Comments for Edward Wasserman's Blog

Comment on Media silent when administration targets news sources by Wally Moran

Wally Moran — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:01:01 +0000

Interesting. I suspect that had Bush been behind these prosecutions, the media would be all over it. Obama has gotten a ‘by’ from the media since he started campaigning. When I have time, I’ll post the results of surveys of media coverage of the 2008 election. Most revealing vis a vis media bias.

Comment on Lessons of Watergate for the new media age by Cognition Emission

Cognition Emission — Mon, 07 May 2012 20:05:52 +0000

The Valerie Plame incident is an tinfoil conspiracy perpetuated by rabid Bush-haters; anyone still trying to push the myth doesn’t have an iota of credibility.

Comment on Cruelty and truth-telling in the NFL by Stanley Hess

Stanley Hess — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:23:04 +0000

It sounded like many of the club house speeches… If you really listen he is telling his guys to get after them….Make them think, get into their heads.. Actually in that particular game, the only player hauled off the field was Pierre Thomas a New Orleans Saint… did the guy that injured him (in what I think was an illegal hit helmet to helmet) get payed a bounty??? MMMMM

Comment on Cruelty and truth-telling in the NFL by edwardwasserman

edwardwasserman — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:01:45 +0000

I didn’t pay attention to that element, and after reading your note think that maybe I should’ve. My chief concern was with the contention that the disclosure was unethical, which I don’t buy. Beyond that, though, the manner in which Pamphilon chose to make the disclosure is, I think, a legitimate area of criticism. Here, the question you raise is whether he did wrong by going public instead of sharing the tape privately with the NFL, and then, as you suggest, releasing it publicly only if the league didn’t respond appropriately.

I guess I come down on the side of public disclosure. The controversy was already in the public sphere, and misinformation was rampant. This information was solid. There’s a good argument that only an informed fan base would keep the NFL’s feet to the fire. Plus, I’m a little bothered by the prospect of Pamphilon, by implication, using the threat of public disclosure to force the league to react in a way that satisfies him. That seems a troubling use of the information he had in hand, and though it wouldn’t have been extortion, feels uncomfortably close.

Comment on Cruelty and truth-telling in the NFL by patrick

patrick — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:43:47 +0000

I just read and reflected on your “Blowing The Whistle” article. As a long time Saints fan I certainly find all of the revelations (now of course with eavesdropping) disheartening at best and tainting a terrific come back story for a team and entire town at worst.

In general I agree with your viewpoint with the exception of Pamphilon’s actions and desired outcome. I do not think he should have released any information without Steve Gleason’s approval. That was their deal and condition of doing business and Sean Pamphilon agreed to it.

That being said, if someone witnesses something illegal or unethical and they believe they must report it for the good of those involved then I would agree with you that he should have “never paused before coming forward”. The problem I have with Sean Pamphilon is the way he came forward. Was releasing this information to Yahoo Sports the best way to do this? Sean could have easily given this to the office of Roger Goodell and waited to see how they wanted to use it to make sure justice is served (which is now what seems to be Mr. Goodell’s main role as judge, jury and executioner). Sean could have done this in good faith to the truth and still kept a promise to Steve Gleason. It would show he was just trying to do the right thing without drawing attention to himself.

Instead…Sean gets a lot of attention and PR by releasing it to Yahoo Sports where the commissions office hears about it as the same time as the rest of us. Now does that sound like a documentarian who is truly acting noble or is it one who knows how to generate some attention for them self?

It is not just about acting but how you act counts too. Sean Pamphilon may have needed to act in your opinion but I don’t see how you can defend the way he acted.

Comment on Cruelty and truth-telling in the NFL by Andrew Lehman

Andrew Lehman — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:17:55 +0000

Professor Wasserman,

Finally some sanity on a difficult issue. Thanks for a well-written statement about who is at fault and who is not.

Comment on Lessons of Watergate for the new media age by Lessons of Watergate for the new media age | KSU Media Law Center for Ethics and Access

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:49:31 +0000

[...] Edward Wasserman (via http://www.wlu.edu) The shadow of Watergate falls only lightly across the U.S. political landscape. Instead, the epic scandal is discernible mainly in the absence of the evils that engendered it. Even during the panicky post-9/11 era, when the temptation to ignore the law at times overwhelmed good judgment, never were even the most zealous of Bush-Cheney toadies accused of using the machinery of state to punish partisan adversaries. (Continue reading…) [...]

Comment on Lessons of Watergate for the new media age by edwardwasserman

edwardwasserman — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:55:10 +0000

You’ve got a point about Valerie Plame, I suppose, though as contemptible as it was, whispering a disparaging rumor to a toady in the press–and ruining the career of an innocent–hardly constitutes a Watergate-class abuse of power. As for the U.S. attorneys, it was a pretty cheesey move, but screening political appointees for political loyalty is, again, not in the same league as the illegal and unconstitutional subversion practiced by the Nixon gang. The Bush people have plenty to answer for, but I think Watergate did put certain misconduct off-limits, even for them.

Comment on Lessons of Watergate for the new media age by rbshea

rbshea — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:33:16 +0000

With all due respect, Edward, I disagree with your assertion that the Bush/Cheney administration did not abuse the power of the Executive branch for partisan purposes during its tenure. For example, there is the Karl Rove instigated removal of Federal attorneys/prosecutors for failing to prosecute Democratic opponents on flimsy or no evidence simply to influence elections. Rove was an Administration official inside the White House. Or take the Valerie Plame story as example. I’m sure there are others. So whatever changes were enacted because of the Nixon/Watergate scandal, they’ve indeed been outdistanced by such acts reflecting the continuing corruption of power.

Comment on Blunder on the right by Felipe Fernandez

Felipe Fernandez — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 04:10:08 +0000

I have always respected Edward Wasserman and I will continue to do after his Herald Monday’s column.Yet, a simple desire for truth and justice in our American media leads me to confront him here. For Mr. Wasserman refers to wrong doings by the News Corp. and the radio commentarist Rush Limbaugh and from there he concludes that the right wing media establishment is in trouble. Frankly, if it is about violations of ethics and civility, I am forced to indicate that that is the left wing media domicile, its actual place of abode year round… unchallenged.
On this charge, I point as exhibit A the article by Kirsten Powers, a liberal devoid of sheep’s mentality, published in the “Daily Beast”. There, the details are provided of an abundance of despicable epithets directed at women from the mouths of a number of well known leftist pundits.( from Bill Maher, of course, to Ed Schultz) To give an idea, Rush Limbaugh comes across as St. Francis of Assisi in comparison.
This, as in truth, the real difference between conservatives and liberals comes down to the obvious fact that the latter control the media and that have consequences.For example, they get to choose presidents i.e Barack Obama in 2008 who was and has been unashamedly protected since in news coverage as well as in the op-ed pages ( again, what became of that liberation theology preacher?).All of this happens while conservative voices are markedly absent from newspapers and stations in what has to be the longest, ongoing freedom of expression abuse in our history. So,Mr. Wasserman, when the passion and the anger on the right shocks you and you complain about the cultural war and of a congress that cant agree on anything you just to look at your media and how it deals with conservatives, particularly if they happen to be Christian. Intolerance inevitably breeds intolerance.
Thomas Merton was fond of saying:”We, Americans, believe that we were born without original sin but the truth is that we are in the same mess just like everybody else”. Scratch the word Americans and substitute it with the word liberals.Now, that’s ethical
Felipe Fernandez
Miami, Florida

PS. This note was sent to the Miami Herald as a letter to the editor