Well, Ted Rose's story on John Stossel did me a great service. At least now I know not to waste my time and money on Brill's Content.
Here's just a sampling of quotes:
Let's start from the top.
"John Stossel is a man on a mission: to teach Americans about the evils of government regulation and the rewards of free enterprise.
Does his journalism suffer for it?"
As if one's journalism could suffer purely for the above. Of course, it wouldn't suffer to tow the line and teach the opposite, like conventional journalists. Oh no, Rose isn't conveying any BIAS here. Of course not. Rose is really showing Stossel what it means to be an OBJECTIVE reporter.
"Complicated, esoteric debates" such as "why teenagers act the way they do, whether love can survive marriage, and the power of belief in our society."
True, those are esoteric. But how about adding the word "unfortunately"? It would be *fair to the facts* to admit that it's *important* to know these things.
"friend of big business"
Here's a phrase that's nicely out of context. Is Stossel a friend to *all big businesses*, no matter what the business does? The writer fails to say. Does the writer say what about big business Stossel values, or *why* he is friendly towards it? Of course not.
"Stossel used to collect Emmy awards regularly for his consumer reporting, but these days he's more likely to be honored, as he will be today, with a journalism award from a conservative political group."
Now *this* is a great smear. Make his stories appear of low quality and biased in one stroke, all without a shred of evidence.
"Stossel points to a set of bar graphs tacked above his bulletin board. It is a risk-assessment chart. When Stossel first explored the issue, he assigned an assistant to develop this chart; it took her a year and a half."
Interesting technique. Reduce his ideas and conclusions to just being a "chart" - a piece of paper hanging on his wall. Ignore what facts, if any, that chart conveys.
"Stossel demanded that his next contract include a series of one-hour specials"
He "demanded"? Ok, fine. But where's the evidence that it was a "demand"?
"Stossel's first special, "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?" encapsulated the philosophy that has become his mantra, clarified his editorial style, and gave rise to the serious"
And WHAT philosophy is that? It would have been nice to mention in a 3000 word article, don't you think?
"But in the special, Stossel offers only the simplistic reduction of Nader's point"
Now, categorizing Stossel's reduction as "simplistic", now there's real OBJECTIVE reporting. Especially without an explanation by him as to WHY it was reduced as such.
"Most television reporters choose to conduct their reporting - and make their mistakes - behind the curtain of supposed objectivity. But Stossel's ideological position robs him of that comfortable cover. Such a nonconformist as Stossel invites scrutiny..."
What exactly is Stossel not conforming to? Better not mention that, right? It's much better to just imply that 10,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong, and there's goes that rabble-rouser raising some crazy stink again.
"Stossel manages to pick a fight with Mother Teresa in this show [entitled 'Greed']"
More great OBJECTIVITY, right, Mr. Rose? As if no one could POSSIBLY find Mother Teresa to be WRONG. That's just a GIVEN, right, Mr. Rose? No need to even explain WHY, because EVERYONE knows Mother Teresa was moral. That's simply unquestionable. And if Stossel chooses to question it, which is exactly what he did - question it: "Mother Teresa died without a penny. Who did more for the world?" If Stossel dares to question Mother Teresa, he's "picking a fight". Let me tell you something, Mr. Rose. Try using YOUR brain to question something. You'll come to find that THINKING actually involves ASKING QUESTIONS.
"Stossel is always eager to share his views."
Really? One wouldn't know that from this article. Every effort was made to CONCEAL Stossel's views.
"Stossel, who likes to cast himself as a learned scholar who has a responsibility to tell as many people as possible what he has learned, talks a lot."
Oh no. No sarcasm there at all. Just pure OBJECTIVE reporting.
"Stossel gives most of the money away to charities of his choosing, he says."
Rather than FIND OUT whether he does in fact give MOST of the money to charity, Mr. Rose prefers to write, "he says". That way, Mr. Rose leaves the question in the reader's mind as to whether Stossel is telling the truth or not. (E.g., "Gee, maybe Stossel keeps most of the money.") This is pure SLEAZE, Mr. Rose.
This article, as I've given substantial EVIDENCE for (a word Mr. Rose ought to learn the meaning of), is pure, biased garbage - worse than the crap I thought Brill's Content was supposed to be monitoring. It's obviously nothing more than an attempt to use the current news regarding Stossel's organic food story to DESTROY EVERYTHING THAT STOSSEL HAS EVER DONE.
I'm sorry, Mr. Rose, you need evidence for that conclusion. It is an insult to your readers that you would assume your pathetic, pseudo-journalistic B.S. slanting techniques would work. They don't. They are obvious. Not only did you fail as a journalist, you also failed as a brainwasher. It's time to throw in the towel.
My toilet needs cleaning. Let me know what your rate is.
Jason Roth
Writer/Editor-in-Chief
http://savethehumans.com
