In the spring of 2003, I was playing basketball for a team in Barcelona, Spain. My brother Dan was living with me; we spent much of my off time scouring the neighborhood fruit stand for the perfect strawberry and wandering the narrow alleyways of the Barri Gotic. In between, we kept in touch with home by way of our email addresses and illegally downloaded episodes of Scrubs.
At that time, the Internet was a friendly add-on to my life, but it hardly dominated my worldview. It was like the Lincoln Logs my brothers and I played with as kids – fun for a while, but eventually it was time to put it all away.
Sometime that spring, pictures surfaced that showed my college basketball coach, Larry Eustachy, posing with college kids at parties. At first, the story was merely amusement. Isn’t this funny?, people thought. A short time later – what seemed like only hours to me – and people were calling for Eustachy’s job. What had initially been viewed as slightly questionable behavior for a middle-aged man turned into an indictment of college athletics, alcohol, and university pay scales.
Eustachy was eventually fired, which probably had more to do with his hefty contract and feuds he’d had with the standing athletic director than people realized. But ostensibly, he was fired for having beers with college students. I was disappointed, so much so that I wrote an editorial defending Eustachy in the Des Moines Register. I hadn’t even liked him that much. But I failed to understand how the same people who had once celebrated Iowa State victories (of which there were many) could justify their vitriol toward a man who’d committed no actual crimes.
Thus, the power of the Internet, I learned then. The benign force that my brother and I used with such glee was the great polarizer. It took stories that weren’t all that important, twisted them, and turned them into tales of woe. Or terror. Or scandal.
News was no longer just news. The old days were gone. It was easy to point at the Internet as the facilitator for this new approach to information. But in actuality, the progression had begun long before.
When I was a child, my parents were told the news by Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw. I don’t remember which because I wasn’t paying that much attention. I was probably being forced against my will to put away the aforementioned Lincoln Logs. What I do remember was hearing “Beirut”, “Nicaragua” and “President Reagan said today that…”
But more than anything, I remember how those words were delivered. The middle-aged man on the screen was stern, but comforting. Like a teacher. Or a well-read uncle. Those news anchors did not editorialize – they provided no hint as to their views on a particular subject. They might have cracked a grin at an entertaining human interest story. But in general, they delivered the news with an even-handed approach.
And, sure, CBS and NBC and ABC had an interest in selling ads during their news half-hours. And the news they chose to share was filtered, limited, and likely given to the viewer with a decidedly pro-America bent. But there was a sense – at least in my still-developing brain – of responsibility to the way the information was delivered. The networks seemed to have called a truce when it came to the news. They seemed to be saying, “We’ll fight over Cheers and The Cosby Show, but let’s try to keep the way we deliver the news reasonable.”
Then, along came cable television and CNN and MSNBC and Fox News. Suddenly, the people delivering the news were saying what they thought about that news. They had to. There was simply too much time to fill. And the viewers – who had long wished that their Brokaws and Rathers and Jenningses would show some emotion – loved it. Stars were created. Ad space was bought. And like the unholy spawn of an orc and a goblin, news as entertainment was born.
Suddenly, the political views of the messenger were just as important as the message. It was no longer enough to report that there had been a bombing on the Gaza Strip – now we needed to know why. And we needed to know it quickly. It didn’t matter that there might not have been a ‘why’ or that the ‘why’ was open to interpretation. What mattered was an answer, and a fast one.
Time went by, the model proved lucrative. Cables were run, computers were linked. The Internet age was upon us. Information, available at the press of a button. Very quickly, those selling that information learned how best to do so. Long, overdeveloped opinions on foreign affairs: Out. Snap judgments on the meaning of a primary poll: In.
At first, it wasn’t so bad. We trusted the names we knew. But eventually, our desire for the sensational took over. Regular news stories were too boring. We were only interested in stories accompanied by bright red graphics that read “BREAKING NEWS”. Those selling the ad space figured out our weaknesses. Everything – steroids in baseball, babies held over railings, the deaths of B-list models – became breaking news.
We thought we knew what we were doing. We could separate reality from fiction, we said. But goddamn, that Wall Street Journal is boring. Summarize for me. Tell me what to think. I don’t have time for all this considered opinion bullshit.
And here we are. We think in sound bites. We process in fragments. Sentences are too long. Read me the headline. On second thought, don’t even read it to me. Just tell me what you thought it said, and I’ll take your word for it.
Which would be fine, except that we aren’t yet equipped for this setup. You see, when those of us who use the Internet most were growing up, we were taught about the power of journalism. We learned that a free press is what keeps the government in check. What keeps corporations from dominating our lives. As kids, we learned how reports on conditions at mental hospitals changed minds. We were taught that The Jungle was more than a story about Lithuanian immigrants. Woodward and Bernstein were the heroes, not Richard Nixon. We were taught that the pen is powerful and that journalists have a noble cause.
Therein lies the problem. We see information presented as news and think, “I should pay attention to this – I’ve been taught that journalists are good and helpful to keeping me safe.” And they are. The problem is that now, those journalists have multiplied. Some of them are doing the good work that journalists do. But more are entertainers in journalists’ clothing. They’re better at figuring out what keeps an audience coming back for more, and not so good at accurately or fully reporting on news stories.
Some say that members of the media have a bias. Most, that that bias is liberal. I would say that the bias is toward stories that can be turned into entertainment. That is, the bias is a sensational one. In an effort to turn stories into entertainment, they are sensationalized.
It is tempting to blame those entertainers or to blame the corporations supporting their behavior, but they aren’t the real problem. Sure, they provide a tempting forbidden apple. “Watch us, listen to us, read us. We won’t make you think. We’ll make this really easy.” But to blame others is shortsighted. To blame a corporation for trying to make money is like blaming an E. Coli bacterium for causing diarrhea. That’s what E. Coli does, if it’s put in the wrong place.
No, the blame lies, of course, with us, for reacting as we do. We haven’t yet caught up to the Internet’s many ways to fool us.
Making matters worse: While our computers have become linked, we’ve actually grown more isolated. That isolation leads us to a search for community. But the community we find isn’t real. It’s anonymous. We aren’t held accountable for our actions. When we find a common enemy – whether it’s an album, a movie, or Fred Durst, circa 2001 – we attack, and quickly. Afterward, we feel good; we’ve unloaded our anger on someone or something else. In the process, we become the mob we thought we’d banished to the past.
As members of that mob, we decide, almost unknowingly, that quality information isn’t that important. We pretend that we’re more informed thanks to the Internet. And while it is true that we have more information, more information does not equal more informed. Especially when the information isn’t pure. That is, untainted by opinion, presentation, or influence.
Lack of pure information, and the erosion of the ability to form one’s own opinions led to fictitious nightmares like Orwell’s 1984 and The Matrix. But it also led to not so fictitious ones like the USSR, Iran in 2009, and North Korea for the last 50 years. In those cases, though, the problem was usually the withholding of information. What we face in the United States, as I write this, isn’t about the withholding of information.
No, we face the specter of information as a revenue source, and the accompanying manipulation of that information, as we give in to basic desires – escapism and a mob mentality.
Oddly enough, the above paragraph probably could have been written after the advent of the printing press, the radio, or the television. I’m sure that a man named Elmer, when faced with the prospect of buying a radio for his family in Oklahoma, used many of my arguments to convince his children that playing outside would serve them better than would an hour with Hopalong Cassidy.
But it seems like there’s something different about the Internet. That information can be interpreted and disseminated so quickly is the Internet’s great gift, but also its great curse.
The lack of responsibility its sites sell is so tantalizing. And we’re tempted to give in. We’re tempted to think more about what’s easy, and less about what matters.
What matters is universal health care or not, the Supreme Court’s zany decision on campaign finance, and the Great Recession. But those topics aren’t fun ones – they aren’t easy ones. What’s easy is demonization, polarization, non-thinking. What’s easy is entertainment as news, or news as entertainment.
What’s hard is reading the whole story and then asking oneself who stands to benefit from the two, or three, or ninety-seven different interpretations that might be made.
But doing what’s hard is what makes us human. Because we did the mental heavy lifting required, we’ve built great civilizations, created great art, and figured out ways to (at times) live in harmony. Now isn’t the time to stop.
We live in an age of luxury. We live somatic existences, calmed by our generally pleasant jobs and our generally pleasant lives. We assume that, as long as we don’t make any waves, we’ll be rewarded. We assume that someone will take care of us; that, because it’s always been this way, it always will.
Unfortunately, our complacency could lead to our ruin. Our intolerance of dissent might lead to single-mindedness. Both lead to places I don’t think any of us want to be.
Thankfully, there is a solution. It’s one with which we’re all intimately familiar, but one with which some of us have had only a fleeting relationship.
That solution: To think. And then to question. And then to discuss.
As humans, we’ve been doing those things for thousands of years. We’re built for them.
So, the next time you’re tempted to take someone’s word for it, don’t. The next time someone says, “We don’t discuss politics at the table,” tell them that’s what the table is for. The next time you’re tempted to oversimplify an entire position in a few words, think of Larry Eustachy and of Bob Woodward. Tell someone to read the entire column, or see the whole movie, or watch the whole play.
Tell them to think for themselves. And then tell them that if they don’t, the bacteria win.
And no one likes diarrhea.
Well said. This column should be Dear Abby’ed and run in every major newspaper/Web site.
Being a journalist, albeit of sports, I’ve seen what you’re describing firsthand in the four years I’ve worked in newspapers — to ram home my point, I no longer work for a newspaper; it’s now strictly a daily (minutely) Web site (the only way the publication could keep up and survive).
Yes, instant information thanks to the internet is a nice luxury, but I’m not so sure it’s worth it when a vast majority of said info comes from, as you described, “entertainers in journalists’ clothing”.
Bravo on the column. One of your best.
Nice. A poignant essay. btw, glad you didn’t back down on your Haiti piece. Thought it was well written and balanced but apparently i’m in the minority on that one, yikes! It looks like there’s a lot of angry people out there on the internets. who knew?!
Thought you’re “firing” by ESPN was absolutely absurd. Hope you keep writing about music. That column was one of the best on espn.com.
In a sense, everybody is a journalist now. Camera phones, the digital age, the ease in which you can disseminate your info, and the willingness of news organizations to accept it are all leading to one, great, global newsroom.
As with Kaleb, I’m merely a sports hack, but it’s an arena that’s maybe suffered the most from this trend. Ask Rex Ryan, Greg Oden, Rey Maualuga. And that’s just within the last couple of weeks.
The media is generally labeled liberal because the media generally preys on emotion. It is a soundbite driven business. And the more emotional those soundbites are, the better it is for business. Thus, a boring statement delivered by the head of a corporation will always take second place to the sobbing, gut-wrenching soundbite in the street of the laid-off factory worker lady. No matter what the circumstances.
It used to be, “let’s get it right.” Now it’s “let’s get it first.” And the immediacy of the internet (and now TV, too) lends itself to instant/constant story updates (but never to the retraction of them) no matter how far off base they were in the first place.
Jay kinda stole my thunder on this one. Seems as though people only read what was on the surface of the Haiti article and didn’t really take the time to truly comprehend what you were trying to say. Kudos on having the stones to truly say what you were thinking.
Also, like Jay, bummer on the whole ESPN thing. Seems like I’ve read more controversial stuff actually on ESPN.com, and those writers are still currently working for the site.
Loved the music article you wrote every week, and I truly looked forward to reading it every Tuesday. It was not only entertaining and turned me on to some new music (although sometimes we disagreed, thats why you listen for yourself), it gave me something to read while ignoring my boring law school professors. Any plans to continue the column somewhere else, or maybe adding it to this site while you figure out where to go next?
Keep up the good work Paul, truly enjoy your writing.
“Just tell me what you thought it said, and I’ll take your word for it.”
hahaha favorite line of the piece. If only the people that do this, in so many different ways, realized they did it and realized their lack of basic thought process is what is wrong with most things today.
Poor stupid people…. or no, just stupid people. I don’t pity them.
Kaleb – Thanks. And yeah, it seems like writers need titles. For example, I am obviously not a journalist. Opinionator, perhaps.
Jay/Kyle – Regarding ESPN and music. I’ll keep it alive. Here, most likely. Brother Matt and I are working on our multi-part reaction to the Grammys now…
Mick – I tend to think that we’ll eventually reach a point when people realize, “Hey, everyone does stupid shit like have naked pics taken of them once in a while”. Then it’ll stop being interesting. However, I’m not sure this will happen before we’re dead.
Get Over It – Yeah, we all should slow down. Thanks.
Nice essay. “Fred Durst, circa 2001″ was terrifying, indeed.
I would point out that yellow journalism has been around as long as journalism proper — or at least as long as William Randolph Hearst. The line between the two is often blurred by even the most well-meaning reporters. Think about how Walter Kronkite got a bunch of crap for choking up while reading the news of the JFK assassination. Or the reporter who cried “oh the humanity!” during the Hindenberg disaster and got fired for it. People wanted impartiality! Or something!
Take this headline — HEADLINE! — from William Randolph Hearst’s San Francisco Examiner (I plead guilty on the charge of using Wikipedia here).
HUNGRY, FRANTIC FLAMES. They Leap Madly Upon the Splendid Pleasure Palace by the Bay of Monterey, Encircling Del Monte in Their Ravenous Embrace From Pinnacle to Foundation. Leaping Higher, Higher, Higher, With Desperate Desire. Running Madly Riotous Through Cornice, Archway and Facade. Rushing in Upon the Trembling Guests with Savage Fury. Appalled and Panic-Striken the Breathless Fugitives Gaze Upon the Scene of Terror. The Magnificent Hotel and Its Rich Adornments Now a Smoldering heap of Ashes. The Examiner Sends a Special Train to Monterey to Gather Full Details of the Terrible Disaster. Arrival of the Unfortunate Victims on the Morning’s Train — A History of Hotel del Monte — The Plans for Rebuilding the Celebrated Hostelry — Particulars and Supposed Origin of the Fire.
Are you not entertained??
I agree with you ultimately: Discernment is paramount. With 93% percent of kids 12-17 and young adults 18-29 online (I wrote about this today at my blog), it’s crucial that people develop the ability to separate facts from marketing and entertainment. The optimist in me believes that with the media flood only rising only, people’s brains are getting better at identifying bullshit. Kids are becoming more media savvy because they are distrustful of pretty much all authority sources. And then when they grow up, it’s largely emotion that drives them to choose between Fox and MSNBC.
Sorry — rambling here…
re: opinion vs. news– we are more conditioned these days as a society to swallow whole opinion masqueraded as fact. a major news network which rhymes with cocks frequently has an opinion show host posit an opinion which is reported by the “news” side as fact. a meme is born. repeated ad nauseum and cannot be undone because it fits with the underlying narrative that the opinion arm is pushing.
re: “read the whole article”– this is a transparent attempt to further justify your pathetic haiti column. you seem to indicate that you want to move on. your silence outside your equally reprehensible reaction speaks loudly. you’re fox newsing this yourself. its your opinion that no one could have possibly read the entire article and still be mad, therfore all of these angry people must not have read it all. as a writer you get to control everything until you publish the piece. you can’t entirely control the reaction. but if you’re going to try, you can’t have it both ways. you can’t say “move on” and then write another column with a sneaky defense. you can’t say something objectively awful, couch it in excuses then blame your audience.
Great article.
Although “Get Over It” wrote: “Seems as though people only read what was on the surface of the Haiti article and didn’t really take the time to truly comprehend what you were trying to say.”
I disagree. Lot’s of people read it (including me), understood it, completely disagreed with Paul and were very disappointed in his views on the situation. Sure, many just read the snippets but to brush off the overwhelming negative reaction to the article as people not taking the time to understand what he was saying is way to convenient and wrong, imho.
Brilliant read. Well done.
It’s a tough thing to do, challange the mainstream. It’s human nature to want to be part of the pack – facebook status updates urging those to donate to Haiti are often motivated by cultural acceptance and the need to show compassion to have others like/appreciate/accept oneself. However, it’s original thought like yours which progresses ones culture. I’m sure you have no issue losing the popularity contest in the interest of spreading ideas and cultivating growth.
Thank you for continuing to challange generally accepted opinion, both in music and in life.
And ESPN can suck a fatty. Simmons can discuss cocaine use on his Twitter but you can’t write an intellectual opinion piece on your own website? As the hipster kids would say – Failure.
grimes, do you really equate talking about cocaine use to what shirley said?
Of course not, Cocaine use is illegal.
Go fight your holy war someplace else, homeboy.
Jason – Oh, it’s been around forever, no doubt. But I think we can agree that it was harder to pull off back then. Or at least, people had to really plan it out before putting it in the newspaper, as opposed to tearing off a blog.
KG – Thanks. Regarding last week, it is true that some people read the whole thing and then reacted, but not most. I have the Google Analytics stats at my disposal and the drop in average time spent onsite is staggering.
wcgrimes – Thanks. I proved my own point abt mob mentality this morning by writing that most Our Lady Peace is better than most of the Editors’ work. Sure enough, attacks a-plenty. Not sure why people would be threatened by the fact that I like OLP more than the Editors. Are they afraid that I’m somehow going to steal from the Editors’ fan base? Or is the more likely explanation that A) they’re not really that sure about their own tastes and so lash out when they’re challenged, B) it’s WAY more fun to team up, act smug, and talk about how great Animal Collective is, or C) I’m making something out of nothing. C is very possibly the answer, but I think it’s some combination of A and B.
so, talking about an illegal activity has more of a negative effect than saying something which a good number of people consider hateful?
its not about holiness. its about humanity.
Paul – I was never fond of the circle jerk mentality either. I think the most important aspect with news as entertainment or vice versa is to consider the source. The options are endless and we as the reader have a responsability to consider the source. If pragmatism here has an issue with you or Fox news then don’t read/watch. It’s quite simple, and there are plenty of alternatives. I always find it’s better to tune in with an open mind, however.
Prag – you’ve said your piece now move along. I am very much the humanitarian, and not simply in response to natural disaster. I understand you care passionately about this issue but acting as an Internet superhero isn’t going to get you anywhere.
that’s just your projection that i’m acting like an internet superhero. i’m simply opining. just like everyone else. in life, opinions vary. get used to it. is there some sort of requirement that all opinions be favorable here? maybe you enjoy being a sycophant but it doesn’t mean everyone else has to. paul’s a big boy.
wcgrimes:
“If pragmatism here has an issue with you or Fox news then don’t read/watch.”
But then why, pray tell, do you read and respond to his or her comment? Isn’t it just as easy for YOU to ignore pragmatism?
let me amend my last post. he’s a big boy other than when he cried on national tv and this issue. wasn’t wearing the big boy pants during these episodes. the funny thing is that people probably felt compassion for him when he was crying but using his own analysis no one should have pity upon him. he and his parents bear the lion’s share of the responsibility for isu losing. even though basketball is a team sport and there were intervening causes for the loss. this “analysis” sure makes things easy. this is usually a gigantic signal that the anaylsis is wrong.
Paul-
Please don’t thinke every Cyclone fan wanted Larry fired. Very few wanted him fired and many now woud do anything to bring him back or rewrite history.
This is my last comment:
Fazerski – You can’t be serious, but in case you are, I responded because he asked me a question. That’s usually what sensible people do – respond to questions. And in anticiation of any follow up banter I don’t have a problem with you, prag, or anyone expressing a dissenting opinion in this comment space. In fact I am all for it. However, I maintain that one must consider the source and purpose of the content. Here is where you fail.
Game, blouses.
anyone who claims victory on a comment board is transparently trying to end the argument before they dig the hole deeper. no matter how punny the claim is.
how am i not considering the source or purpose of the content?
TLDNR
Paul, you mention that you wrote an OLP column. Where can I find it?
BTW, my last comment is not meant as a joke (considering the whole espn thing). I’m actually wondering where I can read it.
KG – I was actually referring only to a tweet of this AM.. Stay tuned here for music stuff. In fact, my bro and I will work over the Grammys here tomorrow.
make sure you guys toby keithify your music tastes so you don’t lose your new found randian friends. liking olp = not belieiving in american exceptionalism. even when you say that editors are worse in the same tweet. those teabaggers are tough to please but you’re off to a good start.
Nice work Paul, I enjoyed this piece.
For what it’s worth, I enjoyed the Haiti article last week too. While I didn’t necessarily agree with all of it, I certainly respect you for having the balls to say what you think regardless of what others think.
Nicely done. As a TV journalist myself in Chicago I’ve been fascinated by the evolution, good or bad, of the profession. As an aside, we’ve kind of come full circle to the day of yellow muckracking journalism, but I digress. For every “real” and unbiased writer, there are another ten out there who are “columnists” who editorialize and present their opinion as truth and/or don’t present the ENTIRE set of thoughts in order to skew the reader’s opinion (who’s still programmed to take what they read as absolute and unbiased truth). A great recent example is your Haiti article…I saw that tracked in a few spots that threw out the most inflammatory comments while keeping your rationale behind the thoughts out of the story (and in full disclosure, I also disagreed with you on that one but thought it was well-reasoned and respect your right to have that opinion).
I’m gonna name-drop here, but I had the good fortune to interview Cal Ripken, Jr. this past weekend…before we were set to go, I joked that I had a long list of steroid-related questions to ask and then edit his responses to in irresponsible soundbites (my interview was actually only focused on his Ripken Baseball clinics). That prompted a little bit of a conversation on how media has changed and the most benign of comments can be presented out of context in irresponsible hands. I couldn’t agree more. I’m not sure where the business is headed, but we need the true media watchdogs. I hope they don’t get forced out in the name of entertainment.
Enjoyed this one young man. Well done.
“Some say that members of the media have a bias. Most, that that bias is liberal. I would say that the bias is toward stories that can be turned into entertainment. That is, the bias is a sensational one. In an effort to turn stories into entertainment, they are sensationalized.”
couldn’t be said any better paul. great job with this essay. now, i think i’m supposed to comment somewhere here about what a terrible human being you are, right?
really used to enjoy your music articles on ESPN…but you wrote about the piracy issue here a month ago or so? would love to see an alternate view on that, which contends music is marketing…different business model. and how the internet has changed the distribution of music to the (not so) mainstream….kind of in line with this article, actually.
anyways…ever read albini’s take on the music industry? http://www.negativland.com/albini.html what the internet has ruined and limited to sensationalism and opinions, i think it has also liberated and empowered musicians and artists to be much more self reliant. kind of off topic, but it’s a huge passion of mine.
enough rambling…thanks for the essay.
Dear Paul,
Go away. Your 15 minutes are up. Time to pack it in.
Sincerely,
the rest of the world
Paul,
Excellent work, I hope that many people spend the time and really read your article and perform the nearly lost art of “thinking.” Your accurate take on today’s “journalism” reminded me of a couple of Dan Carlin’s Common Sense Podcasts. Being a former media guy, he has some first-hand accounts of the bastardization of news. I see the mob mentality on a daily basis on the internet; either by painting Fox News as the ultimate evil or the vast left-leaning as the commie-boogieman out to get us all. The truth is that money is what makes everything go. This is the case in sports, in entertainment, and in just about everything else it seems. I can’t hate Fox News for recognizing a huge untapped market that was being overlooked; just as I can’t beat up on MSNBC for swinging the other direction.
As a reader that has been reading your ups and downs since shortly after you turned in that Phoenix uniform, I will not be jumping off now. I appreciate your thought provoking writing and humor. On top of that, I feel almost indebted to you for all of the excellent music recommendations that you have passed along (Phoenix & Passion Pit especially).
-S Sykes
Hey Paul,
I read your whole Haiti piece and was offended by the disgusting and demeaning language in it. You hid valid points under a sea of racially and economically loaded words. My overall reaction (and anger) to your piece was your complete lack of cultural, economic, or historic elements in relation to the plight of Haitians, and poverty stricken people across the globe.
I do agree with your point that many people only read snippets of your article and thus did not judge it properly. Two things about that; first if you don’t want to have your message misconstrued don’t use “shock language” like ever other blogger out there. I understand your article wasn’t about “using a condom,” but it’s also hard to get back such crass, BS language. Secondly, I truly don’t think opinions of your article would be altered significantly if the entire article was written.
…. I remember hearing a story you told once about riding in a car with jannero pargo after a Bull’s practice… he asked you if you had any kids and you were incensed…. I read your Haiti column and remembered your attitude towards what you perceived to be ignorant NBA players having children… You are placing blame on other people now, but their skin color hasn’t changed.
One more thing… even though I disliked the column I don’t think you need to apologize. It’s a free country and all opinions are valid on some level. I will continue to read your writing as I always have, just with a different view of the author.
wrong user name, though I doubt my comments will be taken seriously now as being objective.
So, I read this post before I even knew about the Haiti post. Don’t check the site every day, more like once every few weeks, like a magazine or journal. I’m guessing that I am one of the few people who read this piece without the Haiti piece coloring their opinion of this one.
This one was brilliant.
I was initially taken back by the cold lack of decency the Haiti article was cloaked in. However, I appreciate your being willing to talk about hard topics honestly. How long will most people care about Haiti, and how much will they really do? Myself included, bleeding heart I am. Something much more exciting will come up, probably around the time a Jersey Shore sex tape comes out, and people will go back to forgetting about where Haiti is.
Sadly, I think our society has decided “Fuck Haiti”. We did a long time ago, and we’ll get back to it soon enough. Your article is merely emblematic of that philosophy, albeit fleshed out with 4000 more words. I would be surprised if people didn’t react like they did. This makes them feel better.
I’m disappointed in your view on Haiti, but I think it’s simply a reflection of the essential American ethos, and maybe even human nature. We’re all fine with everyone else’s suffering, so long as we’re fat and happy- after all, we rationalize that we deserve it, because we have worked for it. But honestly, did I deserve to be born in America to college-educated parents as opposed to a Haitian prostitute?
I wish we had evolved to a state where the suffering of others caused us to in act in ways to improve the lives of others. Sadly, we haven’t.
Enjoy your work, even if I disagree with you. Thanks for writing.
Jay wrote: “Thought you’re “firing” by ESPN was absolutely absurd.”
(Man, if I only had a dollar for everyone who still doesn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re”. But that’s another story…)
Are you kidding me? People are actually criticizing ESPN for this? I read the Haiti column several times over – whatever Mr. Shirley’s intent was in writing it, the piece as written comes across as ignorant, arrogant and just plain offensive. I’m not the least bit surprised that ESPN (or any other media outlet, for that matter) wouldn’t want to employ the person who wrote it. Either Paul Shirley really is a cold-hearted, insensitive bigot, or he was just trying to play devil’s advocate (the old “just trying to make people think” excuse) and failed miserably. Either way, there’s nothing absurd about ESPN letting him go.