Perhaps, that statement should now be the guiding principle of the American media. Perhaps, that statement should be added to the principles in the so-called “Code of Ethics” that some journalists may consult on occasion.

What prompts that suggestion is the media circus that is running agog in that small town in Connecticut, following yet another “senseless” mass killing.

Since Congress is too cowardly––or is it the lust of its Members for the money from the gun lobby?––to do anything about the easy access to deadlier and deadlier penis extensions, and since the illiterates on the Supreme Court have decreed that it is every American’s right to own penis extensions and go around killing people, perhaps the media should look within itself and adopt a simple policy: “Do not publish or broadcast the name of the mass-killer.”

What we have learned from the long series of mass-killings is that inadequate nobodies have acquired penis extensions and have suddenly become important people with the power to destroy the lives of other people. Invariably, they also choose to take their own lives, knowing that the media frenzy will publicize their name and achievement, and these once inadequate nobodies will now be somebodies.

But, if the media does not use their names––referring to them as “the murderer” or “the killer”––other inadequate nobodies will see that they, too, will die an unidentified death. This means, of course, that the media does some self-censorship. It means, also, of course, that they don’t interview family members, neighbors, classmates, etc. “X-number of people were killed by someone who shall remain nameless,” should be the report’s head-line, with the barest of details as to where, when, and possibly, how.

The more the media feeds what it perceives is the public’s appetite––the more it learns about the mental state of the mass-murderer––the more it will feed the gun lobby’s obscene claim that “guns don’t kill, people do,” and, thus, makes it easier for the gun lobby to prevent any controls.

We don’t need to know what passed for thinking by the mass-killer. It is enough to know that he used military-style automatic weapons.

We don’t need to know that the mass-killer had an unhappy childhood. It is enough to know that he used military-style automatic weapons.

We don’t need to know that the mass-killer has mentally deranged. It is enough to know that he used military-style automatic weapons.

We don’t need to know “why.” It is enough to know “that.”

Of course, it is people who kill. But it is hardly likely that a killer will be a “mass” killer if his weapon is a nail-studded baseball bat.

If the mass-killer is caught (rather than a suicide), there will be a problem, but it can still fit nicely in the above-stated approach, in that the capture of the mass-killer can be reported, but not his name and not his photograph. This can be extended even through his trial, though his defense attorney will try to get publicity––and, thus, leniency––for his client by showing that the “alleged” killer’s father once denied him an ice-cream cone and that affected the “alleged” killer’s mind. And, so on, with the tripe that defense attorneys bring forth in order to make their own names.

True, there will probably be a news outlet somewhere which will think it beneficial to use the mass-killer’s name and photo and background in order to make gains in listenership and readership over its rivals and competitors. With time––and luck––these few media outlets will be in the minority and may also join the majority.

Suffice it to repeat that he public really doesn’t need to know the names of these inadequate nobodies who have acquired penis extensions and have murdered innocent people, and the media should feel confident in not reporting any names.

Denying the killers the oxygen of publicity they seek may contribute to the reduction of mass-killings. Otherwise, if the public depends on the politicians to protect society, these mass killings will continue.

The media must not assume that because it may interest the public the news report is in the public’s interest.

During the yearlong curriculum, students will be challenged in their English Language Arts classes with new material and educational approaches with the goal of keeping students engaged and giving them the tools to produce remarkable work. See the attached document for a fuller description of the program and how volunteers will help make that happen through reviewing and guiding student work.

Participants can sign up for any and all of the five units that they are qualified and interested in, which will occur throughout the current academic year. Please share this information with anyone in your personal and professional networks that might be interested.

If you have any questions or would like to sign up to be a Project Mastery volunteer, please contact Stephanie Strockis atsstrockis@pyninc.org or 267-502-3787.

Unless I am mistaken, they are “goodies” (fighting the “baddies”) and are “freedom-fighters” seeking to get rid of a dictator (when did he become a dictator? by the way) and bring democracy to their country.

No one, it seems, reports that they are criminals and gangsters who resort to kidnapping (unless “goodies” are permitted to resort to heinous crimes because we say that they are “goodies”).

This was brought home to me when I received a report from an Armenian news source that the son of a well-to-do Aleppo Armenian family has been kidnapped and is being held ransom by the “rebels.” The report indicated that kidnapping for ransom is not new with the “rebels”––”…recently the kidnappings have become frequent…. They usually kidnap members of well-provided families in order to demand a ransom.”

If it isn’t “new,” why hasn’t it been reported––and reported more often? Could it be that our media still sees itself as the cheerleaders for the administration (whether Repugnant Party or Dummycrat Party) when it decides to make intrusions into the internal affairs of other countries? It would appear that the cheerleading media learned no lessons from the lies told by one of our presidents about all those weapons of mass destruction we would be finding all over Iraq, when it undertook that glorious adventure.

Reading between the lines and reading some foreign sources, it would appear that the winner between America and Iraq is Iran. But, I digress.

According to Washington, and repeated by the cheerleaders, Iraq is better off today than under Saddam even though, for instance, there still isn’t 24-hour electricity, some streets are open sewers, and corruption exists. But from these foreign reports, for instance, I learn that more than half the Christians of Iraq (who had a good life under Saddam) have fled the country, and local Imams have now instituted a “tax” on the remaining Christians for the “right to live in a Muslim country.” And, some Imams have told Christian fathers that they must marry their daughters to Muslims, which may explain why those Christians with children are fleeing Iraq.

I asked the question (above) when Assad became a “baddie”? Permit me to expand that question: “When did the recently fallen dictators became dictators or, more accurately, “baddies”? After all, for years and years America had been getting into bed with the dictators of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and now Syria, and had been providing them with money and arms and who knows what else.

At no time did I read or hear of America saying to these leaders, “Ease up a bit; give the people some rights; win elections by 60 to 40 and not 99 to 1 so that the people think they are having a say; don’t put all the money we send you into foreign bank accounts, spend a couple of dollars on the people.” Etc.

But, when their subjugated people rise up, suddenly America joins in and says that it supports the “rebels” because “we want to bring democracy” to those countries–when we didn’t give a Yankee-Doodle-damn about the lack of democracy the day before the uprisings.

Does the word “hypocrisy” come to mind?

But, what is the excuse for our media? Why has it abdicated its role to ask “Why?”? Why does it not ask the President or the Secretary of State, “Didn’t you tell us, last week, that [name the dictator] was such a good man and that we were going to send him more money? So, when did he became bad?”

Does the word “sycophant” come to mind? Or, are the more-accurate words “incompetent” and “lazy”?

The bill describes a “covered person”—one subject to detention—as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported [terrorist forces] or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the country, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

The bill, however, does not define the terms “substantially supported,” “directly supported” or “associated forces.”

Once a group is deemed to be a terrorist organization, the military can under this bill pick up a citizen who supported charities associated with the group or unwittingly sent money or medical supplies to front groups.  Now the members of these organizations can be treated like card-carrying “terrorists” and can be detained.

On the whim of the military, a suspected “terrorist” can suffer extraordinary rendition—being kidnapped and then left to rot “until the end of hostilities.”

Dissent is increasingly equated with treason.

Fear is the psychological weapon of choice for totalitarian systems of power. Make the people afraid. Get them to surrender their rights in the name of national security. And then finish off the few who aren’t afraid enough.

They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.

What country are we talking about?

Is it one of the African dictatorships? No.

Is it one of the Muslim dictatorships? No.

Is it our loyal ally and friend Turkey (which already has more journalists in jail than any other country in the world, including China and Iran)? No, but you are getting close.

It is Turkey’s loyal ally and close friend, the United States of America. After all, Turkey dictates policy to Washington, so why shouldn’t Washington pick up some of Turkey’s approach to freedom and criticism and free speech and other ridiculous concepts that our Founding Fathers though so important that they drafted something called the Constitution to list and enshrine those freedoms.

If there has been an uproar and a huge hue and cry in our media, against the measure, I have missed it. But, as I point out often, I don’t read every newspaper and news magazine, I don’t watch every news program on television, I don’t listen to every talk-radio program in the country.

I dare say that if our media can draw its attention away from celebrities and what they are doing or not doing or what they are wearing or not wearing or whom they are marrying or not marrying and what they are doing on the red carpet, perhaps they might think about about what is really happening in this country.

Of course, we can’t expect much from the dog-and-pony act that calls itself the Repugnant Party primaries. It is too busy appealing to the knuckle-dragging retards who will welcome the recently passed bill, when they learn to read and if the media gets around to reporting what has happened.

I sometime think that if I were to see the day when our media returns to its Constitutionally-mandated role as adversary of government, I will be the oldest person in this world.

—

I am indebted to Chris Hedges of “Truthdig” who has done his best to alert America to a real danger.

Admittedly, I have not read every newspaper and news magazine in the country, nor have I watched every news program on television, nor have I listened to every news broadcast and talk-radio program in the country, so it is possible that one or more journalists have raised or otherwise commented on some of the “news” items that have intrigued or interested me–or, downright vexed me.

Historians should also start using it.

Just as “genocide” is “the deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular ethnic group or nation,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary, “vericide” (not in any dictionary, yet) is “the killing of truth.”

It is common knowledge that the coinage of the word “genocide” had its genesis with the events of 1915 to 1923 in the Ottoman Empire when the Turks conceived, planned, and executed the attempted complete destruction of the Armenians––followed by that of the Assyrians and the Pontic Greeks.

When asked what he meant by the word that he coined, Rafael Lemkin (who lost 47 members of his family in the genocide of the Jews in World War Two) said “What the Turks did to the Armenians and what the Nazis did to the Jews.”

What may not be common knowledge is that the Genocide of the Armenians spawned another word: “Democide.” Its creator, political scientist R. J. Rummel, defines it as “murder by government.”

It follows, of course, that if a nation commits a genocide it is, indeed, murder by government. After all, who but a government can plan the death of a people in varying degrees of detail and then make available all the agencies of the country to execute those plans? But, it is the word “genocide” that caught on, and is now in general use.

I would like to claim the coinage of that word “vericide.” I cannot. It was created by my late brother, Aram, just a couple of years before his death in 2003, who was thoroughly disgusted as Turkey and her apologists continue to deny the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.

By the way, what is so fascinating about the denial–the vericide––by the Turks is that the Turks instinctively associate themselves with the words “Armenian Genocide” whenever they are written or uttered. By their reaction, the Turks are accusing themselves. There does not have to be the additional words “. . .by the Turks” for them to protest.

We saw it with the 11-word French statement [“France Recognizes the Genocide of the Armenians in World War One”] that aroused the anger of the Turks (in 2000), although that statement did not mention Turkey, and we saw it also not too long ago with the nine-word statement “To the Victims of the Armenian Genocide of 1915”] etched on the khatchkar [a traditional Armenian “stone-cross,” somewhat like the Celtic Cross] in the memorial in Cardiff, Wales––which was destroyed by “vandals.” And, as I write this, we are seeing it again as the French Assembly is debating whether or not to make denial of the Armenian Genocide (not, please note, the punishment of Turkey) a crime, as is the denial of the genocide of the Jews––the Turks are getting their undergarments into an uncomfortable twist and are blustering and bluffing and threatening.

A Frenchman ignorant of his country’s history could assume that it was the French who committed the genocide of the Armenians and were only now, belatedly, acknowledging the fact. And a Welshman ignorant of his country’s history would assume that it was the Welsh who produced the “victims” in 1915 and were only now belatedly acknowledging the fact. Yet, with no reference to Turkey, the Turks mount demonstrations, bluster, and try blackmail. They know full well that “Armenian Genocide” and “Turkey” are opposite sides of the same coin––whether that coin be Genocide or Democide.

But, enough of history, present and past. Let us now add an important word to our vocabularies in the defense of The Truth: Vericide.

However, vericide can apply to other matters. Such as, for instance, when a president lies about his reason for invading another country, and then defends the action by destroying the truth. Instead of some journalists––for that is the audience for this essay––pointing to a naked emperor, they should be shouting “vericide.”

We are now at the mid-beginning (is that possible?) of a presidential campaign with 11 more months to come and, it can be as certain as little boys with sleds will come out after a snowfall, there will be many attempts at vericide by candidates, nominees, and their cohorts. We have had enough sad experiences, lately, to know that being polite and respectful to authority serves no useful purpose. When the Iraqi women didn’t throw rose petals at the feet of our advancing servicemen, and fathers did not offer their virgin daughters to the servicemen, remember how the journalists (and, of course, politicians) who had been cheerleaders for the war suddenly began to “Yes, but” their way into the truth?

Now, with the introduction of the word, it should be easy to say and print “vericide,” and let the liars defend themselves from the start.

For too long have we seen and heard politicians toying with the truth and, when caught out, listening to them or their staff explaining the insult as “mis-spoke” or some other euphemism meaning, “Ouch, I didn’t think I would be caught.” When it is a blatant lie, it is vericide. The word sounds impressive enough to carry more weight than “lie.”

Do all the countries that have flag-burning mobs also have shops that sell “Flags for Burning”?

Is there an international company that has salesmen traveling the world selling flags of all countries?  And, to whom do they sell–governments or individuals?  And, which country’s flags do they sell?  Or, do they sell a complete set of all 192 countries?

Do the countries that always seem to have “spontaneous” demonstrations, therefore, also have a stockpile of foreign flags to provide the “spontaneous” demonstrators?  Or, do they depend on individual merchants who have the supply of flags?

Of course, it is possible that countries that always have “spontaneous” protests have their own, indigenous, flag-manufacturing industry.  But, surely, they most have outlets.

In any case, shouldn’t the journalists covering these demonstrations comment on where the flags came from?

Today, for instance, one country will burn American flags. Tomorrow, it may be Israeli flags.  Surely the “man on the street” who is protesting has not been buying flags from America or Israel.  Who is doing business selling these flags?

(The very astute investor monitors the daily reports of the Baltic Dry Index, which shows the movement of shipping containers around the world because these movements indicate the strength of the world economy–plenty of movements, business is good; a drop in movements, business is bad. The index indirectly measures global supply and demand for the commodities shipped aboard dry bulk carriers. Because dry bulk primarily consists of materials that function as raw material inputs to the production of intermediate or finished goods. The index is also seen as an efficient economic indicator of future economic growth and production. In effect, it predicts future economic activity. Recently, I was told that earlier this year there was a significant up-tick in movements, hence–he concluded–a good Holiday-season trade.)

Perhaps someone should check on the world-wide activities of flag-makers and their shipments.  If Country X is seen to be buying an extraordinary amount of Country Y’s flags, it could be that demonstrations will be coming soon.  After all, what good is a ”spontaneous” protest if you don’t burn a flag or two?  Keeping track of the buying of flags may also indicate where the next hot-spot will be.

It is possible that international arms dealers offer a crate of flags with their orders, as an inducement to buy from them? “With every order for 1000 ground-to-air missiles, we will give you 100 flags of your choice.”

But, enough of this frivolity.

All of which suggests that when there are demonstrations in the streets of foreign countries, and the target is another country, journalists should ignore the goings-on. Reporting on Country X’s demonstration against Country Y is only supporting X’s anti-Y campaign.

Come to think of it. Do the increasingly tough sanctions on Iran include restrictions on the sale of American and Israeli flags?

Instead of coming East from his home in San Francisco, Saroyan “reviewed” the play as he imagined it would be performed.  LIFE ran the review, which (like G. B. Shaw’s Prefaces) reflected Saroyan’s philosophy of life as well as re-telling the story of the play.

On April 27, there was a panel discussion, “Fair and Balanced?” presented jointly by the SPJ and the Philadelphia Public Relations Association. Since virtually everything that was said was inaudible (when will panelists learn to speak to the microphones and not turn their heads to speak to each other?), I am going to take the Saroyan approach to reviewing the discussions.

However, the panelists and moderator will be unnamed, but their titles will suffice.  The moderator is editor of a magazine; the panelists are the managing editor of a local newspaper, the CEO of a public-relations firm, a partner in a law firm, and a news director of a television station.

The title of the panel discussion refers to the trend to opinion in the news rather than giving the facts and enabling the reader or listener or the viewer to make up his mind.  The reasons for the trend include the profusion of electronic toys that enable everyone to be his own expert and tell everyone else that he is, indeed, an expert and is entitled to express his opinion.  This is called  “civilian journalism,” or something equally stupid and inane.

Another problem is the apparent need for “instant” news–”I want to know what happened five seconds ago, not thirty seconds ago.”  Thus, the print media (especially) is fashioning a rod with which to beat its own back by supplying “online” news, therefore reducing the number of people who would wait till the newspaper comes out.  Often, I wonder how I survived not knowing about the bombing of Pearl Harbor until the day after it happened, or the successful invasion of Normandy until the second day?

A third reason is that apparently, somewhere down the line, people have become more stupid and incapable of making their own decisions and forming their own opinions, so the news must be “interpreted” for them.  This is to compete with all the self-declared “experts” who have all the electronic toys and, therefore, can express their views on all subjects, whether or not they have all the facts (or, indeed, any facts!).

So, how is all of this related to the question of “Fair and Balanced”?  In the old days, we who studied journalism (now, of course, it has been elevated to “communications”) at university (I was fortunate to have been taught by ex-newsmen, and not by academics whose acquaintance with newsrooms is watching “All The President’s Men”) were taught that the journalist must gather the who-what-when-where-why-how of any event or “story” before the story could be written, and the (dare I say, “intelligent”?) reader/listener/viewer had enough information to get on with his life.

This training is what the public-relations practitioner must also need to do his job well when he provides that information to the news media or whomever is the target. A topic for future discussion might be how an opinion-filled “press release” is interpreted by an opinion-forming journalist.  But, I digress.

So, is journalism today “Fair and Balanced”?  Newspapers are losing circulation because they apparently have rejected the old idea of fair and balanced.  Television news programs apparently are losing audience because they have rejected the idea of fair and balance.  So, where does the public get its “news.”  When one listens to all the ill-informed comments that are made around the lunch and dinner tables, at parties, in bars, it would appear that “news” is the least thing on peoples’ minds.  It is opinion, and “mine is as good as yours.”

It is apparent that the news media–or most of it, to be more accurate–has abdicated its role in our society  It has willingly helped the hangman place the noose around its neck.  Those with all the electronic toys are the masters now.

And, where does that leave the public-relations practitioner?  Use the toys to get your message (don’t bother with facts, it’s opinion that counts) out to your target audience; the “traditional” media is probably useless.   But, be prepared when some of that target audience target your client or your employer.  How will the practitioner cry “foul” when the concept of “fair” has been killed and buried?  Another topic for discussion?

And, where does that leave the journalist?  Don’t bother with the old 5-Ws-and-H.  Just go to a few like-minded people and get their views and repeat them.  No one out there, apparently, expects “fair” and “balanced” any longer.

For some time, the Fox News Channel has been faulted for not really being a “news” channel–even by those who watch it faithfully. These people want to have their views confirmed.

The subject will be the topic of a program cosponsored by the Philadelphia chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Philadelphia Public Relations Association, on Wednesday, April 27. Watch this site for details.

Meanwhile, it might be worth noting that Media Matters is taking on Fox on this subject, more or less. Media Matters labels itself a “media critic” and not a news organization and, thus, feels it has to challenge those “news” sources that it feels are not what they proclaim to be.

Or, is it a matter of “politics”? In this report, Media Matters states its case.