Media matrix and responsible reporting
How many of you watch the news or listen to talk radio? Do you ever consider how a story gets reported, who does the fact finding, and whether or not what you hear is the truth or someone's own version of it?
Media is extremely influential. It can create an atmosphere ripe for discussion or confusion. It shapes perception. The way a story gets reported often depends on who reports it these days. Why? Because media has become steeped in hype and less steeped in journalism.
Media nowadays hardly has substance. In many instance it is all flash. Whoever gets pieces of a story first, puts it out and runs with it. That changes the way the story gets reported. I have been guilty of this in my relaying of different news items on this blog.
Who do I blame for this? Well...bloggers like myself are partially to blame for the media matrix. We are often not journalists, but people with opinions. However, being online and accessible with juicy information gives credence to information we provide, often with little question behind it.
Then I blame people who are not curious. People who do not question what they read, see or hear and just go with it. People who ingest stories and regurgitate them as though they are the gospel truth, without ever questioning the source, are partly to blame.
I also blame those who work in media from news reporters to radio personalities.
Case in point: The PJ Hairston marijuana possession story as relayed by The Drive.
I will set this up this way. I listen to sports radio, while working. It helps me to get through my day as I really think I have adult ADD...if such a thing exists. One program I listen to is a local one called The Drive with Taylor Zarzour and Marc James.
I don't fancy myself a fan, and I have had a couple of unpleasant exchanges with both over stories reported on the air. But, when I forget to switch over to another station after listening to Bustin' Loose with Frank Garcia, of which I am a fan, I get caught up in the matrix of The Drive.
I don't know who these guys are outside of the show, so I'm not going to take anything further than what I hear on the show. Usually Taylor is the more sensible one. He is the Christian family man. Marc is the "wannabe".
Marc reminds me of the rich kid in high school, who wanted to fit in so badly that he bought his friends. People tolerated him being around because he came with perks. He is overwhelmingly annoying and thinks he's "cool" because he has "cool" friends. He is the Justin Bieber of the radio program. He may be nothing like that off air. I have learned that things are not always what they seem in radio.
Then there is Tony "Hitman" Dejacomo, he seems to be the whipping boy on the show as they always throw insults his way. More than likely he is the brainpower of the group, and keeps the show running as the producer. Marc and a guy called QCB always insinuate that Hitman is gay, and pelt him with homophobic insults on a daily basis.
Ironically, when the Roy Hibbert "no homo" story came out, The Drive talked about how Roy should have known better. Let's see, you toss homophobic commentary at your producer every single day, Roy Hibbert says, "no homo", and he's the one in the wrong? Okay... Do I care what they say on the air or what Roy Hibbert says? Not really. I think people should have thicker skin. But don't be a hypocrite.
The biggest issue I have with The Drive is how they talk to callers who disagree with them. They shout them down or hang up on them. They started a thing where the guys tell female callers to go make a sandwich. When guys with no idea about playing sports pontificate on what plays should get called in games they've only sat on benches and watched, never having touched a field of play.
When callers disagree with what they say, The Drive hosts start power tripping and get into their feelings. Marc is especially guilty of this as he talks over everyone. They also have a tendency to become intellectually dishonest.
Which brings me back to the PJ Hairston story. Earlier in the week, the story hit that PJ, a UNC basketball standout (UNC is my alma mater, which is probably why I was sensitive to this story...and why it made me think about how I treat similar stories. When something hits close to home, your perspective changes.), was arrested at a checkpoint in Durham. He was charged with possession of marijuana and driving without a license.
The first day of reporting, The Drive was careful with how it was handled. They did not want to label PJ a thug or reckless or jump to any conclusions. "Everyone has done something stupid as a kid in college..." was the sentiment. Many guys have had trouble with smoking weed and such. That was the first day...
The next day the police report came out and apparently a gun had been retrieved in the arrest along with 43 grams of marijuana. Now all of a sudden PJ was potentially a thug facing a felony charge. What was he doing with a gun? How does a 20 year old rent an SUV? SUVs cost about $180.00 a day to rent. Why did he not have a license on him? Uh oh...sounds like something else is going on here. That's how the story changed in an instant, because the police report said something that may have meant something. Huh?
A caller asked that Taylor clarify what PJ Hairston was actually CHARGED with vs. what the report claims occurred and what they insinuated on air. Why? Because The Drive began this whole segment where callers speculated on how much prison time he could face and other callers started chiming in about how he could be tapped with trafficking and other felonies for having a gun nearby as he committed another crime. (With all of these sleuths and street lawyers, it is a wonder how there is a backlog of cases in court, ain't it? LOL...In all fairness, a local defense attorney called in and cleared up a lot of the nonsense.)
Next thing you know, PJ is labeled an idiotic thug. Huh? Why? Because the police report says... And he's a superstar athlete who should have never been in a car with a gun, says Taylor.
If the day prior it was not a big deal, as iterated by Marc and Taylor, for a kid to smoke weed, and everyone does it...Did anyone ever think that in order to smoke it, these same kids had to go somewhere to buy it? That if you go somewhere to buy marijuana, it may not be safe to go with anything you might get robbed of? It may not be smart to drive your own car? It may not be smart to go without protection?
If you find it is okay to smoke marijuana, then naturally you will find it logical that you'd have to get the marijuana to smoke from somewhere. Even more logical that you'd have to go where drug dealers dwell. Then logic follows that you may have to protect yourself from someone who sells drugs for a living. It is not like you're going to a pharmacy.
This is where I find The Drive to be intellectually dishonest. They VIRTUALLY tell you it is okay to do drugs on one day, but do not follow the logic of what that means. The next day they seemingly try to convince you that more nefarious activities are occurring based on what they read in a police report. Because of that, a pedestrian listener may believe that PJ Hairston is a drug dealer vs a college kid smoking weed.
Let me tell you about police reports. They are not charges. They are not convictions. They are not always accurate. I will give you a perfect example.
I was in a car accident two years ago. A man ran a red light and hit me as I drove through the intersection.
Witnesses stayed and spoke with the police officer. They told him, the man ran the red light and hit me. Did he put that in the police report? No. Now, he did cite the guy and another driver with fault. But he refused to give the guy a citation for running the red light and refused to put in the report that the guy ran a red light.
By refused, I mean...I asked the officer if he would cite the guy. And the officer said to me, "He has already gone through enough. So no, I'm not going to cite him." Meanwhile, unknowingly, I'm standing there with a dislocated rib, strained shoulder and thousands of dollars in car damages. That was the officer's prerogative. An officer does not have to cite you even when you break a law.
As a matter of fact the report from my accident does not even give the witnesses accounts of what happened. It does list them as witnesses. But that's it.
In court, as attorneys, we often break down police reports on several bases. These reports are viewed in evidence as "hearsay within hearsay". You can look that up because I won't go deeply into all of it.
When I tweeted Taylor about his dependency on the police report and how he should be mindful of how his reading of it may be inaccurate and paint PJ Hairston in the wrong light, he was not feeling what I had to say. At all.
Taylor Zarzour
@YBBG_Blog maybe I didn't convey that to you but have hundreds of emails and tweets on this and none like yours.
- @TaylorZRadio it wasn't just me CLEARLY based on the attitude you caught with the guy who pointed out ACTUAL charges vs allegations
- @TaylorZRadio funny because I read police reports for a living
- @YBBG_Blog I think PJ made some bad choices.
- @TaylorZRadio I don't disagree with that. I just wish people would be more careful when it comes to things w/ legal implications
- @YBBG_Blog I'm pretty tired of people blaming the pulpit for how they respond instead of holding people accountable. Lets start there.
- @TaylorZRadio he has to go through the same legal process as Joe Schmoe. So inaccuracies with reporting can damage his process
- @TaylorZRadio if that's what you think, fine. But that's not what I'm doing. Your audience may be a jury pool used to try him
- @TaylorZRadio just be mindful that Joe Schmoe doesn't have a whole radio audience speculating on his case.
- @YBBG_Blog and you should be mindful he's not Joe Schmoe. The star player on one of the best programs should be held to a higher standard.
- @TaylorZRadio okay. You want to be right vs using logic and reason.You got it! Be blessed
- @YBBG_Blog I think I am being realistic and logical. Blessings to you too
What I took issue with is HOW it was reported and HOW people perceived it based on that reporting. The reason why words like "allegedly" and "it has been reported" exist in journalism is because no one knows the truth nor the facts about anything unless they were there.
You do not want to get caught up in relaying allegations as "facts". Because they are two different things. And facts are all that matter in court. However, a person who is truthfully not guilty and factually not guilty may be on opposing sides of judicial outcomes.
Why? Because people view stories through their own biases. What is normal for one person is not normal for the next. What is reasonable for one person is not reasonable for the next. Media influences what is perceived as normal and reasonable. People are biased and hypocritical. And these people end up on juries.
A decent human being knows that and owns it. Other folks claim to be unbiased, and balk at anyone who questions them.
PSA: Smoking marijuana may seem innocuous to you. It is still a crime in many states and all crimes come with additional issues. No one is free of consequences even for doing something that is not a big deal at the time. "Not a big deal" to you could mean "BIG DEAL" to someone making a ruling against you.
Follow @YBBG_Blog on Twitter and use hashtag #YBBGTopic for more interesting discussions.
Check out YBBG on Facebook.
Comments