Fox News Channel
We have a product for sale called news, and I’m a salesman.
Shepard Smith, Fox News
Ralph Nader -- Activist -- Presidential Candidate
New York — Ralph Nader, eternal presidential candidate and onetime advocate for auto safety and minority rights, made what some interpret to have been an inflammatory public remark about this nation’s first African-American president. During a radio interview, Mr. Nader used the term Uncle Tom in the context of President-Elect Barack Obama. In the United States, Uncle Tom is used by blacks and whites to describe a black person acquiescing to whites or behaving subserviently. Thus Uncle Tom is unflattering at best, highly charged, and inherently condemnatory.
Nader meant for his comment to be attention getting — for garnering attention has been his principal occupation for many years. Use of phrases or epithets such as Uncle Tom, especially in the context of an African American male, is inflammatory language that does not conform to temporal views concerning political correctness. This is well understood by Ralph Nader — a man whose life-long advocacy for liberal ideals and causes, including the broadening of civil rights for African Americans, are firmly established.
Framing The Issues
The Quote:
“He is our first African American president; or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations who are running America into the ground.
Anyone who has worked in the areas of civil rights, economic justice, and health and safety over the decades knows that whenever minority candidates are elected to legislative offices, their minority constituents remain wary regarding whether the entrenched power structures are affecting these self-avowed representatives, or whether the reverse is occurring – that is, they are standing up to the corporate supremacists. All political pioneers have to answer this question as they move into these positions of trust. Unfortunately, as many people of color – struggling through the day in often desperate circumstances – know from the lessons of history, there are more than a few times when they are let down by a surrender to the rich and powerful – an obeisance that has its vernacular. Let us all hope that this will not happen. Tens of millions of Americans await what actually does happen. Everyone, as alert citizens, should strive to make sure that courses of action are taken that put people first and finally make corporations our servants and not our masters.
For some, there is a direct connection between someone seeking attention and those who already have it. Those who have attention, on television at least, garner fame and a comfortable income by drawing attention to themselves. The Nader statement thus aroused interest at Fox News Channel — not for its news value as much as its attention garnering value. Perhaps believing that there being no free speech bounds for political candidates, Shepard Smith, along with the election night production team, put Mr. Nader in the limelight not for his political views, which are essentially endless, as for the opportunity to ambush him on-air.
What followed was gotcha journalism of the lowest sort in which Mr. Smith taunted Nader, condemned his foolish statement, and sought to intimidate him into admitting he had done wrong. The purported interview soon turned into a public lynching. Mr. Nader would have none of what Smith was selling which provided plenty of drama and embarrassment — although there was no evidence that either protagonist or victim were embarrassed. Whatever one thinks of either Mr. Smith or Mr. Nader or Fox News, what aired was not news, not probative, and irrelevant.
Playing to viewer emotions, rather than intellect, is profitable for cable news. No matter that Nader’s comments were devoid of probative value, they were uttered after the outcome of the presidential election was known. That made them deliciously inflammatory — just what everyone in the junk-news business knows will attract viewers.
The exchange took place on election night ( November 4, 2008 ) just before 1 a.m. New York time. Shepard Smith was in FNC’s Studio H on the 12th floor of the NewsCorporation building. His guest was off site for a talking head segment. Nader was able to hear Smith but unable to see what was being aired. Both Messrs. Smith and Nader were experienced at doing blind remote interviews.
This YouTube video of the incident shows both the confrontation and the after-talk.
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Shepard Smith Does Ralph Nader
Responsible news gathering and reporting are all but gone from television news today. Thus Ralph Nader’s clearly inappropriate comment, loaded as it was with gut-wrenching emotional appeal, was made to get attention. It may have been a gamble on his part, for he well understands that being outrageous is desirable when it comes to getting airtime on television. Being an experienced user of media, Mr. Nader understood the unspoken quid-pro-quo of junk news broadcasters:
Let us promote something trivial with strong emotional appeal and you’ll get some airtime to express your standard talking points.
Thus pseudo-news characters, such as Nader, and television news actors such as Mr. Smith, are made for one another.
No matter one’s views on Mr. Nader’s political views, or his fading celebrity, he is not required to be either rational or credible. He is, and has been, an activist, agitator and political gadfly since he took on General Motors nearly a half century ago. He says what suits him and his causes — often in ways that are confrontational, inflammatory or simply outrageous. That’s his privilege. Advocacy is a lawful activity in this nation that is fully protected by our First Amendment rights to free speech.
Shepard Smith, Fox News Channel
But lynchings are not lawful — nor is intimidation an instrument of credible journalism. Sheppard Smith is not alone in applying such tactics, for there are no standards for behavior, deportment or journalistic quality in cable news today. Legitimate journalists have remained quiet far too long as the Honorable Profession has been desecrated by well paid entertainers who pretend to be television journalists. Have you spoken out about this abuse of your profession?
But what of Shepard Smith? Was he within his constitutional rights to sanctimoniously decry Nader’s remarks? Of course. Was doing so either expository or newsworthy? Of course not — for the booking decision and segment purpose were never intended as news, but as combat where one side owns all the ammunition and defines the rules. Such segments are routine on every cable news channel today — but neither their production or airing are journalistic activities. They are what they are — conflict driven, highly charged, emotional gang rapes — an activity in which neither Smith nor Nader enjoyed virgin status.
Absent critical editing, well defined and enforced standards of conduct, and publicly defined ethics, those who pander to such activities demean a proud tradition and discredit an honored profession.
