On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is the best example of journalistically-acceptable > character assassination I've seen from the media in a long time. > > Clash gets accused by someone of having a relationship of some kind with a > minor. The accusation is vetted by his employer, who says it's unfounded, > but does find he didn't follow company Internet policies, for which he's > disciplines. Clash says he wants to take some time off to deal with this > crap, and his employer gives it to him. > > And this turned into this headline on CNN: "Voice of Elmo on leave after > denying 'underage contact' with teen." Yahoo News has: "Elmo puppeteer > accused of underage relationship." I don't watch TV news, but I'm sure > those chyrons are very similar. > > Which office does Kevin Clash go to get his reputation back?\ > > This is exactly my reaction as well. If I saw this reported in the National Enquier while standing in line to pay for my grocieries I would shake my head at the low quality of crap tabloids - but to see this reported in what is often regarded as mainstream journalistic sources is appalling. I don't know Clash, and I don't know any of the details here. Perhaps at some point in the future there will be even a shred of evidence that he did anything wrong. But there is no evidence now that he did anything wrong, and so there should be no story written about it. Note this from the 4th graph of the linked story: "While the show’s probe was unable to find proof that Clash had engaged in a relationship with the accuser while he was a minor, it did find evidence that the man behind one of the most beloved children’s television characters had engaged in inappropriate behavior against company standards" I bet a majority of readers come away from this paragraph thinking that Clash did something bad and illegal, instead of simply using company email to communicate in a personal relationship. At least three quarters of office workers violate this policy every week - myself included (well, my employer does not prohibit my use of my work email for personal corrospondnece, but I doubt it would make a difference anyway. However horrible a violation of office policy this is, it is not quite the same as pedophillia - but this paragraph does not really make that clear. The article also notes that the accuser here retained the same legal counsel as one of the victims in the Penn State case. Further tagging this guy by associating him with the most well known pedophile in recent memory. Then there is this from the last graph: "Sesame Workshop tried to reassure fans that the shocking news didn’t mean the end of Elmo, telling viewers, “Elmo is bigger than any one person,” and will continue to be an integral part of “Sesame Street” to engage, educate and inspire children around the world, as it has for 40 years.” Really? The shocking news that he inappropriately used work email to communicate in a personal relationship? I suspect that if the accuser was a 23 year old woman, we would be seeing a lot less of this kind of garbage. More and more I would like to see some private but powerful Commissioner of Journalism, kind of like David Stern in the NBA, who would have the power to fine or put journalists and media outlets on suspension when they commit really bad acts that undermine the credibility of all news reporting in the eyes of the public. I would put people like Peggy Noonan on a 1 week suspension for her glib and flawed punditry before the election, and I would put any news organization that reported this story in a way similar to the Daily News on a 6 month suspension. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
