The relationship between the public and the media can be a strained one. Public figures know that any time they're approached by the media -- and sometimes when they aren't -- that one dumb statement can bring them down more than a few notches in the public's eyes. Sometimes, however, a statement that is not entirely foolish can be misconstrued as foolish by the media and can lead to a negative outcome.
For instance, Republican senator John Cornyn was attacked in the media this past week for "declaring an all-out war on the judiciary," according to blogger Glenn Reynolds, a.k.a. "Instapundit." Here is a piece of Cornyn's sound bite, courtesy of the Lone Star Times:
"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. ... And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but [it's] a concern that I have."
Looking at that comment, Cornyn's biggest mistake isn't rationalizing attacks on judges -- in fact, he states that attacks are without justification, making Reynolds's claim a little unusual. The mistake in the statement is that Cornyn is making a connection that evidently does not exist. The attacks on judges in recent months have had nothing to do with any political decisions made by the judiciary. One had to do with a rape case, another with a lawsuit that was dismissed, but none had to do with any perceived act of "judicial activism" that occurred.
Of course, these days, anyone who says anything stupid to the media will turn around and claim that they, too, were taken out of context. Whereas Cornyn's statement was misinterpreted by the media -- or not, depending on whose side you believe -- statements made by a very different set of public figures, such as sports personalities, are often not misread at all, but the athletes and personalities claim they were.
Exhibit A: Lance Armstrong. The six-time Tour de France champion cyclist was quoted by Pakistan's Daily Times as endorsing Paris for the 2012 Summer Olympic Games, saying, "To be honest, I think Paris deserves the Games ... it was already the best candidate in 2008. The Games went to Beijing, probably for other reasons ... the candidacy of Paris is excellent, that's for sure." Lance has since backtracked, saying that his statement was taken out of context and that New York City actually deserves to get the Games.
Exhibit B: Wayne Hagin. During baseball's spring training this season, Hagin -- a radio broadcaster for the St. Louis Cardinals -- clearly stated on air that Colorado Rockie Todd Helton had once used steroids, using an interview with ex-Rockies manager Don Baylor as his source. When he was attacked for this -- after all, there is no evidence of Helton's using steroids -- he went to the old "out of context" argument. That's a pretty tough argument to make when you say something on the air.
The media sometimes messes up and misinterprets what someone was trying to say, but often when someone claims to have been taken out of context, they usually have been heard loud and clear.
Write to Andy at
ndistops@hotmail.com
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
