Posts
Praise for Rooney?
When someone famous (particularly if their fame was of a national nature) dies, I believe a written record of their expressed hostility toward a particular group--particularly minorities, should be explained. I don’t believe petty crimes should be extolled, but when that person has a big, national megaphone placed in front of them, it’s only fair that such shortcomings be mentioned. The silence regarding the true nature of Andy Rooney's 'amiable' ranting is very telling. And noticed. "Rooney was a sexist, a racist, and a homophobe but the country loved him nevertheless," was the prescient comment of "The Angry Arab News Service: A source on politics, war, the MIddle East, Arabic poetry, and Art." I will respond by saying that the U.S. news consumer has little choice but 'love' a dead white male when you consider the past 30 years of news minus radio news in this country.
But, in the spirit of Rooney, I have digressed. Back to Andy.
But, in the spirit of Rooney, I have digressed. Back to Andy.
Not in any order of offended group, but in my humble opinion, may I say that Andy Rooney’s overly long tenure at CBS News might be part of the reason our mainstream news media has lost all credibility?
Regarding women:
“..."The first thing that came into my mind is, does anybody take Andy Rooney seriously anyway?" said ESPN SportsCenter anchor Linda Cohn. "He doesn't take himself seriously half the time anyway. The second thing is, why is he stereotyping all women? God knows if he watches SportsCenter and has ever seen me. You have to judge each person separately. The third thing is, when was the last time he followed any of these sideline reporters around doing their job? Tell me the date and time, please." http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2002-10-09-rooney-remarks_x.htm
Regarding race relations:
“...Burke said Rooney's future with CBS News will be discussed at the end of the three-month suspension.
In the Feb. 27 edition of The Advocate, Rooney is quoted as saying that "blacks have watered down their genes because the less intelligent ones are the ones that have the most children." http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-09/news/mn-236_1_andy-rooney...”
And, from the above article, regarding gay rights:
“...Rooney, 71, who previously had come under fire from homosexual-rights groups for remarks about gays and AIDS in a CBS-TV special in December, also is quoted as saying that, while he felt that gays have been the victims of prejudice, he found the homosexual act "repugnant" and homosexuality "not normal."
In an interview with The Times following his suspension, Rooney denied that remarks he made to The Advocate in a phone interview with one of its reporters expressed racial bias. However, he confirmed he had written a controversial letter to the magazine commenting on gays in response to criticisms of his views on homosexuality....”
My local paper, the Oneonta Daily Star, offers a very brief “Cheers” section as part of the opinion page. They extolled his service to CBS and the nation: "...Rooney was witness to some of history's defining moments as a correspondent for the newspaper Stars & Stripes during World War II, and the Albany native's insightful and witty segments were often the perfect way to end a weekend..." I guess the writer has some pretty boring weekends!
I realize that itt’s hard to briefly round out any human. But, in full disclosure, I must note that the person in charge of the Star's operation is an avowed "Israel-Right-Or-Wrong" sort of guy. So, perhaps I’m not surprised that this normally laudable item misses the point on Rooney. What would a better, more-rounded presentation look like? In print--a simple sentence, such as “Rooney was notably in hot water with CBS for comments blacks, gays and women found intolerant.” In a radio piece, back when we had hourly newscasts, this could be fitted into a simple 40 - 60 second piece.
I realize that itt’s hard to briefly round out any human. But, in full disclosure, I must note that the person in charge of the Star's operation is an avowed "Israel-Right-Or-Wrong" sort of guy. So, perhaps I’m not surprised that this normally laudable item misses the point on Rooney. What would a better, more-rounded presentation look like? In print--a simple sentence, such as “Rooney was notably in hot water with CBS for comments blacks, gays and women found intolerant.” In a radio piece, back when we had hourly newscasts, this could be fitted into a simple 40 - 60 second piece.
For instance, when I did obituary radio news items on Arthur Godfrey in Houston in 1981, I was able to use soundbites from the late RKO news service from people who believed Godfrey had killed many the career of those then considered 'pink'--those who, today would be mainstream supporters of the Occupy movement. That is how skewed our country's news has been since we lost those 5,000 radio news people to 'deregulation'--and the wider variety of sources other journalists could have persuaded their editors to let them quote. Safety in numbers helps a profession that is supposed to explain things in context do just that.
When someone famous (particularly if their fame was of a national nature) dies, I believe a written record of their expressed hostility toward a particular group--particularly minorities, should be explained. I don’t believe petty crimes should be extolled, but when that person has a big, national megaphone placed in front of them, as did Rooney, it’s only fair that such shortcomings be mentioned.
When someone famous (particularly if their fame was of a national nature) dies, I believe a written record of their expressed hostility toward a particular group--particularly minorities, should be explained. I don’t believe petty crimes should be extolled, but when that person has a big, national megaphone placed in front of them, as did Rooney, it’s only fair that such shortcomings be mentioned.
