Michael Vass comments on AP photo of Marine

Dear Readers,

Sometimes being a member of the press sickens me. It happens in times where the press and media reach below the bowels of the lowest common denominator and dredge up muck. We all learned about one such instance when Entertainment Tonight published a photo of the dead body of Michael Jackson on a stretcher as doctors struggled to save his life. I spoke harshly of that decision and those that would benefit from the suffering of a family in a time of grief.

Yet again I find myself having to denounce a decision of another news organization. This time it the Associated Press. Normally this is a news agency of high regard and solid reporting. But I assume that the need to make a profit in a recession exceeded the obvious and declared standards of good taste and respect. Such is the media of today.

The AP published a photo of a Marine, Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, as he was dying from wounds received in a firefight in Afghanistan. This went against the multiple requests of the family NOT to publish this photo.

“Bernard's father after seeing the image of his mortally wounded son said he opposed its publication, saying it was disrespectful to his son's memory. John Bernard reiterated his viewpoint in a telephone call to the AP on Wednesday”

Not only did the AP decide that the wishes of the family were unimportant, they ignored requests via phone and in writing from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Gates directly contacted the president of the AP Thomas Curley in a phone call and then again with a letter that states in part

“Out of respect for his family’s wishes, I ask you in the strongest of terms to reconsider your decision. I do not make this request lightly. In one of my first public statements as Secretary of Defense, I stated that the media should not be treated as the enemy, and made it a point to thank journalists for revealing problems that need to be fixed – as was the case with Walter Reed.

I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family. Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency.”

I believe the wishes of the family should have been respected. I believe that Gate’s request should have been honored. I see no benefit to the stories of Afghanistan, or to history, from the display of the final moments of this Marine. The only attempted result of this picture (that I will never publish) is to create controversy and profit.

Not only did the AP use the death of this Marine, the Buffalo News, (Wheeling, W.Va.) Intelligencer, Akron Beacon-Journal and the St. Petersburg Times all ran the photo. I denounce the use of this photo. I am appalled by decision of the editors of each of these news organization in seeking to gain profit and circulation via profiteering on the death of a Marine and controversy that can only amplify the anguish of the Bernard family.

The Bernard family has my most sincere and deep condolences. Lcpl Bernard gave his life for this country, something I deeply respect and understand. His memory should be honored, not disgraced.

I recommend to all my readers to avoid the AP, Buffalo News, (Wheeling, W.Va.) Intelligencer, Akron Beacon-Journal and the St. Petersburg Times if at all possible. While it cannot right what has been done, perhaps losing the circulation and profits they have held above dignity and respect will prevent another such travesty.

Sincerely

Michael Vass
President - M V Consulting, Inc
info@vassconsult.com

Jackie Chan clarifies his Chinese control statement

As much as I wanted to jump on the story that Jackie Chan believes Chinese people need to be controlled, I just had to wait. There was no question in my mind that the news story had to have more details than what was first stated back on the 18th. And now it seems there is more to it all.

It all started when Jackie Chan was speaking at the Boao Forum. He was discussing censorship and restrictions in filmmaking when he stated

"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said. "I'm really confused now. If you're too free, you're like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic. Chan added: "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."

Now this statement was taken by the AP reporter (William Foreman) to be an affirmation of the communist Chinese Government, or at least that's the tone of his report. And the comments of Chan quoted in that article do tend to support that view, in part. They also go on to make a strong critique of recent debacles in China, like the tainted milk event.

The whole thing left me confused. Was Chan for less democracy? Were his comments about filmmaking just misinterpeted or misquoted? Was Chan upset with the modern Chinese culture?

Of course the international response didn't bother to wonder about these things. The international media focused in on the one line they cared about "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled."

There was outrage as some took his words as to mean that he was calling Chinese people pets, like Hong Kong pro-democracy legislator Leung Kwok-hung

"He's insulted the Chinese people. Chinese people aren't pets. Chinese society needs a democratic system to protect human rights and rule of law."

This of course ignores the harsh denouncement Chan made of the Chinese Government after the Beijing Tiananmen Square event where hundreds of pro-democracy protesters were killed in June 1989.

So it has come to the final point where Jackie Chan had his spokesman clarify things. And like I wondered at the onset, he was taken out of context as his spokesperson stated

"Some people with ulterior motives deliberately misinterpreted what he was saying."

Chan was speaking about the entertainment industry. Just that industry. Which makes sense since that was why he was speaking in the first place, to talk about entertainment. And it makes his comment clearer what he was meaning. But the AP reporter stands by his account and the nature of how he made the quote.

But while Asia is in an uproar I still have to wonder. Chan has made millions because of the freedoms he has enjoyed. Why would someone who can directly tie his success with freedom be against it, especially for his own people? That just doesn't make sense.

Though it makes a lot of sense that a reporter might misquote or misinterpet a comment in a foreign language (I presume Chinese is not Foreman's fist language) that would create lots of coverage and promote a certain political view. It's a trend that we have seen in America since roughly October of 2007 with President Obama.

Even now the media reports on President Obama are short on details, missing the vigorous questioning given to other Administrations, and in some cases blatantly propagandist. Which says nothing of the trend in the mainstream media to become more entertainment oriented as opposed to true journalism.

Did Jackie Chan intend to insult the Chinese people, and support the Communist Government of mainland China? I think not. But that won't stop him from becoming the scapegoat those opposed to those ideals can use to whip up international outrage at China. If this were to destroy the career of Chan, thouse using his words for their own ends won't care. They just want headlines that get their message across.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I am too much of a Jackie Chan fan. Still I think that this is too odd and suspiciously politically adventageous for certain groups. Too bad there seems to be no transcript of the full speech to make this absolutely clear for everyone.

Scam targets grandparents

I wanted to mention a scam that I have just heard about. It’s a scam that targets grandparents. The vultures that do this should be beaten with a stick.

The way the scam goes a grandparent is called with the criminal asking for either grandparent. When they respond who is on the phone the criminal asks them to guess, hoping to get the name of one of the grandchildren. Once a name is offered they assume that as their own.

Then comes the trap. They mention that they are in a location, normally out of the country but not always, and their car has been in an accident. They may or may not be at a police station. But wherever they claim to be, and whatever the reason they ask for a large sum of money, thousands of dollars. They insist that the grandparent not contact the rest of the family – because they are embarrassed about the situation.

The money is to be sent via Western Union or another similar service.

This kind of scam preys on the fact that grandparents love their kids. They rip of the elderly for money that a grandparent might need to live off of but will provide to help a grandchild in need. There is nothing lower than this kind of scum.

For my readers that are older, never volunteer the name of any family member to someone on the phone. Never provide details of your personal information to someone that can’t confirm they are family over the phone, or the internet. Always check with other family members and the police – locally and at the supposed location of the “grandchild”.

These few steps could be the difference between helping a loved one and losing $5,000 or more.

So far this year one grandparent in Missouri was nearly scammed out of $8,000, another grandmother nearly lost $5,000. Luckily they checked with the police, in these cases at Niagra Falls on the Canadian side, and family before sending the money. It’s not known how many grandparents across the nation have received this kind of call and lost money but have yet to report it due to embarrassment.

Please spread the news on this. I don’t know if the major media will cover this, they ignore important news like this regularly. But this is not a made up internet joke. This is real. You can check this news on the Associated Press

Treat her Black, pay $10 million

The police are insane. The TSA has lost control over its employees. The only way to reign in these blatant abuses of our rights is to sue. And the spin goes on and on.

You might have heard of this news story. If you haven’t here it is



This event takes place at Regan National Airport. It happened in February 2007.

Now I’ve seen a couple of versions of this story. The AP story is not the least biased, and I think it represents the general medias feelings best.

Now this is not about a question of rights. It’s not about government intrusion in public places while dealing with public safety. It’s about the media.

Robin Kassner describes the event as “flying”. She compares it to being “beaten up” without knowing why or by whom. The video shows her reaching for something in the bag being searched, and then the cop reacting. They “twisted my arm around, if felt like it was breaking”. “They threw me against the metal table… they took a forearm to my head, they pounded my head into the metal table.”

Listen as the reporter tells how Kassner received a concussion and permanent brain damage.

“Kassner says that doesn’t justify the brutality, … suing for $10 million dollars.”

All in all I have heard several news organizations all tell this story, over a year old, all from the point of view of Kassner. She is the presumed victim. She is the one that was hurt. She deserves (some in the media have stated) to win her case for some if not all the money. I have not seen any single media coverage that does not implicitly side with Kassner and blame the authorities for overreacting.

So why is this a big deal? Because the media is outraged when a White person is treated as if they were Black or in this case Muslim. How dare this be allowed to happen. But what happens when the media reports on a situation that is similar to this one when Blacks are involved?

May 5, 2008 - WTXF news helicopter - Philadelphia

“Like Rodney King, the men once pulled out of the car, are assaulted with extreme prejudice. Not one man in this video is shown resisting.”

Each man in the video is Black, kicked and punched. Each was assaulted by multiple officer after being on the ground. They might have permanent injuries, but you never heard about that in the media. They had their arms twisted, their head beat. They were beaten up en masse.

But where is the media calling for the police department getting sued? Where was the media saying that out of 19 officers on the scene no more than 4 needed to be punished (I do not feel a demotion – 1 - nor temporary suspension – 3 - are penalties) is inexcusable? Where is the indignation, the outrage, the calls for change?

Robin Kussner might have been a terrorist. Thats why she was pulled to have extra screening done at the airport. Alerts at the time stated that terrorists were trying to use liquid explosives, and she was reaching into a bag that was being checked. It could have been a bomb she wanted to set off. The officer was acting to protect all the people in the airport from a possible threat. But the media paints a sympathetic picture for Kassner. She is White after all.

But when Black men are involved sympathy is unnecessary from the media. Any excuse from the police – who ADMITTED this was unnecessary force – is acceptable. No matter how many times this kind of case happens the media fails to connect the dots, though there is no lack in connecting dots to any Republican that has not acted in a liberal manner or for a liberal cause. And there is no timeframe that stops when sympathy should be given to a White that is treated in such a manner.

I don’t care about the legal issue. I do care about the media portrayal and emphasis. But now thay you can see and read the comparison, what will you do? How do you feel?

NASCAR, Mauricia Grant, and my opinion

In the 1920’s the Old South was renown for its relaxed pace of life, good weather, Jim Crow laws, and criminal moonshine bootlegger races. Inbetween the massacre of Rosewood and unknown numbers of lynchings southerners of the time would rally together under the confederate flag to watch the intermittent Sunday races of these speedy criminals. The popularity of these races grew over the decades until in 1947 NASCAR was born.

But the South was unable to captivate the nation with this new sports league as it was busy segregating it’s schools, diners, buses, and life in general. With the Confederate Flag never far the late 50’s and 60’s were filled with Civil Rights protests and marches – and police and firemen using fire hoses and dogs to attack these peaceful demonstrations. And even more lynchings, with an occasional murder of northern White activists.

Then in 1979, after the attention of the nation had been focused on Viet Nam and assumed all the ills of discrimination were absolved by the end of segregation (but not prejudice or discrimination), broadcast television presented the nation a new image of the Old South. In that year the Dukes of Hazzard aired on television.

The Dukes of Hazzard was a mix of old ideas about the South in a more modern package. As I recall the show was as segregated as most all television shows (including the majority of those on-air today) without a single Black character ever crossing the screen. The focus of the show was a family of criminals, moonshine runners, their conflicts with the corrupt but exceptionally familiar authorities, and a NASCAR-esque car featuring the confederate flag. In fact the show was so focused on the car, and the short cutoff jeans of the only female character, that NASCAR grew in attention and prominence.

Jumping forward 3 decades we reach today. A majority of television shows still lack any non-White characters [or present just one so they can claim they are being fair – though I think most cities these shows are based in have more than just the handful of non-Whites the programs insinuate] the Confederate Flag still flies across the South and on government buildings, and NASCAR is more popular than ever. While NASCAR is not directly segregated (there has been African American drivers, and there are non-Whites in the pit crews and support staff) it is blatantly worse than television in its diversity.

Of course many in the South and across the nation would not believe this single northern Black Puerto Rican when I point all this out. God knows they have sent me the letters and comments to tell me so. But then the New York Times, Associated Press, San Jose Mercury News, Fox News and many others presented a news story that goes right to my points.

They all are reporting on a lawsuit by a Black woman that was a former NASCAR official. I say former because when she complained about the sexual and racial and gender abuse and discrimination she was receiving she was fired. Which is against the law and NASCAR rules as I understand.

Mauricia Grant was hired in 2005 to work as a technical inspector on the Nationwide series. In the 22 months that she was employed she was called “Queen Sheba” “Nappy head Mo”, told to hide from the crowds of spectators, called a lesbian, asked to perform sex acts, told she works on “colored people time”, and provided multiple disturbing references to the Klu Klux Klan. That’s just a few of the things she had to deal with. When she filed a complaint, to Nationwide Series director Joe Balash he joined in on the merriment.

Ms. Grant is suing for $225 million.

Of course she will not get that amount. But that is not the issue. Nor is my obvious disdain for the Old South and the romanticized selective rememberances of its past and present. The issue is that in 50 years parts of America have successfully refused to alter their views on human beings. And the nation as a whole willfully accepts this with our collective heads in the sand.

I would like to believe that NASCAR as a whole is not like the allegations that have been leveled against them. I would like to believe that the fans of NASCAR do not share such beliefs. But I am hard pressed to believe that.

Were NASCAR to present the various trophies swaddled in a confederate flag, I would not be surprised. Nor would multitudes of the fans who carry their own flags, cars adorned ala the General Lee (name of the Dukes of Hazzard car), and robed in confederate flags made into shirts, shorts, pants and more. Were NASCAR to have a KKK night, handing out white robes to fans and lighting the track with burning torches, I would be mildly shocked. Not because they did it, but that inevitiably it would be televised. I’m sure some of the NASCAR fans dream of such a night.

I don’t find NASCAR interesting. Because it is a symbol of the Old South and what that factually represents. But fans should wonder about what NASCAR represents today, because the allegations leveled speak to an attitude that is more backward and brain-adled than virtually any stereotype or mockery of the South.