SANDY HOOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LESSONS FOR GROWNUPS

A few days after the Newtown school shooting, I saw a group of elementary students being led by their teacher down a New Orleans street. They walked in a single file line and held hands. They were joyful. The stark and obvious contrast struck me as I thought of the now iconic photo (right) of the 6-year-olds in Newtown being led away from their school after the carnage.  We are told those children had been instructed to close their eyes as they walked through the hallway inside the school building. But you and I both know that the most curious among them managed a glimpse of whatever it was they were not supposed to see.  Six year olds are curious beings. And of course, many of us know how traumatized they will be by what they saw in that clandestine glance at the unthinkable horror.

I believe many of us would agree that we who are way beyond six years old are somewhat responsible for their trauma. We allowed a society that was once more orderly to become anything but. We allowed and even enabled cultural shifts to happen all around us that resulted in a widespread disrespect for life.  We allowed dangerously disturbed human beings like the Newtown shooter to walk freely among us, without any type of therapeutic intervention. It is not our fault that the shooter planned and carried out the executions of young children. But it is incumbent upon all of us to realize that our coveted freedoms all come with a price.

The freedom to commit crimes in our society with uneven judicial consequences has resulted in more people committing violent crimes. 

If we mark mass murder in America starting with Columbine in 1999 (left), there have been 31 mass shootings since.  Thirty-one times one or more deranged Americans has planned and carried out violent shootings sprees. Only one week before Sandy Elementary, another mass shooting took place in a shopping mall near Portland, OR, at the height of Christmas shopping season. Shopping malls, schools, churches, movie theatres – it can, and does, happen anywhere in America at any time. And now it has happened in a kindergarten classroom in a town that seems like Anytown, USA.

Newtown’s population doesn’t even crack 30,000 people. The entire town occupies less than 60 square miles.  It was the hometown of James Thurber. Film director Elia Kazan (Splendor in the Grass, On The Waterfront) also hailed from Newtown. Bruce Jenner went to high school there. The images of the town we have seen on television suggest a sort of Bedford Falls quality from the classic holiday film, It’s a Wonderful Life. Parents of the slain children who have granted television interviews appear articulate, family-centered and noticeably all white. The town is, according to census figures, about 95 percent white.  Additional census figures tell us that the median household income in Newtown is over $100,000. So it would seem the last possible place in America for 20 school children and six adults to be savagely gunned down in an elementary school.

Therein is the possible explanation for the fully unwanted attention the town has received. That attention is doing the residents of Newtown more harm than good, and there is no sign that the national focus on the town will abate anytime soon.  Therefore, the first takeaway from this event is that we who do not live in Newtown need to be more respectful of those who do.  Specifically, media companies need to

back off – way off.  Why are reporters like Anderson Cooper and Katie Couric (right) working so hard to land TV interviews with parents of dead children who have not even been buried yet? Why are the networks and major cable companies not forming a smaller media pool to cover Newtown, rather than sending in hundreds of reporters from multiple companies?

ABC News producer Nadine Shubailat actually tweeted people she thought might be parents or friends of Sandy Hook elementary students, in her misguided efforts to land interviews. FOX News, in its overly-competitive zeal, misidentified the shooter as Ryan Lanza, who, it turns out is actually the brother of the shooter. Multiple news organizations reported that the shooter’s mother worked at Sandy Hook Elementary as a kindergarten teacher.  She did not. None other than the esteemed NY Times reported wrong information about the type of gun used in the shootings. The NY Times also jumped on the above-mentioned claim that the mother worked at the school.  I could go on, but just know that CBS, CNN, NY Times, NPR and Associated Press each reported inaccurate, unverified information about the shootings. Shame on every one of them, and especially on newly installed NY Times executive editor Jill Abramson, who was quoted (in the Times): “I am proud of every aspect of our coverage and beyond thankful to the people who reported and edited this horrific story. Our approach is always accuracy over speed.” Disingenuous?  You be the judge.

The second takeaway from this tragedy is, of course, the national debate about gun laws. Today a new Bloomberg study was released with a startling projection: By 2015, firearm fatalities will probably exceed traffic fatalities for the first time ever.  So here I will employ simple logic,

rather than politics: Gun advocates have been quite vocal since the Sandy Hook shootings about the need for more guns, rather than fewer guns. Many have gone so far as to say teachers and school administrators should be armed while at work.  I have been a teacher for several years and I can tell you that some teachers I have known should definitely not be armed. The argument to arm teachers assumes that teachers will routinely be more responsible gun owners/users than the general public. It should be noted that teachers are simply a microcosm of the public at large, which means the teacher population may include just as many murderous lunatics as the general population. That’s logic, not politics. Here’s some more logic: If the shooter at Sandy Hook had been unable to enter the building, the shootings would not have happened as they did. So, it would seem school building security should be the focus here, not adding more firearms to the general population.

Firearm advocates who have appeared in media interviews in these past several days seem more hell bent on protecting their Second Amendment freedom than they do on protecting 6-year-olds in kindergarten classrooms. What they never acknowledge is that the Second Amendment was written at a time when there were no such things as AR-15 automatic assault rifles (right)

capable of firing 800 rounds per minute, and originally intended for use by the military only. By the way, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms that Americans can have and use.  It does not say anything at all about prohibiting restrictions on the types or number of firearms. I do not see how any thinking individual reads that into the Second Amendment. Here are the exact words:  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The bottom line has everything to do with moderation. No one is proposing taking away all Americans’ guns.  That will not happen, but let’s employ reason and caution. And no one is trying to prohibit the media from covering the Sandy Hook tragedy or any tragedies yet to come. But let’s employ discretion in the way stories are covered, and let’s get the story right before it is put out to the public. And when mistakes are made like the NY Times printed errors, let’s not have editors like Jill Abramson praise their publications’ efforts. And above all, let’s quit giving so much TV time, online exposure and print coverage to the shooters. Let’s ignore them so that potential future assassins will not expect to be lionized in media.

FIRE UP THE TV -- FALL SEASON IS HERE!

My name is Paul, and I’m a TV addict. There I said it. There are no 12-step programs, meditation gurus or publicly funded initiatives to help me. The only thing that helps is TV. Lots of it. More of it. TV in every room. I watch everything from C-Span to The Real Housewives of Wherever. I recently bought something called a “Smart TV.” I can’t explain myself—I saw it in a store and the edge-to-edge, high definition picture engulfed me until I felt like I was sitting on Oprah’s couch with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. This TV is so advanced that I believe if I stare at I hard enough it might cook dinner for me. And who cares? Who has time for dinner when “Dancing with the Stars” is on, or “Mad Men,” or “The Daily Show?”

So it should come as no surprise that every year at this time I’m downright giddy waiting for the new Fall TV season to begin. This year there are several things happening that could shake things up in the industry. Here are a few shows I’m waiting on the edge of my seat to see:

THE PLAYBOY CLUB (NBC): When in doubt, the major networks seem to revert to 1960s drama. And that might be because there was plenty of it in the 60s. Hugh Hefner’s empire was at full throttle during the post-Kennedy/Camelot era, and nothing has really ever matched its allure since. In this NBC prime time version, Eddie Cibrian is Nick Dalton, a suave Chicago lawyer who, of course, has his own key to The Playboy Club. CNN said Cibrian is doing his best Jon Hamm (“Mad Men”) impression. True, but then Jon Hamm has been doing his best Robert Vaughn (“The Man from U.N.C.L.E.”) or Mike Connors (“Mannix”) since “Mad Men debuted in 2007. Whether Cibrian has the dramatic cache to pull this off remains to be seen. The show has already generated controversy; Without even seeing one episode of the show, the Parents Television Council (PTC) already lobbied NBC to cancel it before it even airs, because of “salacious content.” In June, The National Enquirer reported that KLS-TV in Salt Lake City, a Mormon-owned company, has decided not to air the show on its station. So far, it seems KLS is alone in its discontent. The real test of “The Playboy Club” won’t be who bans it, but how authentically the creators are able to paint a real portrait of a singular era. Many series have failed to do so and put forth a canned version of the 1960s that is almost cartoonish in its recreation. The 1960s were “devil may care” years. It was a time when the birth control pill had just hit the mass market, and Frank Sinatra used the term “ring-a-ding-ding” with a straight face and looked cool saying it. We’ll know after the first episode whether this one works. Here’s NBC’s official preview:

Looks pretty juicy to me. But then, I watch everything.

THE ROSIE O’DONNELL SHOW (OWN): When last we saw Rosie O’Donnell on daytime TV, she was the moderator of ABC’s “The View,” and we all know how that ended. Then she helmed a daily radio show that was not half bad, actually. Then our holy St. Oprah of Chicago came calling, offering Rosie a daily talk show, but more amazingly, Oprah gave her the entire HARPO studios facility in Chicago from which to create and broadcast the show. Who could say no to that, right? O’Donnell’s reign as the Queen of Nice (“Newsweek” dubbed her that in its July 14, 1996 cover story), ended nine years ago. This time she says her show will be more topical, less celebrity-focused and now, at 49, she’s a different Rosie. She’s not as nice, but she’s not as angry as she was on “The View.” Will it work? Not sure yet. OWN has failed to live up to the hype, and Oprah recently took over as CEO to try to steer her network in a more productive direction.

ANDERSON COOPER: CNN’s snow-capped, engaging news host has decided to pick up where Oprah left off. This past week he debuted his daytime talk show. He’ll still do “Anderson Cooper 360” in the evening, but the daytime show promises to feature his lighter side. Cooper’s edge is that he can probably attract the biggest names in the news. On his debut hour he featured the parents of the late Amy Winehouse, for example. But the next day, Snooki and Kathy Griffin shared the stage. Reportedly, Cooper will begin the second week of his talk show with a full hour interview with his fascinating mother, Amy Vanderbilt, 87. The daytime talk genre is a tough animal. Those who seem like sure bets often fall flat – think Jane Pauley and Roseanne Barr. Broadcasting from the elegant Manhattan event venue Jazz at Lincoln Center, Cooper has some advantages in this genre: First, he’s a man, in a format that has largely been dominated by women; second, the venue is breathtaking and the cameras have done a stellar job in capturing its vistas; and most importantly, he comes to the show with an established audience from his CNN show. The odds seem to be in his favor, but then, I once said the same thing about Megan Mullally, so don’t listen to me.

TWO AND A HALF MEN (CBS): If they had replaced Charlie Sheen with one of the rumored actors like Hugh Grant or John Stamos, we’d probably have said, “Well, Hugh Grant is no Charlie Sheen,” or “John Stamos doesn’t have that bad boy thing that Charlie Sheen has.” But Ashton Kutcher is a different story. He’s younger, he’s hotter and his past television outings have been largely successful. I’m writing this post before the debut episode, but I feel confident it will probably draw its biggest audience in years. The curiosity factor has caused many of us to already set our DVRs. The show was a classic ensemble piece from day one; it wasn’t the Charlie Sheen show. He was a big draw, he mattered and he reportedly worked very hard to keep the show viable in the marketplace, but the rest of the characters were so well formed and developed that the show can likely carry on. The network is clearly feeling confident: Kutcher’s reported per episode salary is $750,000. To give you some frame of reference, Angust T. Jones, who plays young Jake Harper reportedly pockets $250,000 per episode and he has been a cast member since day one. Jon Cryer, according to TV Guide, takes home $550,000 per episode.

There is much more to report about the Fall season – the “Charlie’s Angels” redux, the return of Simon Cowell to evening TV, the Steven Spielberg backed time travel extravaganza on Fox, “Terra Nova,” Ted Danson replacing Laurence Fishburne on “CSI,” ABC’s own 1960s drama, “Pan Am,” to name a few. And whose big idea was it to put “The Good Wife” up against “Desperate Housewives” on Sunday nights? I wish I could give you something to live for for mid-season, but so far the biggest story is TNT’s remake of “Dallas.” Really?

Stay tuned, and look for me in the audience. I'm always there.

ARE THEY JOURNALISTS OR WARRIORS?

Living in New Orleans, I remember in 2005 when a number of news and weather reporters were stationed around the Gulf Coast to do remote reports about the impending storms. At the time, I wondered: Why are all of us who live in the area evacuating, but the reporters are just arriving? Who will protect them when a metal roof goes flying through the air or the wind trumps their own human strength? And I couldn’t help asking, why is it necessary for them to be put in harm’s way simply to communicate about something everyone already knew about?

Fast forward to this week: The societal unrest in Egypt reached a fever pitch, and who was right in the middle of the violent street fights? Reporters. By now, you have probably seen or heard about CNN’s Anderson Cooper being attacked, along with his film crew. And then there was the unsettling footage of Christine Amanpour being verbally harassed by demonstrators and subtly threatened. All of this was disturbing enough, but then came word that two New York Times reporters were taken into “protective custody” by the Egyptian military. This comes right on the heels of reports that a Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television reporter suffered a concussion after being beaten by demonstrators. There were reported assaults on journalists for the BBC, Danish TV2 News and Swiss television. Two Associated Press correspondents were assaulted. And what in the world was CBS thinking when they allowed Katie Couric to be on the ground in the middle of the chaos? That has never been her forte. Footage showed her being swallowed up by an angry, mostly male crowd. Watch Anderson Cooper in Cairo yesterday:

The journalist’s job is to convey information. Sometimes that means being in places they would rather not be. But sometimes the risks are unacceptable. Consider Daniel Pearl,(below, right) the Wall Street Journal South Asia bureau chief who was kidnapped and beheaded by Al-Quaida in 2002. That was to be the wakeup call for news organizations. The moment it was revealed (on video) that Pearl had been executed, media companies should have taken a giant step back and reassessed their risk/benefit ratio. They did not.

Now, it is nine years later and digital communication and online news have progressed at breakneck speed. The competition among media organizations is much more intense now than it was back then. Everyone wants to be first with breaking news, and that translates into more journalists being placed in high risk areas and dangerous situations. One is not surprised to see Christine Amanpour (below, left) on the ground in the middle of the Egyptian violence. But Katie Couric? Come on. One is not surprised to see Anderson Cooper surrounded by enraged militants as he has been so many times in his career. But now that he has experienced being punched in the head multiple times, does CNN perhaps see a reason for some guidelines related to reporting from violent locations? My guess is that nothing will change.

Not convinced? As I am writing this piece, the Washington Post just reported this:

“We have heard from multiple witnesses that Leila Fadel, our Cairo bureau chief, and Linda Davidson, a photographer, were among two dozen journalists arrested this morning by the Egyptian Interior Ministry. We understand that they are safe but in custody and we have made urgent protests to Egyptian authorities in Cairo and Washington. We've advised the state department as well.”

It is also reported the Sufian Taha, a translator working with Fadel and Davidson has been detained.

Fadel, Taha and Davidson are not human rights workers. They are not political activists. They are not soldiers. They are communicators who the Post feels confident enough in to place them in highly responsible positions. Those positions should never compromise their lives. Never.

And there’s more: Also while I am writing this blog post, it is reported that Anderson Cooper was attacked again. He tweeted: "Situation on ground in #egypt very tense. Vehicle I was in attacked. My window smashed. All ok." And yet CNN sees fit to allow him to remain in the danger zone. Unacceptable. And how interesting that a visit to CNN’s web site reveals nothing about Anderson Cooper being attacked yesterday or today. Could it be that CNN is embarrassed that is allowed one of its own to be put in harm’s way?

I see it this way: There is no nobility in deliberately placing strong, competent communicators in harm’s way. Reportage and video footage should never be life and death situations. I believe the Wall Street Journal, for example, has blood on its hands over the Pearl execution. As much as I respect Anderson Cooper’s courage, I believe CNN needs to reign him in a bit, for the sake of his life. In my gut, I just know that some years from now we are all going to look back on these pioneer days of online journalism and see how truly chaotic it was. These things have a way of balancing out over time, but right now we’re deep in the wild, wild west mode of reporting, and lives have already been sacrificed.

What will it really take for news organizations to place emphasis on the safety of reporters? If an Al-Queda operative holding Daniel Pearl’s head up for the cameras in 2002 did not cause any significant change in the industry, I am not optimistic about the near future of reporting. Once news reporting becomes as life-altering as police work or soldiering, the very essence of journalism has been sullied. I’m sorry to see it.