MEDIA REPORTERS' LACK OF RESPONSIBLE JUDGMENT
March 10, 1999
For the last week or so, the media commentators
decided to publicize Juanita Broaddrick's story after the Lisa Myers' 15-minute,
"edited" interview aired on MSNBC. In the interview, Juanita Broaddrick told
Lisa Myers that Bill Clinton raped her 21 years ago. A number of commentators immediately
concluded that Clinton is guilty of the alleged offense. In fact, many of the so-called
political analysts had no doubts about it: "I believe her." "She's
credible." "Clinton has a pattern." "Clinton is a rapist."
What disturbs me about the way the Juanita Broaddrick story is being played out in the
press is how some of the media pundits have suspended their rational judgment of fair
consideration of the facts for politics. Consider, for instance, the African American in To
Kill A Mockingbird and apply what the pundits and members of the press are doing to
Clinton to his case. He was charged with rape and convicted. Now imagine if the only
evidence available for his alleged offense was a 15-minute, "edited" MSNBC
interview. No facts, no substantial supporting evidence, only the accuser's side of the
story is presented to viewers. Apply the Kantian categorical imperative: make the
15-minute edited interview a universal standard for forming judgments on anyone
accused of rape. If that's clearly and indubitably unfair in a court of law, then
why do the members of the press believe it's fair to try a man for rape over TV networks
and in their magazines and papers without credible or supporting evidence? If the members
of the press think that a 15-minute "edited" interview is sufficient evidence,
then they should forget the concept of equal protection under the law.
It's not ethically or morally right to arrive at definitive conclusions without supporting
evidence, especially when the alleged offense is "rape." It's
terribly irresponsible. There was never enough evidence to justify running this story in
the first place. Nevertheless, pundits have rushed to judgment, regardless of the
lack of substantial evidence. In my book, that's called prejudice.
Let me be clear about my point: I'm not talking about Clinton or Juanita Broaddrick, I'm
talking about the principle of justice and how we render judgments.
Journalists claim that the Juanita Broaddrick story deserved press coverage, regardless of
the fact that she could not be cross-examined and regardless of the lack of substantial
evidence, a lack of evidence primarily because Broaddrick waited 21 years, and there isn't
much to go on except for her "edited" interview-version that aired on MSNBC.
Was it fair to try to resolve this question via the press? Was it right
for media-reporters to accuse Clinton, given the above set of circumstances? I think
the media reporters are being disingenuous. We live in an age when journalists and editors
care more about running a "hot story" than being responsible and ethically
minded individuals.
The following poem is about prejudice and how it leads to violent hate crimes.
Hang
Low Swing High
--Jacqueline Marcus
For
Poetry |
|