems with this story in Detroit last Friday is the media's handling of it --namely, cable news, which is the predominant form of media access for most of us. It is today's mainstream media and it often does a poor job of getting stories reportedly clearly, accurately and responsibly.
Stories like the one out of Detroit, or the Fort Hood shooting, are layered with details and filled with questions. The dissemination of information is too often reckless, as reckless in the reporting as in the consumption, primarily because TV reporting, because it's both competitive under pressure of the clock, is hasty. Things go on the air without clarification, without fact checking. Consumers, lacking a skeptical eye, take it for granted. More accurately, they take for granted news that fits their belief window while disparaging news dealing with subjects that don't. News outlets tend to jump to conclusions, or give the impression that conclusions have been reach, leading to a public that jumps to conclusions, thus exponentially spreading misinformation. This unfortunate and potentially dangerous reality has only been hastened by the rise of the internet as a prime news source. Add to that an insatiable need to know and a lack of patience that abandons any concern to know it accurately, and you have a misinformed public, which is a surefire way to elect the wrong people, and then for those elected officials to avoid thorough scrutiny.
There is much we still don't know behind the story of what happened in Detroit on Christmas Day, and what news outlets need to do better is stress what they don't know as much as what they do. Every story has questions that need to be answered and we should be asking those questions first and get answers next. Only after we have enough conclusive evidence can we draw intelligent conclusions from which we can determine a proper course of action. Going with your gut and shooting from the hip are dangerous practices when your decisions have great consequence.
Cable news often violates that principle, and that's largely because media is a business, and often the priorities for cable news are business first, journalism second.
Case in point: Soon after word of the failed attempt to set off an explosive device in a Detroit-bound flight, Jasper Schuringa appeared on television telling the story of how he helped subdue Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. But Schuringa insisted he would only tell his story if he got some cash out of the deal.
Most American media make a big deal of saying they don't pay for interviews, so, instead, they fall on a relatively common practice of paying a licensing fee for photographs. The media outlets can then just describe it as a coincidence that the "hero" decided to talk only to those who bought his pictures. CNN was first, reportedly paying $10,000 for a blurry cell phone image. Then the NY Post paid $5,000 for the photograph's "print rights" and ABC News coughed up as much as $3,000 for another photo.
CNN paid Jasper Schuringa $10 grand for the exclusive rights to this photo
What this tells you is that media outlets, particularly cable, but also tabloid print and network news operations, will do what they must to increase ratings, increase circulation, increase web
Schuringa got another $5 grand for this photo
Schuringa got another $5 grand for this photo
hits, and often, especially with a breaking and/or developing story, they do it at the expense of good journalism. Or at the very least, they step far too close to the line. That might help the media outlet's bottom line, but it doesn't do anyone any good in the long run.
But what does this say about Jasper Schuringa? He wasn't hard to find. Everyone dug up his company website, which had his cell phone number on it. By the time he finally got to Miami, his final destination, CNN and the NY Post had gotten to him. As Gawker noted:
Jasper Schuringa made at least $18,000 from two sh***y, blurry photos.Why?Because the only way to get interviews with this guy was to pay him, so CNN and The New York Post ponied up. Fox News used the Post's interview, because they're part of Murdoch-stan. NBC apparently didn't pay, because they don't have their own interview. Neither does the New York Daily News or the New York Times. But the New York Daily News did take CNN's photo (albeit watermarked) and interview quotes for their story in this morning's paper for the low price of free-ninety-nine. Thrifty!
Here's the interview CNN paid for. Watch how Schuringa starts getting fidgety right around 6:45. He's looking off-camera, perhaps trying to end the interview, and in doing so, maybe he wants to save some of his product to sell to the next bidder.
It's just a bit creepy that Schuringa is selling his "hero" story, as if to say, "Hey, everyone's getting paid -- where's mine?" Is this really that far removed from fame and fortune sought by the "Balloon Boy" parents?
Comments
And he is different from you how?
He is different from any politician who receives speaking fess how?
Jihad Watch says: And he is different from you how? He is different from any politician who receives speaking fess how?
These questions are irrelevant, but if you must know, I wouldn't have taken a nickel from the media if they wanted an interview.
What IS relevant is that the media will whore itself out to get it first, too often making factual errors in the process. I guess you don't care about accuracy or integrity so long as the story fits your particular political bias. Apparently, for you, facts aren't relevant, either, but you've already demonstrated that in your comments elsewhere.
"Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula has claimed responsibility for the attempted attack on a U.S. airliner on Christmas day, saying it was retaliation for a U.S. operation against the group in Yemen.
In a statement posted on the Internet, the group said 23-year-old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab coordinated with members of the group.
Yemeni forces, helped by U.S. intelligence, carried out two airstrikes against al-Qaida operatives in the country this month. The second one was a day before the attempted bombing of the plane.
The group said the would-be bomber used explosives manufactured by al-Qaida members.
Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula is an alliance of militants based in Saudi Arabia and Yemen."
Deny deny deny deny! It has caused death but keep denying the obvious.
STOP with your asinine speculations about what others motives may or may not be and your putting words in peoples mouths. It is really not becoming of you.
Jihad Watch says: "...STOP with your asinine speculations."
I'm afraid you're the one doing the speculating. Tell me? Are you with the NSA, the CIA or the FBI? What is your law enforcement background. What investigative skills qualify you to reach this haphazard conclusions. Please, share your expertise.
Of course, al-Qaeda is claiming responsibility; they'll do that for anything that brings violence to Americans. If you knew anything about Middle Eastern culture, you'd understand that, take it into context and use a measured approach that relies on facts, not knee-jerk thinking. How is it that on the one hand, you wouldn't trust a terrorist for the time of day, yet you believe it when they make boastful claims like this? You are being played for a sap by terrorists. I'd rather put my trust in law enforcement officials to shake things out properly and leave the ignorant snap judgments to the lynch mob mental midgets.
Again, please tell us what makes you such an expert.
Oh thats right. YOU are the ONLY one who knows anything! I forgot you are a liberal and liberals are the only ones who can read or think.
How dumb of me to forget that.
But keep protecting and supporting terrorism, you will fit right in at the DHS.
You better set your boy pres straight! He too is under the impression this terrorist did not act alone! I bet YOU know more than he too don't you?
""We will not rest until we find all who are involved and hold them accountable," the president said."
Jihad Watch says: "Oh thats right. YOU are the ONLY one who knows anything!"
Never said that at all. What I said is that we DON'T know everything and should wait until we do before drawing conclusions. Not only do you lack expertise in terrorism, but you're poorly skilled at analytical thinking and fundamental reading comprehension. It's not that you're stupid. I don't believe you are. You are blinded by your own rage and political biases. It's sort of like jihadi terrorists; they're irrational and can't be reasoned with, either. Your thought process is a lot like that of the religious extremists you so passionately hate. You might consider that before you jump to your next conclusion. Irrational thinking is not a good precursor to wise decision-making or proper action. We've seen too often what overreaction without thinking can cost us. That's not a mistake we should make again. Apparently, this lesson is lost on you. Fortunately, you're in no position to make important decisions.
We laugh at the Infidels. All passengers will remove their clothing prior to boarding. If anyone attempts to light their crotch on fire then no one will be allowed to use the restroom! Any "Hero" will be allowed to sell his or her story to the highest bidder to fuel the media frenzy over a nut that set his crotch on fire. Boxers, briefs, or plastique? Watch this 'Jihad'with limited commercial interruptions.
Wow, what can I say? Your superiority complex ends the conversation.
A religious fantic that sets his crotch on fire is great for ratings! The ad rate for Depends commercials nearly doubles. The outrage factor of Keyboard Kommandos is music to our wallets.
Jihad Watch says: "Wow, what can I say? Your superiority complex ends the conversation."
Either that or your inferiority complex.
Cable News Networks says: A religious fantic that sets his crotch on fire is great for ratings! The ad rate for Depends commercials nearly doubles. The outrage factor of Keyboard Kommandos is music to our wallets.
What's the going rate for a Duraflame log?
Did it ever occur to you that Jasper didn't want to be a hero?
What's a hero?
Ask the press.
Jasper took no chances and hid.
My guess is that he won't show up until the noise dies down.
Jasper doesn't like sentimental crap.
Martin says: Did it ever occur to you that Jasper didn't want to be a hero?
That's immaterial to me. It just feels a little sleazy that you would do a good deed and than charge people money to tell everyone you did a good deed. Personally, I wouldn't take a nickel. In fact, I wouldn't even talk to these goobers on cable TV. Most of those anchors are clueless airheads and if you watch, the CNN anchor did a lousy interviewing job. Admittedly, I have a bias against cable news because they are largely a bunch of screaming idiots hoping you'll watch them, sort of like an accident on the highway. It's television, and they have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to do their job, and largely, what they do best is waste that time when they could be using it to really dig into stories. That said, it's unlikely I'd agree to be interviewed and I wouldn't charge money if I did. It just seems tacky and classless, but that's just me.
What's a hero?
Ask the press.
Jasper took no chances and hid.
My guess is that he won't show up until the noise dies down.
Jasper doesn't like sentimental crap.
Yes Bruce,
From your big cozy Walter Mitty armchair you would have hacked the terrorist to pieces.
And you would have refused to receive a single nickel for your heroic acts.
But the thing is, you never did anything heroic.
So it is easy to refuse a nickel.
We be a snigglin' and a gigglin' at the TMZ.
Martin says: "Yes Bruce, From your big cozy Walter Mitty armchair you would have hacked the terrorist to pieces. And you would have refused to receive a single nickel for your heroic acts. But the thing is, you never did anything heroic."
What I've done or what I would've done is none of your business, nor does it have anything to do with this article or with Mr. Schuringa. But it's somewhat pathetic and pretty much juvenile to attack a person's character when you don't know a thing about them, just because you might be personally offended by a difference of opinion. It's also a frequent effort of last resort: When all else fails, attack the person's character. If it makes you feel better about yourself, knock yourself out.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!