The Big Story: Students Are Lazy Whiners.

A BUCKS COUNTY high school teacher was suspended for comments she made about students on her personal blog, during her personal time. Is this a punishable offense?

Philadelphia Magazine reports this:

Her post titled “If You Don’t Have Anything Nice To Say…” is long gone, but according to archived versions, Munroe described how, for some kids, her “scornful feelings reach such a fever pitch.” She also daydreamed about what she wished she could write on her students’ report cards, including such eloquent bon mots as “shy isn’t cute in 11th grade; it’s annoying,” “dresses like a streetwalker,” “sneaky, complaining, jerkoff,” “lazy asshole,” and my personal favorite from the honors English teacher, “rude, beligerent [sic], argumentative fuck.”

The article continues by arguing that this isn't a First Amendment, freedom of speech situation:

For anyone trying to spin this as an attack on free speech, don’t get it twisted. Just as you have the right to tell your boss he’s a soulless bastard, he has every right to fire you on the spot. Some professions are held up to higher standards—police, doctors, and right up there at the top, educators. They are caretakers, and there is a trust factor that comes with the gig. When Munroe used her blog to trash her students, she broke that trust.

What do you think? Should she be fired?

Is this even a news story? Or is it simply a controversial subject that gets attention? Is this a distraction from the real story - that, perhaps, there are situations that need to be addressed in the education system?

Bob Edwards: "I Like to Learn Things."

BOB EDWARDS ATTENDED college during the tumultuous 1960s, the politically-charged era when young people took to the streets and called for change.

"I wanted to be a part of the events but not a participant," Edwards said in class yesterday.

So after serving in the military, he embarked on a radio career that landed him in the radio hall of fame. After 30 years at NPR, he now does his daily interview show on Sirius XM satellite radio, which reaches more than 20 million subscribers.

His passion for radio actually began when he was only 3, as a child in Kentucky listening to radio stations from far off places like Cincinnati.

As a young professional journalist, he mimicked his radio heroes like Edward R. Murrow.

"In my early days at NPR," Edwards said, "I sound like I'm sitting on an object."

A colleague told him to loosen up, to just be himself.

While he honed his presentation style, he continued to believe in Murrow's methods - investigate stories, understand them, reach conclusions and present that educated analysis to the audience with accuracy and fairness, but not necessarily with balance.

"Balance means that a liar gets the same amount of air time as a truth-sayer," Edwards said.

Here are a few other things that stood out to me from his visit:

• "The MOST IMPORTANT thing in any form of journalism is writing," he said.
• He prefers the Associated Press' style of detachment in journalism, rather than the opinionated information that is becoming popular today. "What do you learn by consistently going to someone with the same point of view as yours?" Edwards asked. "There are no surprises. I don't learn anything."
• Edwards does not have an angle. He says he would not be accepted by the liberals or conservatives.
• On his program, he can cover anything he wants (as opposed to his NPR days when he focused on topics in the news).

• He's a big fan of the Daily Show, Stephen Colbert and The Onion.
• He says it's important to recognize that they are not news. At the end of the day, those outlets are going for ratings. "They are doing it for laughs, not news," Edwards pointed out.
• He said the difference between reporters and bloggers is that reporters make phone calls (to verify information) whereas bloggers make conclusions (not necessarily based upon facts).

• Edwards chooses his story subjects based upon his interests. "I like to learn things," he said. "I don't have to do the news. I do what needs to be enlightened upon, what needs to be illuminated."
• He does massive amounts of preparation for every interview.

• There will always a future for radio, as radio keeps reinventing itself.
• He said that you should make contacts, do internships and hang out at outlets you aspire to work for. "There's no substitute for meeting people," he said.

What stood out for you?

(Big thanks to Windsor Johnston, news director at WRTI, for setting up the visit and leading the discussion.)

Bob Edwards: Journalists "Are Supposed To Be Surrogates For The Public."

BOB EDWARDS HOSTED shows on National Public Radio for more than 24 years, garnering more than 13 million listeners per week by the end of his tenure there.

In 2004, he was demoted from host to correspondent, under controversial circumstances (one website believes that Edwards was punished for his criticism of the government, and more specifically, the FCC's deregulation of media ownership ... more on that below).

Listeners were really upset. Within two months after Edwards was taken off the anchor desk, NPR received more than 35,000 complaints via letters, emails and phone calls.

A few months later, Edwards took his talents to satellite radio.

On Sirius XM Radio's “The Bob Edwards Show," Edwards performs long-form, in-depth interviews with authors, politicians, journalists, celebrities and other people relevant to the news of the day.

Shortly after creating his new show, Edwards was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame.

In addition to being a radio host, Edwards has written two books - Fridays with Red, and Edward R. Murrow and the Birth of Broadcast Journalism.

Here are a few of the statements Edwards made in a commencement speech he gave at the University of Kentucky in 2003, when he made remarks this website alleges may have ended Edwards' time at the government subsidized NPR:

• "No one can be blamed these days for not knowing what passes for a news program or who might be a legitimate journalist. The old rules have been tossed out the window. The definitions have no meaning anymore. There used to be lines no serious journalist ever crossed. Those lines are pretty blurry these days. Television hires political operatives and makes them anchors. CNN got one of its anchors from the cast of "NYPD Blue."

• "The owners of today's media, who are business tycoons, not journalists, would like us (journalists) to be good representatives of the corporate brands. But that is not our job. We are supposed to be surrogates for the public -- the eyes and ears of citizens who don't have the access we have. We are to hold public officials to account, and if that makes them angry at us -- well, that just goes with our job, and we have to take it. If pointed questions make public officials squirm -- well, that just goes with their job, and they're supposed to take it. That's the price that comes with the privilege of serving the people."

• "Public officials are measured by how well they perform in times of crisis. If they can't take the heat, they should be in another line of work. It should be the same way with journalists."

(Photo via PBase)

Should Google Get the Photojournalism Prize?

PHOTOGRAPHER MICHAEL WOLF recently received an honorable mention award from the World Press Photo competition. His winning entry was titled, "A series of unfortunate events."

Each of the 12 images in the collection (including the image above) are photographs that Wolf shot while aiming his camera at his computer screen while browsing Google Street View images.

Does Wolf deserve recognition for this work? Or should Google claim credit and the photojournalism prize?

Many people, by the way, are finding striking images created by the Google cameras roaming the streets. Does that make them artists?

Should Private Lives Be Public Fodder?

FORMER PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR Ed Rendell and his wife, US Appellate court judge Midge Rendell, have separated.

Is that news? Front page news, above the fold?

For years, rumors of infidelity have swirled around the former governor, who served two terms as mayor of Philadelphia. Should those rumors be brought to light as word of the Rendell split spreads?

Should the media report the rumors?

Are the private lives of public officials (or former public officials) newsworthy?

Is this a distraction from news that impacts the citizens of Pennsylvania, like the pending budget cuts that are about to be announced (because of the budget cuts, your tuition may skyrocket)?

Or is this information that people need and want?

Is the Lack of Diversity Vanity Fair's Fault?

IN 2010, VANITY Fair magazine's Hollywood issue featured a bevy of white actresses on the cover (see below). And the magazine took hell from pundits across the country who complained that the magazine ignored a wealth of minority talent.

This year, the magazine ran a cover image featuring two African American actors among the 15 stars. People are still complaining (They are asking: "Are there no Hispanic or Asian actors or actresses worth featuring?").

Does a nationally distributed magazine have a responsibility to be diverse? Or should they profile whomever they feel is among the best rising talents?

Is it the magazine's fault if Hollywood is not promoting African-American or other minority actors?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)