steve matrazzo - columns on the media

Steve Matrazzo

Columns on

the media

2 The Dundalk Eagle, Dundalk, MD October 25, 2012

Pharmacy FACTSPresented by

Dr. Mark Lichtman�.,;;05.�,56<./�+&

�� :KLOH�PXFK�DWWHQWLRQ�KDV�EHHQ�SDLG�WR�SURWHFWLQJ�VNLQ�IURP�WKH�VXQ�V�UD\V��WKHUH�LV�D�GRZQVLGH�WR�ZHDULQJ�VXQVFUHHQ�DQG�VWD\LQJ�RXW�RI� WKH�VXQ��%HFDXVH�VXQOLJKW�VWLPXODWHV� WKH�VNLQ�WR�V\QWKHVL]H�YLWDPLQ�'��LQVXIILFLHQW�H[SRVXUH�WR�VXQOLJKW�FDQ�OHDG�WR�D�YLWDPLQ�'�GHILFLHQF\��2OGHU�DGXOWV��LQ�SDUWLFXODU��ZKR�GR� QRW� JHW� HQRXJK� YLWDPLQ� '� HLWKHU� IURP� WKHLU� GLHWV� RU� VXQ�V\QWKHVLV�PD\�EH�DW�LQFUHDVHG�ULVN�IRU�ZHDNHQHG�ERQHV��ZRUV�HQLQJ�RVWHRDUWKULWLV��HYHQ�DQ�LQFUHDVHG�ULVN�RI�FDQFHU��3HRSOH�ZKR�DUH�QRW�JHWWLQJ�HQRXJK�YLWDPLQ�'�HLWKHU�IURP�VXQVKLQH�RU�WKHLU�GLHWV�DUH�HQFRXUDJHG�WR�WDNH�VXSSOHPHQWV�RI�DERXW��,8�SHU�GD\�GXULQJ�WKHLU��V�DQG��V�DQG��WR��,8�GXULQJ�WKHLU��V�DQG��V�� 2XU�NQRZOHGJHDEOH�VWDII�RI�ZHOO�WUDLQHG�DQG�FDULQJ�SKDUPD�FLVWV�FDQ�GLVFXVV�DQ\�RI�\RXU�KHDOWK�UHODWHG�LVVXHV��:H�LQYLWH�\RX�WR�VWRS�E\�DQG�GLVFXVV�ZLWK�XV�LQ�SHUVRQ�DQ\�LVVXHV�WKDW�\RX�PD\�KDYH��2U��\RX�FDQ�FDOO�XV�RQ�WKH�SKRQH��:H�VSHFLDO�L]H�LQ�KDUG�WR�ILQG�SUHVFULSWLRQV�DQG�FDQ�FRPSRXQG�PHGLFLQHV�IRU� \RX��:H� FDQ� SURYLGH� \RX�ZLWK� KRPHRSDWK\�� KHUEV�� YLWD�PLQV��DQG�DURPDWKHUDS\��:H�DUH�SURXG�WR�EH�RSHQ�HYHU\�GD\�RI�WKH�\HDU��0RQ�)UL��DP��SP��6DW��DP��SP��6XQ��DP��SP�

3�6�5HFHQW�HYLGHQFH�VXJJHVWV�WKDW�LQVXIILFLHQW�YLWDPLQ�'�OHY�HOV�PD\�EH�IDU�PRUH�SUHYDOHQW�WKDQ�RQFH�EHOLHYHG�

DRUG CITY PHARMACY��5VY[O�7VPU[�9VHK��)HS[PTVYL��4+��

7708 GERMAN HILL ROAD

410-282-2085

Testimonial: Steelworker of 37 years, Robert J. Funk, Sr. says: “After another lawyer turned down my Workers’ Compensation claim, Mr. Bacon tried it and I received a six-figure award!’’

(Past success is not a guarantee of future results)

(FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION)

YearPracticing Law35th

William R. Bacon, Jr.WORKERS’ COMPAUTO ACCIDENTS

&RPH�WR�ZKHUH�\RX�UH�QRW�MXVW�D�FXVWRPHU��EXW�D�SDUW�RI�RXU�IDPLO\�

1(:(67��5(/,$%/(��+21(67�0(&+$1,&6��*5$1'�23(1,1*

New Life Auto RepairSpecialists, Inc.

Auto Repair410-285-0222

��1RUWK�3RLQW�5RDG(GJHPHUH��0'��

RESURRECT YOUR EXISTING VEHICLE AT NEW LIFE!

ChristianOwned &Operated

We service all foreign & domestic

brands

OilChanges

$1999

up to 5 qts

We guarantee the lowest price��($67(51�%/9'��(66(;��0'��

:::�$872*/$666$/(�&20

60% OFF:,1'2:�7,17,1*��$872�*/$66�� 96*2�*/07�9,7(09:Lifetime Warranty on aLL neW gLass & tint instaLLed

� :KHQ� LW� FRPHV� WR� |ZLVGRP}� WHHWK� �WKLUG�PRODUV�� SDWLHQWV� DQG�WKHLU� SDUHQWV� VKRXOG� GLVFXVV� WKHLU� RSWLRQV� ZLWK� WKH� GHQWLVW�� $Q�H[DPLQDWLRQ�RI�D�\RXQJ�SDWLHQW�V�PRXWK�E\�DJH��RU��VKRXOG�SURYLGH�WKH�GHQWLVW�ZLWK�D�JRRG�LQGLFDWLRQ�RI�ZKHWKHU�WKHUH�LV�VXIIL�FLHQW�URRP�IRU�WKH�WHHWK�WR�FRPH�LQ�SURSHUO\��,I�QRW��DQG�RQH�RU�PRUH�WHHWK�ORRN�WR�EH�LPSDFWHG��ZHGJHG�LQ��WKH�OLNHO\�UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ�ZLOO�EH�WR�KDYH�WKH�SUREOHPDWLF�WRRWK�RU�WHHWK�H[WUDFWHG��7KH�VRRQHU�WKH�LPSDFWHG�WRRWK�LV�UHPRYHG��WKH�VKDOORZHU�LWV�URRWV�ZLOO�EH�DQG�WKH�HDVLHU�LW�ZLOO�EH�WR�UHPRYH��2Q�WKH�RWKHU�KDQG��LI�ZLVGRP�WHHWK�GR�QRW�DIIHFW�IXQFWLRQ�RU�DSSHDUDQFH��WKH\�PD\�EH�OHIW�LQ�SODFH�� :KHQ� DQ� LPSDFWHG� ZLVGRP� WRRWK� VWDUWV� WR� SXVK� WKURXJK� WKH�JXPV��DQ�LQIHFWLRQ�FDQ�VWDUW�DURXQG�WKH�WRS�RI�WKH�WRRWK��,QIHFWLRQ�DQG�LQIODPPDWLRQ��VZROOHQ�UHG�JXPV��FDQ�FDXVH�SDLQ��VZHOOLQJ�DQG�MDZ�VWLIIQHVV��$Q� LPSDFWHG�ZLVGRP�WRRWK�DOVR�PD\�NHHS�SXVKLQJ�DJDLQVW�WKH�PRODUV�QH[W�WR�LW��7KLV�RIWHQ�OHDGV�WR�VHULRXV�GDPDJH�WR�ERWK�WHHWK��7R�VFKHGXOH�D�GHQWDO�H[DP��SOHDVH�FDOO��2XU�RIILFH�LV�FRQYHQLHQWO\�ORFDWHG�DW��6ROOHUV�3RLQW�5G��3�6�� 3DUWLDOO\� HUXSWHG� ZLVGRP� WHHWK� FDQ� EH� TXLWH� GLIILFXOW� WR�FOHDQ�DQG�PD\�SRVH�D�SRWHQWLDO�LQIHFWLRQ�ULVN��

*65=,5;065(3�>0:+64

^^^�K\UKHSRKLU[PZ[Y`�JVT

Dentistry by Choice!by Dr. Emma Galvan, D.D.S. & Dr. Grant F. Cylus, D.D.S.

Speaking up for the facts is a journalist’s job .... a bawcock, and a heart of gold ... Of fist most valiant. I kiss his dirty shoe, and from heart-string, I love the lovely bully.

Shakespeare, Henry V

I’ve often had to de-fend the practice of journalism — both my own and that of

my colleagues, here at The Eagle and elsewhere — in this space, in other forums and in one-on-one conver-sation. I’ve defended the publi-cation of leaked informa-tion, the use of anonymous sources, the reporting of unwelcome news and the asking of unwelcome ques-tions. And I’ve been willing to criticize my profession as well, for everything from mindless stenography to sloppy reporting. And, being human, I’ve even had to take it on the chin and own up to occasional shortcomings a few times myself. So it was that I was asked — by more than one person, in fact — for my take on CNN reporter Candy Crowley’s perfor-mance as moderator of

the Oct. 16 presidential debate. You know the moment; GOP challenger Mitt Rom-ney had been criticizing President Obama on the matter of the deadly at-tack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. He al-leged that the administra-tion had taken two weeks to acknowledge the attack as terrorism. Obama responded, “The day after the attack, gov-ernor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what hap-pened. That this was an act of terror ....” Romney, apparently thinking he had caught Obama in a lie, pressed his case, until Crowley stepped in to note that the president had, in fact, spo-ken those words the day after the attack. It took about five sec-onds for Romney support-ers to cry foul, accusing Crowley of being biased and of improperly inject-ing herself into the debate. Never mind that Rom-ney was factually wrong (and that by noting the facts, Crowley was actual-ly giving him a fair chance

to backtrack before he got into deeper trouble). Crow-ley, the critics said, was there only to ask the ques-tions and let the candi-dates know when they had exceeded their allotted time. Her job, they said, was to be “impartial.” I suspect that some who asked for my opinion of Crowley, and expected me to call her unprofessional. were sorely disappointed. They shouldn’t have been. Not only do I think she should’ve corrected a demonstrably false state-ment by a politician, I’ve done the same myself. The scene was the Re-publican congressional candidates’ debate at the Del Capri on German Hill Road on March 15. [The incident can be viewed in The Eagle’s video

of the debate, available on-line at www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbTFK3hClLE. The relevant exchange oc-curs roughly between the 34:00 and 37:00 marks, with my specific act of im-pudence at about 36:20.] Referring to the then-current controversy over contraception coverage re-quirements for employees working for religious in-stitutions in non-religious jobs, state Sen. Nancy Jacobs, the eventual GOP nominee, had answered a question about abortion by saying, “To try and force a Catholic hospital into performing abortions is wrong.” The problem: there was no proposal to force Cath-olic hospitals to perform abortions. And I said so. Because it’s my job. Journalists are not simply stenographers or tape recorders, taking the words that come out of the mouths of politicians (and others) and passing them along without evaluation or context, leaving people to sort truth from false-hood on their own. In fact, the highest ob-ligation of a journalist

Talk of the Town by Steve Matrazzo

How well do

we serve the

people if we

don’t tell them

the difference

between fact

and fiction?

is — or at least should be — to facts. And when falsehoods come from the mouths of the mighty — whomever they may be — any journalist worthy of the name has not just the right but the obligation to say so. There’s a lot of high-minded talk about jour-nalism as a profession in the service of the public, but how well do we serve the people if we withhold unpleasant facts (like the growing troubles at the Sparrows Point steel mill we reported all year be-fore it finally closed), or if we decline to ask uncom-fortable questions (like Crowley’s own CNN did in making public the security concerns expressed in Am-bassador Chris Stevens’ journal prior to the Beng-hazi attack) or if we don’t tell people the difference between fact and fiction? If we do nothing more than dutifully record the words and deeds of the powerful, we consign the public we claim to serve

to Matthew Arnold’s dark-ling plain, swept with con-fused alarms of struggle and flight, where ignorant armies clash by night. Do we ever err? Of course we do. I’ve will-ingly taken my lumps in my years with The Eagle, and while it’s never pleas-ant, I’ve done so willingly, and publicly, right on this page. If anything, I think a journalist’s claim to cred-ibility requires the willing-ness to admit fault. But there was no fault to ad-mit in my exchange with Sen. Jacobs. “Unwelcome facts are still facts, and that’s a fact,” a very bright fellow wrote in this paper not long ago. So, to the question I’ve been repeatedly asked: “What do you think of Candy Crowley?” I think she’s a bawcock, and a heart of gold ... of fist most valiant. I kiss her dirty shoe, and from heart-string, I love the lovely bully.

Q�Opinions expressed are those of the writer and do

not represent the opinion of The Dundalk Eagle or Kim-

bel Publication Inc. You can contact Eagle editor Steve

Matrazzo via e-mail at [email protected].

2 The Dundalk Eagle January 15, 2015

nOpinions expressed are those of the writer and do not represent the opinion of The Dundalk Eagle or Kimbel Publication Inc. You can contact Eagle editor Steve Matrazzo via e-mail at [email protected].

Je suis, je suis ... nous sommes tous ... toujours et partoutTalk of the Town by Steve Matrazzo

Last week, I received an e-mail from a reader regarding Eagle as-sociate editor Bill Gates’ Jan. 8

“Bleacher Bum” column: “Can you ask him to explain his hatred for the Seahawks?” Bill is a longtime Green Bay Packers fan ... and he loathes Seattle Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll so thoroughly that he’d probably heckle Carroll’s grand-son at a spelling bee. (Why? Ask him ....) As Sunday’s Packers-Cowboys playoff game headed toward a still-uncertain finish, Bill texted me, “I’m actually torn here. On which team I want to win. I think Dallas has a better chance to win in Seattle.” That is, he was prepared to place his anti-Carroll animus ahead of his love for the sons of Lambeau and Lombardi. My response was that “a very wise thinker wrote once (more than once, in fact) that what we stand against shouldn’t obscure what we stand for.” That “very wise thinker” usually re-serves those words for weightier matters like war and peace, security and law-enforcement powers, and the place of working people in our economy. And the right of people to their own minds — and the full and free expression thereof. It is thus that the “wise thinker” wishes that his words — or at least the idea within them — might reach the ears and minds of men like those who carried out last week’s murderous attacks at the of-fices of the French satirical magazine

Charlie Hebdo. Desperate acts meant to initimidate free people are, sadly, nothing new. The ability of those wielding the figurative pencil to carry out their public duty is reg-ularly threatened by force — by the bullet at Charlie Hebdo, by the beheading blade in Daesh-controlled lands (more on that later), or by the jailer’s chains in Egypt, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, China .... What has this to do with me? I am unlikely to face any such barbarity, or any meaningful repression at all, from my perch on the second floor of Reier House — even as I regularly offend some readers in my little corner of the world. Rarely does a day go by without a let-ter, an e-mail or a phone call telling me how absolutely awful I am. I hear from people telling me that I have offended their sense of morality, their sense of patriotism, and — yes — their faith. I’m pretty sure at least some of them own guns. Yet somehow, every night, I go home without a scratch. Which is precisely the point. I do my work secure in the knowledge that I live in a (relatively) civilized society, and that here, neither my government nor any outraged person (or group) is likely to try to shut me down with guns, bombs or prison bars. (Or, as I noted two years ago, “because we are ultimately a free society ... a quar-ter-century after “Piss Christ,” Andrés Serrano is alive and in one piece.”) My colleagues around the world should

enjoy the same certainty. Always and ev-erywhere. Not just because it is their right, or even because it is the right of all people, but because it is the right — the lifeblood, in fact — of human civilization itself. The often-messy business of public debate, with an unfettered exchange of information and ideas, is the critical ele-ment in the advancement of civilization. There has been no scientific, technologi-cal, social, economic, political, artistic or cultural development in history that was not dependent upon the ability of someone to be freely influenced by the creativity and ideas of someone else. For all the grievance aimed at the West by jihadists, the fact is that modern Western ascendancy is in no small mea-sure founded upon our embrace of that understanding, and our shedding of the chains of medievalism, with its stifling conformity — and the bloody enforce-ment thereof. It is a central element of modernity that true freedom requires respecting the freedom of others to do and say — and publish — things that some of us might find offensive. We who actually live in the 21st Century know that. We have enshrined that under-standing in our hearts and minds, and in our fundamental documents. And no amount of intimidation, even at its bloodiest and most barbaric, will put us off it. Meanwhile, smaller minds let their

anger, despair and intolerance motivate them to such deeds as the terrorist atroc-ity at Charlie Hebdo. They may claim to be acting in the name of their faith and for the betterment of their brethren, but in fact, they are betraying both, by allowing what they stand against — modern civilization, and the freedom and human dignity attaching thereto — to obscure what they claim to stand for. And in doing so, they expose that they ultimately stand for ... nothing. As all terrorists ultimately do.

ttt

“Daesh” is a loosely-constructed ac-ronym of “ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil ‘Irāq wa ash-Shām” (Arabic for “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”). Apparently, “daesh” itself is not a word in Arabic, but it sounds enough like the Arabic “daes” (“one who crushes some-thing underfoot”) and “dahes” (“one who sows discord”) that ISIS/ISIL ... I mean, Daesh ... absolutely hates it. Which is why an increasing number of Westerners — and the group’s opponents in its own region — have enthusiasti-cally adopted it. I’m on the bandwagon. Even apart from the anti-jihadist bird-flipping that the name implies, it solves my standing problem regarding the ancient Egyptian goddess and the DC comics heroine ....

2 The Dundalk Eagle, Dundalk, MD December 29, 2011

Dentistry by Choice!

Few things relax infants more than sucking milk or fruit juice from a bottle. When babies are allowed to suck on a bottle at bedtime until they go to sleep, however, this habit can prove to be potentially harmful. Bathing teeth in a sugary liquid in this manner promotes tooth decay. According to various studies, as many as 11% of pre-school children have cavities caused by sucking on a bottle. If a bottle-fed child’s mouth is not properly cleansed after sucking on a bottle by lightly swabbing his or her teeth and gums with a water-dampened cloth, plaque will accumulate to cause cavities. If your child must have a bottle at bedtime, provide one filled with water. Although baby teeth are eventually replaced with permanent teeth, healthy baby teeth are fundamental to a child’s overall health and development. It is important that your child see a dentist by age one to establish long-term dental hygiene and a professional dental cleaning plan. For more information, please call our office at (410) 284-1414. A trip to the dentist may be one of your family’s most important appointments! We stress preven-tive dentistry by teaching patients good oral hygiene habits. We are conveniently located at 3001 Sollers Point Road.

P.S. Mothers who breast-feed their children must also clean their babies’ mouths with a damp cloth.

www.anythingforyoudentalcare.com

BABY-BOTTLE TOOTH DECAY

by Dr. Emma Galvan, D.D.S. & Dr. Grant F. Cylus, D.D.S.

7708 GERMAN HILL ROAD

410-282-2085




YearPracticing Law34th

William R. Bacon, Jr.WORKERS’ COMPAUTO ACCIDENTS

B. Eric JonEs, MD, PARetina Specialist, Board Certified

1005 North Point Blvd.Suite 707410-288-2853

Macular Degeneration Diabetic retinopathy

Happy New Year!Pharmacy

FACTSPresented by

Dr. Mark Lichtman fish-oil supplements

and the heart An Italian study recently showed that people who have aheart attack and then take fish-oil supplements have a sig-nificantlyreducedriskofdyingfromlaterheart-relatedcauses.Accordingtotheresearch,whichfollowed11,324Italianhospi-talpatientsfor3to5yearsaftertheirheartattacks,therewasa30%decreaseincardiovasculardeathsamongthosewhousedfish oil. Scientists believe the heart-healthy effects of fish oilandotheromega-3fattyacidsstemfromtheirabilitytoreduceinflamation of the artery walls. These fatty acids have alsobeenshown to lower levelsof triglycerides in theblood.Thestudysupportsresearchshowingthatomega-3fattyacidscandecreasetheriskofbloodclottingandabnormalheartrhythms. Theomega-3fattyacidsinfishoilmaybebeneficialintreat-ing hypertriglycerdemia, andpossibly beneficial in preventingheartdisease.Fishoilhasmanyhealthbenefits.Ourpharma-cistsareexpertsandhaveyearsofexperience.Weareheretohelpyouandyourfamily.Ifyouhavequestions,pleasecallustoday.Wecanprovideyouwithhomeopathy,herbs,vitamins,andaromatherapy.

P.S. The Italian study mentioned above showed an overallreduction in death rate of 15% for thepatients taking fish-oilsupplements.

DRUG CITY PHARMACY2805 North Point Road • Baltimore, MD 21222 • 410-284-2424

Journalistic anonymity, and who stole Baby Jesus?

In the wake of last week’s front-page story by Joseph M. Giordano calling into

doubt reports of the clo-sure of the machine shop at the Sparrows Point steel mill, I received sev-eral phone calls, letters and e-mails questioning the use of (and reliability of) an unnamed source for the bulk of the information in the story. For an example of the critiques, see Greg Rain-ey’s letter in our “By the People” on page 8. Rainey writes that he “know[s] the three Steves that worked there, and none of them gave you this information.” I’m sure that he does know every Steve who has worked there, but that’s irrelevant. “Steve” is a pseudonym. His real name wasn’t used in the story. Which is the whole point of anonymity. While Rainey’s letter goes on to offer fact-based argu-ments against the accuracy of Giordano’s report (and we stand by that accuracy, for reasons I will soon explain), it seems like an appropriate occasion for an explanation of the use of anonymity in journalism.

The subject, in fact, is a matter of serious debate in our profession these days, with a growing body of jour-nalists complaining that anonymity is granted far too promiscuously, and for the wrong reasons. Not long ago, I made mention in this space of the impunity with which former Bush administration official Richard Armitage exposed the identity of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame. Seeking to discredit a report critical of Bush administration policy by Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wil-son, Armitage leaked her identity to columnist Robert Novak, who then published the information. The criticism — in which I join — was that Novak allowed himself to be used. He granted Armitage ano-nymity (Armitage came forward on his own years later) not so that he could gain relevant information that could only come from a protected source, but so that Armitage could smear an opponent without hav-ing to own his actions. Similar criticisms were leveled at several politi-cal reporters this summer. Michele Bachmann had

been surging in the polls for the Republican presidential nomination, and GOP insid-ers, apparently worried that she might become a real contender, began cast-ing doubts about her legiti-macy as a candidate. Suddenly, there were numerous reports of unnamed Republican Party sources questioning Bach-mann’s electability. There was, of course, no good reason to grant these “sources” anonymity; no relevant information was being revealed (certainly none that put those “sourc-es” in any danger requir-ing protection of the identi-ties), and the “sources” were merely spreading innuendo and using the cover of ano-nymity to avoid having to take responsibility for their own opinions. However, an ambitious journalist can easily fall prey to the temptation to grant anonymity to anyone, to get anything. The Society of Profession-al Journalists (the primary professional association for news scribes) has a code of ethics that includes strict guidelines regarding the use of anonymous sources. A relevant passage:

“Test the accuracy of information from all sourc-es and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error .... Always question sources’ motives before promising anonym-ity.” Regular readers may have noticed that anony-mous sources appear in Eagle stories only rarely. One reason is that the range of news that we cover doesn’t often require the use of anonymous sources. The other reason is that we take the above-quoted guidelines seriously, and we don’t grant anonymity at the drop of a hat. Properly used, anonym-ity is granted only when a source has relevant infor-mation that cannot other-wise be obtained, and when that source has a well-founded fear of reprisal that warrants the protections of anonymity. Even then, the reporter doesn’t make that call on his own. He has to convince his editor that anonymity is necessary, and he has to be prepared to prove not only the need for anonym-ity but the reliability of the source, as well as be ready to provide some degree of corroboration of the source’s


claims. I can assure the readers of The Eagle that we apply those standards rigorously, and they were met in this instance. As for whether or not Greg Rainey is right in claiming that we “sure blew this one,” only time will tell. But I’ll tell you this: Joe Giordano is an experienced professional, and he has been covering steel for a long time. And he takes his job seriously. As such, this paper — and its editor — stand by his story.

t t t

Some time ago, I wrote about the theft of a little boy’s playhouse, and I wondered who would steal from a baby. This week, I have to ask who would steal a baby. And not just any baby. Someone stole the Baby Jesus. Really. Just as we were prepar-

ing this week’s issue to go to press, I received mul-tiple calls about the theft. It seems that some par-ticularly heartless person actually stole the figure of the infant Christ from the creche outside Dundalk United Methodist Church on Mornington Road. At least one report I received said that Mary and Joseph disappeared along with him. (The quick-witted and Biblically knowledge-able might quip that the three have absconded to Egypt to avoid the wrath of Herod.) What’s worse is that at least one person told me that this is not the first time this has happened. I can’t begin to guess who would do such a thing, or why, or what they might intend to do with the purloined figures. Is there a market for hot Nativity scene items? If you know anything about the theft, give the church a call at 410-284-4818.

nOpinions expressed are those of the writer and do not represent the opinion of The Dundalk Eagle or Kimbel Publication Inc. You can contact Eagle editor Steve Matrazzo via e-mail at [email protected].

The Dundalk Eagle February 26, 2015

This one wanders a bit, but it’s mostly about Brian Williams — I think ....


n Opinions expressed are those of the writer and do not represent the opinion of The Dundalk Eagle or its ownership. You can contact Eagle editor Steve Matrazzo via e-mail at [email protected].

A ll too often, the world of journalism is regarded as little more than a thinly-veiled battleground of ideologies. Outlets and individual journal-ists are seen as engaging less in advocacy than

in actual reporting. Certainly, this paper and its editor hear such com-plaints regularly. First and foremost, of course, there’s the regular assumption that this column, which (like any other) does reflect the personal views of its writer, is an indicator that such views somehow govern the news coverage contained in the rest of these pages. (Pssst — here’s a little secret: they don’t; news is news, commentary is commentary.) Heck, from time to time, even Eagle associate editor Bill Gates has been accused of political bias. In his sports column. This very week, we’ve received inquiries about the column privileges we traditionally afford to local elected officials, noting that so far, we’ve published one piece from County Councilman Todd Crandell and one from state Sen. Johnny Ray Salling, and nothing more — and insinuating that the reason we haven’t published more such material is that we are somehow withholding it for political reasons. For the record — and as we stressed to the new offi-cials — we continue to welcome the columns from local officeholders, as we did from their predecessors. How-ever, we publish them as a courtesy, and we have never guaranteed publication of any particular piece, or guar-anteed a publication date. We run them when we have space. In past years, in fact, there have been submissions from previous officeholders that never ran at all. (And don’t think for a minute that we didn’t hear about it from them!) Moreover, having that space does not mean that there will be columns from the local officials to publish. So far, we have received one column from Councilman Cran-dell, one from Del. Bob Long, and an impressive four from Sen. Salling. Nothing so far from Del. Ric Metzgar or Del. Robin Grammer. (Which is perfectly understandable; after all, they have actual work to do in Annapolis, and they’ve been at it for little more than a month. Give them time.) Crandell’s submission has already been published, as has one of Salling’s. This week, the senator has some-thing of a “two-fer.” A brilliant and highly-skilled editor managed to combine a pair of his pieces on roughly-relat-ed topics into a single column, leaving one still pending. Long’s first piece also appears this week. Now, then — having completed that combination of preface and CYA ....

t t t The habit of viewing journalistic matters through a purely political lens has reared its ugly head on the national stage in recent weeks, with NBC News anchor Brian Williams forced to issue a public apology and ac-cept a six-month suspension after admitting he’d falsely recounted a story that he was in a helicopter that was hit by ground fire in Iraq in 2003. (In fact, he was in another helicopter, traveling about an hour behind the one that was hit.) His claim that “fog of memory” had caused him to con-flate his own experiences with others he had reported rang hollow to most sensible ears, of course, and his

apology sounded more like a form-letter recitation of weasel words than a genuine admission of fault. (Bet on that “six months” to be permanent; not only is Williams’ credibility irreparably damaged, ratings for NBC’s nightly newscasts have actually gone up in the short time since Lester Holt “temporarily” took over the anchor desk.) Critics had a field day. Among them, inevitably, were some who openly reveled in a chance to bash the “liberal media.” Then, Mother Jones — which would likely reject the term “liberal media” as being insufficiently strong for its genuine left leanings — published an item casting similar allegations at Bill O’Reilly, now a roaring lion at the openly conservative Fox News, but just over 30 years ago, a reporter covering the Falklands War for CBS. The Mother Jones report alleged that O’Reilly had falsely inflated his own exposure to “front-line” danger, much as Williams had. Unlike Williams, however, O’Reilly was uncowed and came out swinging, hurling invective at Mother Jones’ David Corn and demanding that CBS post video of the Falklands reporting at issue. (CBS complied; the vintage material doesn’t appear to settle the issue either way.) And thus has the whole thing descended into a petty left-right squabble, obscuring not only the search for facts but a few underlying principles that deserve deeper examination.

t t t A big part of the reason people care about the Williams and O’Reilly matters is that both are such prominent figures. They are “stars,” in fact. Which is a problem in itself. Apart from any judgments about the truthfulness of either Williams or O’Reilly, there’s the fact that whatever falsehoods either may have uttered came in large measure in the context of self-aggrandizement. Their desire to tell such tales, true or not — and the interest others might have in them — was predicated largely on the concept of the news “star.” I’ve railed before about such tendencies among the media elite: hobnobbing with the rich, the powerful and the “beautiful people;” going on entertainment-oriented late night talk shows; preening for the paparazzi at “red carpet” events. The vision of Williams “slow-jamming” with Jimmy Fallon still makes me cringe, as does the thought of Wil-liams’ NBC colleague Andrea Mitchell marrying Alan Greenspan — while he was still chairman of the Federal Reserve — or the memory of Barbara Walters vacation-ing with the Assads. A model in which reporters are the equivalent of entertainment celebrities — with all the artifice, elitism and self-promotion thus implied — is a problem in itself. And it has bitten news organizations where it hurts more than once in the past. It was Lara Logan’s “star” status, for instance, that led her bosses at CBS’ 60 Minutes to exercise weak oversight when she filed a report about a private security contractor who told an explosive — but ultimately highly questionable — tale about the bloody Benghazi consulate attack. Sure, great reporters deserve recognition for their work, but when recognition crosses the line into celeb-rity status, the work of journalism inevitably becomes

entangled with the need to maintain one’s fame. When that happens, journalism is likely to be the loser. (Before anyone points out that my name appears in nice big Copperplate letters at the top of this page — right next to my photo — I should note that the name and photo are widely-used standard features of a column written by an individual, expressing an individual point of view. In fact, the photo is intended to serve as an indicator that what follows is not a straight news story, but commentary. As for “celebrity” status, I did once get invited to speak to a small group at CCBC Dundalk, and I did get a “goodie bag” out of it, with a nice coffee mug. And some pens.)

t t t ¿Quién es más macho? The other little-explored aspect of the Williams-O’Reilly saga is that both stand accused of embellishing on similar topics. Implied in their stories is a desire to be seen as being “on the front lines,” coming under fire, willingly exposing themselves to danger — a desire to display “toughness” or “manliness.” Of course, the impulse isn’t exclusive to men, as Hill-ary Clinton’s own helicopter-related embellishments show. Nor is it exclusive to journalism. All too often, our policy debates — usually on foreign policy and military matters, but sometimes on other issues as well — are dominated by questions of “toughness.” Meanwhile, “wisdom” seems to get lost on the far fringes .... Unrelated, yet totally related, is a radio interview on Canada’s Prime Time Sports in which former major league catcher Gregg Zaun (a onetime Oriole and nephew of O’s alum Rick Dempsey) told of his rookie experience:

[A]ll of a sudden I had what was called “the posse” all over me. Cal Ripken, Ben McDonald, Brady Anderson, Chris Hoiles, all of the above. They beat me on my ribcage, physically abused me on my way to the training table. They taped me spread-eagle to the training table, they wrote “rookie” on my forehead with pink methylate, and they shoved a bucket of ice down my shorts .... and you know what? Phil Regan, the manager ... did not care, because he knew that what those guys were doing was “educating me” .... these kind of things don’t happen anymore, but they need to happen more often.

Ripken and Anderson have both denied the story, and Zaun has since tried to walk back his claims. But the larger point remains. Even at the highest levels of achievement in a variety of professions, there’s still some sort of adolescent concept of “manhood,” intimately tied to physical force, that needs satisfying — and not enough wisdom. One can only hope that those named above can learn that — and the rest of us, too.

2 The Dundalk Eagle July17,2014

Whether it is used to create veneers, crowns, or fixed bridges, porcelain is the material of choice because it so closely matches the appearance, dura-bility, and longevity of tooth enamel. Porcelain mimics the light-reflecting qualities of natural teeth better than opaque resins. All-porcelain dental crowns also gener-ally provide a better natural color match than any other material, making them a good choice for veneers and replacing front teeth. On the other hand, when it comes to crowns and fixed bridges, porcelain-fused-to-metal dental crowns provide the needed added strength that an underlying metal structure can provide. Porcelain crowns not only look and feel like natural teeth, they also require the same degree of care. People with limited dexterity may also wish to try dental floss holders or intra-dental cleaners. Ask our dental staff about the variety of flossing options if you are having difficulty flossing your teeth. We will be more than happy to demonstrate proper flossing techniques. To schedule an appointment, please call (410) 284-1414. We specialize in sealants, fillings, bonding, and non-surgical gum treatments. Our office is conveniently located at 3001 Sollers Point Road.

P.S. Porcelain matches natural enamel’s translucency, enabling light to pass through it and bounce off the inner (more opaque) layer.

THE NATURAL LOOKOF PORCELAIN

www.dundalkdentistry.com

Dr. Emma Galvan & Dr. Grant Cylus

DentistWilliam R. Bacon, Jr.

WORKERS’ COMPAUTO ACCIDENTS

37th YearPracticing Law


7708 GERMAN HILL ROAD410-282-2085



Research indicates that vitamin D, a nutrient made by the skin during exposure to sunlight, can lower the risk of breast cancer by at least 30 to 40 percent. The most recent study compared the health habits of 133 breast-cancer patients with women who did not have the disease. It found that exposure to sunlight significantly reduced the risk of breast cancer. The ultraviolet rays used by the skin to make vitamin D, how-ever, are linked to an increased risk for skin cancer. To avail themselves, therefore, of vitamin D’s breast-cancer-prevention benefits without incurring an added risk for skin cancer, women may want to think about taking vitamin supplements - instead of sitting out in the sun. We specialize in hard to find prescriptions and can compound medicines for you. We can provide you with homeopathy, herbs, vitamins, and aromatherapy. We are proud to be open every day of the year: Mon-Fri 8am-10:30pm, Sat 8:30am-10:30pm, Sun 9am-9pm.

DRUG CITYPHARMACY

2805 North Point Road 410-284-2424

Pharmacy FACTS Presented by

Dr. Mark Lichtman

VITAMIN D ANDBREAST CANCER

PREVENTION

DOUG WAIRE, AGENT

410-282-7171www.DougWaire.com

Merritt BoulevardDundalk

Renovate yourhomeowners policy.Great Insurance. Low rates.

MACULAR DEGENERATION DIABETIC RETINOPATHY

Avastin TherapyNow available in Dundalk!

B. ERIC JONES, MD, PARetina Specialist, Board Certified

1005 North Point Blvd.Suite 707410-288-2853

It’s commentary, it’s analysis — but is it journalism? Talk of the Town by Steve Matrazzo

nOpinionsexpressedarethoseofthewriteranddonotrepresenttheopinionofThe Dundalk EagleorKimbelPublicationInc.YoucancontactEagle [email protected].

There’s a fine line between mere opin-ion and genuine analysis and commen-tary. We all have opinions, and it’s easy to succumb to the temptation to simply shout from the rooftops — especially when one has as prominent a rooftop as I do. However, the platform a column provides carries with it the burden of providing some depth and insight, and some substance to support the analysis therein.

— Me, sometime last year

Among the many benefits of my participation in a small number of professional jour-nalism organizations is the

opportunity to connect with colleagues and exchange thoughts on matters from the workaday nuts and bolts of practical newspapering to the high-minded foun-dational principles of our profession. I had fallen behind on such dialogues lately, until I found myself reading a message from an Arizona colleague who wanted to know how other colum-

nists and editorial writers respond to a criticism she had recently received from a reader; that what she does — and what I do here, for that matter — isn’t journalism. I was immediately remind-ed of something I wrote a few months ago: A column is, after all, commentary. By its very nature, it will — at least if the writer troubles to do anything of substance with the privilege — express a point of view. It’s not meant to be “balanced.” The whole point of a column is to provide readers with the analysis of a journalist who has, by virtue of experience and/or stature, some degree of insight and perspective regarding matters of public interest or importance. Objectively reporting news stories is the critical centerpiece of our profes-sional duty, but it is not the end thereof. Done well, commentary and analysis give readers a lens through which to interpret public occurrences, some sort-ing of the wheat from the chaff, a bit of

knowledgeable insight, and perhaps an occasional novel perspective — perhaps not changing minds, but at least stimu-lating them. At its best, the discipline of commen-tary and analysis helps bridge the gap between knowledge and understanding. As I’ve written before, journalists are not simply stenographers or tape recorders. How well do we fulfill the purpose of journalism if we do no more than accurately record the words and deeds of the powerful, pass them along uncritically, treating all claims as equally valid, and don’t tell people the difference between fact and fiction? We in journalism like to think of

ourselves as being in a profession in the service of the public. Do we — even the best of us — meet that standard unfailingly? Of course not; we’re human, and therefore fallible. And some, sadly, are just plain awful. But most of us approach our work with a firm belief in the importance of commentary and analysis as an impor-tant part of the mission of journalism, and with a firm committment to the highest ideals our profession. I see it in my colleagues on a daily basis, and I aspire to meet such stan-dards myself, because whether the Ari-zona critic agrees or not, commentators — good ones — are journalists.

steve matrazzo - columns on the media

Documents