“Who is Roman Polanski?” asked one guest—age 22, educated, male, from a privileged background. I was shocked that he was unaware of the film director, and his admitted crime and over 30 years as a fugitive.
I have since monitored news reporting about Polanski’s unexpected arrest. Ongoing coverage expanding in detail and outlet, from the Times of London, Los Angeles and New York to theWall Street Journal, Washington Post and USA Today. Collectively, it seems that every published newswriter has demonstrated regard for journalistic standards without reciting any detail other than substantiated fact.
Needless to say, that coverage has not been easy to critique from an ethical standpoint. ………
Enter Anne Applebaum, writing a lopsided opinion piece for the Washington Post:
http://voices.washingtonpost.
The Pulitzer Prize winning professional’s writing glosses over the details of accusations against Polanski and his plea bargain on reduced charges. In Polanski’s defense, she writes “He has paid for the crime in many, many ways.” Further, she never gets around to answering her initial question: why Switzerland? Although she does recount the horrors inflicted upon Polanski and his family during the holocaust, after lobbing criticism at Swiss banks for coddling criminals and corrupt dictators. Is she hinting that Switzerland’s WW-II neutrality and throwing Polanski under the bus are parts of the same picture?
Applebaum’s piece displays blatant contempt for the law and the court system, including innuendo of unspecified misconduct by the judge in the case. She has no right to insinuate, without more, that readers should judge the judge. She goes on further to plea age—of Polanski, advanced. Oddly, the age that matters here is the age of Polanski’s victim: underage.
Facts are facts. Law is law. Appelbaum’s defense of Polanski is as sensible as changing a flat tire with a box of hair.
For an opinion piece more balanced on the facts, and hence less likely to mislead impressionable readers, see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/
Adam Hamilton
2 comments:
I don't understand the box of hair reference either... maybe I'm not as smart as you think :)
I get the reference - it just doesn't make sense!
Great review of how journalists have handled this case - however, while the first article was an obvious biased opinion, the two NY Times articles too were opinionated and biased. Yet - the last two did make an incredible case to question the motives of the LA District Attorney, a view point I have not heard in detail before.
Post a Comment