Congressman "Joe the Plumber"?

Remember “Joe the Plumber," the disgruntled voter who questioned then-Senator Barack Obama about his tax policy during the 2008 campaign? He’s back. Well, he never really went away. The “plumber” turned media star, political commentator, author, and Tea Party headliner announced on Wednesday that he would be running as a Republican candidate for Congress in Ohio’s 9th Congressional District.

This would be a somewhat interesting development if he hadn’t hinted at running for the last three election cycles and started acting a lot more like a politician than a “plumber” since he gained national media fame in 2008.

Normally, I would be thrilled about someone like “Joe the Plumber” running for Congress. What our nation needs right now is for everyday Americans to raise their voices and challenge the status quo that has resulted in a do-nothing Congress that seems not to care about the people it supposedly represents. But “Joe the Plumber” is not the working class, common sense hero that he and the media claim he is. In fact, he’s not even a plumber, or named Joe.

The media turned this guy into an overnight sensation for the sole reason that he asked a good question of a presidential candidate. It’s a little perplexing, if not sad, that a single concerned citizen became a huge media story. I still do not quite understand it. After a couple days of intense media scrutiny, it was discovered that “Joe the Plumber” was not at all who the media made him to be. It turns out his real name is Sam Wurzelbacher, not Joe, and he wasn’t actually a plumber because he was not licensed (hence the quotation marks around “plumber”).

In anointing Wurzelbacher, or “Joe the Plumber," as a working man’s superstar, the media missed the point entirely. “Joe the Plumber," not Sam Wurzelbacher, but the idea itself, was significant because he represented working and middle class Americans. He stood for all the little guys who felt as if they didn’t have a say in the political process. The media got it right at first, but then they blew it. “Joe the Plumber’s” question was a great way to focus on all middle class Americans. The media could have used this opportunity to press candidates to increase their focus on middle class issues and take more questions from working class voters. Instead, by singling out one man and turning him into a celebrity, they created another media whore who ironically, after railing against government and the major political parties, now wants to be a Republican politician. Give me a break.

Sam Wurzelbacher did everything he could to stay in the spotlight as long as possible, traveling around the country headlining Tea Party rallies and authoring a book that I'm sure is incredibly insightful and full of brilliant policy ideas. This congressional campaign is just a last ditch effort for the former wannabe plumber to stay relevant. The media, once again, has taken the bait. Don't get me wrong, Congress is in desperate need of middle class American voices to shake things up. What it does not need is another self-absorbed, attention hungry blowhard who doesn't really know what he's talking about. Maybe the media should start calling him "Joe the Cowboy," and just let him ride off into the sunset.

(Photo courtesy of CBS News)

Faces of Death

Yesterday Col. Moammar Gadhafi was killed and the world was rid of yet another mass-murdering tyrant.  A victim of the Arab Spring, much like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Tunisian President Ben Ali before him, Gadhafi was ousted by his own people following weeks of protest against his regime.  Driven into hiding in his last remaining stronghold of Sirte, the former Libyan dictator was allegedly surrounded by rebel forces and died after sustaining wounds from a major gun fight. 

Quickly following news reports of Gadhafi’s death, media outlets around the world began showing images taken on a cell phone of what appeared to be a bloodied Colonel Gadhafi severely wounded or already dead.   A few hours later as more confirmations of his death were reported from sources within Libya, a video was obtained by the Arab network Al Arabiya and reproduced by Western news outlets showing Gadhafi’s body being paraded through the streets by rebel forces. 

The coverage of Gadhafi’s death raises an important ethical question for journalists and editors: When is it appropriate to show images or video of a dead public figure?

These are questions that journalists have had to confront frequently in recent years given the spread of technology that allows nearly anyone to share photos or videos of breaking news with people across the globe in seconds.  There doesn’t appear to be a distinct answer or a set of clear standards for when or if this is appropriate. 

For example, in 2006 when ex-Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was hanged for committing crimes against humanity, a graphic cell phone video of the hanging went viral online.  Nevertheless, almost all Western media refrained from showing the footage.  What is the difference between Hussein’s execution and Gadhafi’s?  Gadhafi’s death was certainly more violent.  Furthermore, when Hussein’s sons, Uday and Qusay Hussein, were killed, the U.S. government released the gory photos of their corpses and many media outlets reprinted them.  Where is the consistency?

Media outlets need to adopt a uniform policy for airing or publishing images of deceased public figures, particularly war criminals or “most-wanted” individuals.  The policy should, in my opinion, be full disclosure.  I think the media was justified in airing the images of Gadhafi’s dead body because these images lend to the credibility of reporting.  Many of the reports coming from this part of the world are inconsistent and of questionable accuracy.  Videos and images help us to verify or refute suspicious reports.  Such coverage could have helped to dispel speculation across much of the Middle East that the U.S. assassination of Osama bin Laden was a hoax, had the U.S. government chosen to release the pictures of bin Laden’s corpse.

Furthermore, with bloggers, YouTube, and Twitter, these types of graphic images become widely accessible to media consumers regardless of what news sources show.  In the past, when major television networks and newspapers were the sole sources for visual information, the goal of shielding the public from graphic images could be well served by keeping this material unpublished.  Today it is much harder to make the argument that images of dead terrorists or dictators should be kept out of the news media because they might be too gruesome for public consumption.  If these images are already available and are newsworthy, one could say that media outlets have a responsibility to reproduce the content, so that viewers know the information is coming from a credible source and what they are seeing can be explained to them.

Questioning A Candidate's Religion

Mitt Romney’s Mormon problem is back.  Last weekend, at a conservative value voters summit, pastor Robert Jeffress, a supporter of Rick Perry, called Romney's faith a "cult" and said that evangelical voters should not support the former Massachusetts Governor. 

The media quickly jumped on the story.  Most of the coverage asked whether or not evangelicals would be willing to rally around Romney if he becomes the GOP nominee.  None of the mainstream coverage considered whether or not Jeffress was warranted in calling Mormonism a cult (with the exception of Bill Maher who ridiculed Mormon beliefs and called anyone who subscribed to them “gullible”).  By no means should the media endorse the pastor’s comments.  That is not their place.  They do, however, have a responsibility to ask tough questions.

A candidate’s religious preferences and specific beliefs tend to be off-limits for many journalists.  While it’s true that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to believe or not believe in whatever they choose, that does not mean that voters don’t have the right to know what their elected officials believe.  The argument that these are personal, private issues is completely ridiculous in politics.  If you believe that there is a supernatural, omnipotent deity who oversees and can intervene in all human actions, or if you subscribe to the idea of a master-plan for humanity or fate, you will undoubtedly make decisions keeping these beliefs in mind.  These opinions are far too powerful and run far too deep to separate from politics or anything else for that matter.

A Pew Research Center poll conducted last year found that 41% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ will return to Earth by the year 2050.  According to Christian dogma, Jesus’s return is to be preceded by a rapture, a great earthquake, famine, and war – basically, the end of the world.  It follows, then, that two-in-five Americans believe that the end of the world, as predicted in the Book of Revelation, will likely occur in the next 39 years.  I have the right to know if the person I’m voting for for president is one of them.

Why is this my business?  It’s my business because anyone who truly believes this stuff is going to govern in a way that is congruent with these beliefs.  How could they not?  Take Medicare and Social Security, for example.  What is the incentive for a politician to ensure the long-term solvency of these programs if it’s all over in 39 years?  What about helping the sick and the poor?  Doesn’t matter.  They just need to hang on a couple more decades and then they will enjoy eternal happiness in the Kingdom of Heaven, provided they are Christians.

The end of the world and the return of Christ may be extreme examples, but they illustrate how easily these beliefs, logical or illogical, can affect the policies of those who hold them.  Consider the following issues: stem cell research, abortion, space exploration, publicly-funded scientific research, and Middle East foreign policy.  Christian religious beliefs can influence all of these issues, and depending on the degree to which an individual considers the Bible (or at least their interpretation of it) to be literal, these beliefs can have very substantial impacts. 

The public has a major interest in knowing a political candidate’s religious beliefs.  Journalists should probe candidates for answers to these important questions.  How are citizens to learn this crucial information before casting their votes if not for the press?  Furthermore, shouldn’t politicians be willing to share these beliefs?  For what would be the motivation to conceal them unless they were embarrassingly illogical or outside of the mainstream? Now, I am not suggesting that the press demand that GOP candidate Jon Huntsman reveal whether or not he wears the Mormon “magic underpants” (yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints asks that its members wear sacred “traditional undergarments” at all possible times).  I am simply asking that the press not give candidates a free pass to hold illogical, far-out beliefs that the public might find to be seriously unnerving for the sole reason that they fall under the umbrella of religion. 

(Photo courtesy of mormonendowment.com)

Occupy...What??

A movement is growing across America, but you wouldn’t notice if you are following most mainstream news outlets. 

Occupy Wall Street, a New York City based movement begun by young people, students, and the unemployed, is now entering its third week.  No longer is the movement confined to Lower Manhattan.  Similar “Occupy” protests have spread across the nation to Chicago, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.  This movement is spreading like wildfire.

But where is the coverage?  The first time this movement received major coverage was after the arrest of over 700 “Occupy Wall Street” protesters last weekend in New York City.  Cable news networks who frequently struggle to find anything of importance to fill their programs barely discussed the protests and instead spent countless hours speculating whether or not Chris Christie would  jump into the presidential race, even though he had been giving unequivocal “no’s” for months. 

Now, after videos of the NYPD’s excessive use of force against peaceful demonstrators have gone viral on YouTube, the media has finally begun to take notice.  Yet coverage remains inadequate.  Of the news outlets who have reported on the “Occupy” movement, the majority is sensationalized.  They constantly replay footage of policemen clubbing demonstrators with nightsticks and pepper-spraying young women.  While these examples of unprovoked, unwarranted police brutality are important and need to be reported, the media has really failed to address what has driven the protestors to the streets in the first place. The underpinnings of the movement, which to be fair are currently very undefined and fluid, have not been explored by the media.

The media has also been inherently unfair in its characterization of this movement.  News organizations are simply not treating Occupy Wall Street with the level of seriousness it deserves.  Many mainstream news networks are dismissing the protestors as unorganized youth with little direction and give them a minimal chance of having an actual impact. The media should not take these people for granted. Three years ago the Tea Party was a group of cranky old white people who dressed up like Ben Franklin every April 15.  Today the Tea Party is a political force to be reckoned with, with millions of supporters and dozens of members in Congress. 

The absolute worst coverage of the protests was done by Fox News Business.  Their “attempt” to uncover the demands and motives of the protestors was incredibly misleading.  They aired interviews between reporters and the dumbest demonstrators they could find to try and portray the entire movement as nothing more than a group of stoned, hippie kids.  The Fox News host and his guest, conservative commentator Ann Coulter, then ridiculed the protestors.  The host described them as “un-American” and claimed they “hated freedom” while Coulter compared their movement to the rise of the Nazi Party and the Communist Revolution. 

This is a particularly interesting position for Fox News to take, as it was the first to give major coverage to the Tea Party movement and constantly applaud the group’s efforts, calling them “patriotic.”  It’s pretty unreal, really, to see a major media outlet deriding a peaceful protest by American citizens.  Isn’t it the role of the news media to stand on the side of the people, checking the power of government and holding our political and economic leaders accountable?  Maybe Fox News should spend less time making value judgments about citizens’ patriotism and take a second to consider their own. 

(Photo courtesy of bluestarchronicles.com)