As parents, we see this as a terrible example to society –
especially children. Even people, from
the person who did something unpristine to the sex offender who is sick, to the
hardened criminal who is choosing to hurt others, an attack of hate and fear is
not deemed to be helpful by the criminal justice system or the therapeutic
community. In fact most probation and
parole officers are actually trained counselors – armed with goals to insure
that the punishment that is afforded by our constitution and laws, is adhered
to but as well that offenders are brought back into society when possible to
become productive. We would never teach
our children, to do what Mike Beaudet does, to children who break the rules of
a school, so why would we tolerate a grownup doing so?
The behavior, tone, choice of questions and unfair cornering
of interviewees always present a skewed set of sound clips, that are more
representative of power, intimidation and professionally staged bullying – than
of news.
In a classic do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do, Beaudet
exemplifies behavior that none of us would want our kids mimicking or growing
up to imitate. Sneaking into schools,
jumping out from hidden places to surprise people, creating embarrassing or
unrepresentative film clips to later humiliate someone – just to name a few –
are not qualities which we would want our children to imitate, no less the
young journalists of the future. As we
look at the non-partisan committee on Presidential Debates (http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=2012-2)
, we see a selection of some of the nation’s top journalists, all of whom are strong, in-depth and persistent
interviewers, yet none of whom seems to need to ambush, interrupt, imbalance or
skew facts in their normal jobs to be successful. And what is most notable, is how – when faced
with having to moderate the President of the United States and a prominent and
powerful running opponent, they cannot and do not rely on the backing of their
parent company – but only on their skills of diplomacy and communication. This is a claim that Mike Beaudet cannot
make.
We do not want to present this site as anti-Fox, as some of
us (though not all) believe that there are aspects of Fox Corporation which are
very good. However, there is agreement
among us that there are social and psychological ramifications to the networks
constant barrage of sensationalism, fear, dissention and polarization – all
things which seem to be exemplified in the reporting of Mike Beaudet. In the Journal: Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An
International Journal, Mary E. McNaughton-Cassill published her work THE NEWS
MEDIA AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS, following the links between news media and
stress. And while we believe that adults
need media to be informed about the world around them there are actually
studies which have shown that consumers of Fox News are less informed overall,
than those who do not consume news. And
the consumption of news, particularly the version churned out by Fox Undercover
is not one which we believe is either helpful or safe for our young people to
consume.
Our opinion is that when news constantly produces
discontent, fear, scapegoats and misinformation, that people lose sight of
dignity, hope and opportunity. None of
us debate that there are problems in society to report on, but our message to
our children is that you can bring about change and improvement to the
world. Instead of teaching them who in
their school to hate, we teach them to work with others, learn about
differences, and to stand up for universal good. We empower our children to find productive
and civilized solutions to problems. And
to this end, we strongly disagree with Fox 25’s use of the airwaves around
Boston to promote Fox Undercover and its lynch man Mike Beaudet. We feel that they are taking advantage of the
freedoms of the press to promote their local news, at great expense to Boston
area communities, lowering the bar on news, on television and on the lingering
hope that our media culture may not degrade any further than it already has.
Mr. Beaudet, according to one of his former
students at a local university, indicated that one of the greatest pieces of
advice that he was given was to never give up.
And generally, this is a positive attribute, whether fighting against
adversity in one’s life, challenging a crippling disease or trying to find
happiness in life. However, when one’s
job is pursuing other people, when one might not always actually be right, have
been given the right tip, and when the consequences can be damage to that person
and to communities, never giving up just might become dangerous. Do we want to send a message to our children
to never give up, in situations like this?
Or do we want our children to be able to differentiate from areas where
you should always keep trying and areas where it is ok to move on. A divorced woman, who still loves her
ex-husband, has to move on when her ex gets remarried. Someone who insists on having a job in
Boston, after years of not working, just might have to move out of state if
that’s what it takes to feed their family.
Inflexible blanket philosophies can become dangerous and
counterproductive, and we question whether this message needs to be tempered
with critical thinking and self evaluation.Recently, another student of Mike Beaudet from Emerson, posted a very positive review of the reporter. The problem is that we could not find any trade of the course (JRNL1150) that Beaudet was allegedly so wonderful at teaching in the Emerson catalogue. As best as we could find online, Beaudet is one of many instructors in into level courses only.
No comments:
Post a Comment