PressEthic

I recently read an article published in the "am New York" that discussed President Bush calling Foley's "acts disgusting" that I found really interesting. The coverage of this scandal is being approached from the angle that no one really new that these types of activities were going on with Foley and congressional pages. The media is almost portraying the account like its something that representatives in the House wasn't fully aware of, when in fact, I'm sure the topic was one that had been whispered and gossiped about for quite some time now. According to the article, Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, said he first learned of the approaches in late September.

In yesterday's "Daily News," I read an artcile that reminded me that racial profiling is still an issue that's alive and well. The article, "Cops: We were told to profile," discusses how an order was given to stop and frisk all black men at a robbery-plagued Brooklyn subway station. Captain Michael Vanchieri, commander of Brooklyn Transit District 30, told his officers to stop and firsk all black men becuase the descriptions of the suspects "vaired a lot." Ironically enough, NYPD is the only major police department in the country that has supoosedly banned profiling. This article recieved little to minimal coverage and I feel its pretty significant news. The article was placed directly above a loose dentures and viagra ad. Let me know if you guys saw the article and your opinions on it.

I read an extremely interesting article in yesterday's Am News Local section that discussed Queens being the only U.S. county where blacks out-earn whites in yearly income. The thing that I found so interesting was the biased nature in which the article was placed. The article was placed at the very bottom on the opposite side of the local section. What made the placement biased, to me, was that on the front page it had a large picture of rap artist, DMX, accounting a woman being injured during his concert. Why wasn't the article about Queens placed on the front page of the local section? That article,had way more depth

After reading an article in today's Daily News about "Hiliary hitting the Bush team yet again," I'm convinced that it's the media's goal to portray Hiliary and Bill Clinton as two 'heated' individuals constantly in opposition of the Bush administration. Notwithstanding this argument, the article says things like, "The White House and Clinton have traded 'barbs' since her ex-President husband 'erupted' in a figer-jabbing tirade." This statment is one that drips with media bias. The whole premise of the article was essentially focused around the Clinton's oppositions, or faults in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Yesterday I read an article in the Daily News about FDNY firefighter, Rick Fowler, who worked at ground zero after the attacks and is now of welfare. I was disturbed about the angle in which the media decided to cover this topic. In the article, the Daily News decided to interview other firefighters who were in the same state of desperation instead of directly attacking the reason at hand. According to the Daily News, "Fowler, who needs nine medications to get through his days, was denied because he had resigned rather than retired." Why didn't the reporters interview the head officials at the FDNY regarding why he would have to be retired to get any type of medical assitance? Fowler, in many ways, is one of the heroes who saved many lives during the attacks and this is the thank you he recieves? If this isn't news, I don't know what is.

As I was reading "AM New York" on my train ride from Harlem, I was thoroughly impressed with Venzeuelan President, Hugo Chavez, and his brash, stark statements directed toward President Bush in a speech to the United Nation yesterday. According to "AM New York," Chavez stated, "The devil came here yesterday. . .the podium still smells of sulfur still today." (ha!) I appreciate Chavez stating the obvious. According to the article, Chavez feels like the Bush administration imposes its will on the world through wars in places from Iraq to Lebanon. I don't care what anyone else thinks, Bush has not only done that, but has continued to target Muslim people in this ongoing "war on terrorism." Oh, I can't forget to comment on the most depressing part of the article.

I just read an interesting article in the "New York Times" that discusses an age-old law in India that maybe largely responsible for its #1 or #2 ranking of infected persons with AIDS or H.I.V. According to "The New York Times," Indian goverment has a 145-year old law entitled Section 377, which prohibits gay sex, more specifically, 'carnal itercourse against the order of nature with man, woman or animal.' "Independent India" stated that the law "has no good purpose. . .and has been used to systematically persecute, blackmail, and arrest and terrorize sexual minorities." My question to you guys is "Do you feel like this law is the reason why India's H.I.V.

For all of your writers who missed the entertainment news of last week, let me just inform you that freedom of speech is still alive whether its publicized or not. At last week's MTVs Video Music Awards emcee Mos Def was arrested for what is reported as "disorderly content." According to "Trace Magazine," the wordsmith pulled up to Radio City Music Hall uninhibitidly jeering his politcally fused "Katrina Clap," which targets President Bush and his pathetic response in assiting the hurricane katrina victims. What is especially interesting about the article is that his appearance was unplanned and not approved by memebers of the MTV staff. My question is "Why did no one really hear about this event?" It definately wasn't in any newspapers and surprisinly wasn't covered by BET (go figure). Nevertheless, is news like this not news? Is their a codebook of what makes political news notworthy? Was it not covered because he was a hip-hop artist? Let me know what you guys think? Would it have been different if Beyonce serenaded us with the same song and dance as Mos Def. . would the media have covered it more?