This article, written by Purdue University-Calumet student Catherine Grace, was forwarded to me. The student came down to the Revolt at the Statehouse and reported on it for her school newspaper.
I don't get it. How does Ms. Grace think she'll every land a big job, like maybe being a political reporter for Channel 8? Here she actually talked to organizers and speakers at the rally. That's crazy. Doesn't she know that a good reporter is supposed to be looking for people in the crowd that she can interview and then later make fun of in her report? Doesn't she also know she is is supposed to take statements out of context to purposefully distort what speakers say and make them look like radicals? Or that she is supposed to simply make up things that the speakers spoke about - like immigration - or claim that issues like eminent domain are strictly federal issues, ignoring of course the fact we have state constitution that talks about eminent domain as well as 66 state statutes on the subject.
And doesn't the reporter know that she's supposed to use her position with the media to settle old scores with speakers who may have criticized her reporting in the past? A good reporter knows how to shellize information and present the story the reporter wants to present. Ms. Grace has no future at Channel 8 with this kind of fair, unbiased reporting.
P.S. For those who are sarcasm-impaired, the above piece was sarcasm.
Good example, Paul. This is the difference nowadays between real journalism and professional journalism.
This student reporter's journalistic skills already surpass those of that Shella character. I forget his first name, but I'm sure he has one. I used to watch Channel 8, but switched to WTHR-13 for my news, because Shella's bias was the most blatant I've ever seen.
I must get something to hold up those socks. Maybe I can find some garters at the dollar store; the same place Jim Shella gets his huggies.
Please consider that when you write in that style, you reinforce Shella's characterizations.
posted on the wrong article. :-)
So why isn't there a petition going around to get Indiana Legislature to do an amendment to the State Constitution to allow for a "recall" in city government. Ballard and the council may very well behave differently if they knew taxpayers could take them out just as quickly as they put them in. Recall is the only answer for a mayor and other council members who refuse to follow taxpayer's wishes. As it stands right now the mayor and city-county council still have two years to continue to waste taxpayer’s money. With a recall of city government citizens don’t have to worry about surviving an indifferent mayor they can just recall him and elect another. Elected officials answer to the people or the people get rid of them!
March 30, 2009 10:29 PM
Did anyone overhear that young reporter calling taxpayers' names? Or was she respectful to all that were in the state house that day?
Dear Mr. Wheeler:
Thanks for contacting WFYI.
I have forwarded your email to Jim Shella and to WFYI senior management.
Member and Audience Services
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 1:49 PM
To: Viewers WFYI
Subject: ContactUs Form: Indiana Week in Review
paul Wheeler has sent you the following email regarding: Indiana Week in
Yellow Journalism from the Shella Show
Much as been blogged in the aftermath of the Indianapolis 'Revolt at the
Statehouse' Rally held on March 25th. As several heads of Taxpayer
delegations from various portions of Indiana gave their troubled
experiences with their local government that doesn't seem to be
responsive to them, Jim Shella, political reporter for channel Wish-TV
arrived with microphone for interviews. The channel 8 film clip
interview that played Wednesday evening followed by Friday's airing
'Indiana Week in Review' with the same clip and remarks by Shella were
some of the worst yellow broadcast journalism I can remember.
Billed as a politically non partisan speaker event, there were
nevertheless tables of information by various groups and political
parties intent on proselytizing converts to their respective parties,
including the Republican Libertarian Caucus, Libertarian Party, and the
Campaign for Liberty group. Mr. Shella seized upon this floor area
for quick interviews, later edited and aired to show those unflattering
table representatives' halted and impromptu comments as the meat of his
broadcast, rather than the subject matter of multiple speakers who each
spoke of grievances with their government. Missing the overarching
theme of accountability and transparency in government well documented
in advance, Mr. Shella violated fundamental values of objective
reporting through focus of what can be only described as majoring in the
minor, tantamount to criticizing tribes of Indians while ignoring news
of a Boston Tea Party in progress.
Admittedly, there is bias in all of us. We all see through colored
glasses. But this exceeded elementary reporting 101 with commentary
that demeaned citizens who spoke and who attended. The basics of who,
what, when, where, and why were trashed in favor of discrediting those
on the floor who had other agendas. With a broad brush, he and most of
his panelists piled on and treated the story as a rally that went bad.
Further, the Friday program was saturated in an elite smugness that was
suffocating. I'll not watch this tabloid again. WISH-TV and Indiana
Week in Review's backers should be ashamed of being represented this
Great job, Patriot Paul. We apprecia5e you speaking out.
Maybe a group of folks in Indiana might have the young reporter and her college class in journalism do an expose on ALL the grand mess in government. What a pulitzer prize that would be for a group of college students.
Kind of like the Northwestern University Innocence Project.
Only this one would be the Indiana Guilty Project.
The reporter seems to understand ethics unlike some of the adults doing reporting in Indiana.
Post a Comment