Video: Ziegler says Balloon Boy media coverage “pornographic”
posted at 8:40 am on October 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
John Ziegler made a documentary about sensationalist and biased media coverage of Sarah Palin’s candidacy in Media Malpractice, which John continues to screen across the country, so it should come as no surprise that John has an opinion of the media coverage of the Balloon Boy story. Initially I disagreed with John, and twisted his arm into letting me film his argument. By the end, I agreed with his assessment that the scope and tone of the coverage far outstripped the media’s efforts to get the facts, and that everyone got sucked into the sensational nature of the possible story — which turned out to be much different in the end than we initially thought.
As always, John is a bit shy and withdrawn, but manages to come out of his shell a bit:
Just out of camera range is Newsmax reporter James Hirsen, who disagreed with John, and said that Neil Cavuto’s e-mails are the new editorial standard, for better or worse. All of us agreed that whether the initial story was legitimate or not, the massive use of public resources to track down the empty balloon makes the aftermath a legitimate news story now.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
yes!
rob verdi on October 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM
amen!
camtheman7 on October 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM
heh heh. I am waiting fro ted Turner to take back CNN and clean house.
johnnyU on October 17, 2009 at 8:52 AM
I didn’t see one minute of it live, but a child in a runaway balloon isn’t newsworthy?
Marcus on October 17, 2009 at 8:52 AM
That was interesting- I’ve always thought it was stupid that they did the 30 second delay on car chases: Why show the chase if you think we’re too “sensitive” to see the crash?
anniekc on October 17, 2009 at 8:56 AM
What a week of UNNEWSWORTHY news!!!
ohiobabe on October 17, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Although I couldn’t bring myself to watch it live, I thought the original story was newsworthy. More newsworthy of the car chases that seem to happen all to often. And until the newest headline, I thought that the story was over and the media should leave the family alone. Now I am not so sure.
Cindy Munford on October 17, 2009 at 8:58 AM
As I said, I was no where near a television but I understood it shut down Reverend Ike Obama and his revival tent meeting in New Orleans, so coverage was NOT pornographic.
Marcus on October 17, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Great article from Rush at the wsj!Now that’s good journalism:)
ohiobabe on October 17, 2009 at 9:04 AM
I was with him till the last part about Cavuto and the pristine selection of newsworthiness by a true newsman. Isn’t that what we dislike about the NYT, MSNBC, etc? They selectively filter what they want us to read or watch under the guise of being better qualified?
a capella on October 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Was there a child in a runaway balloon somewhere?
Ronnie on October 17, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Boy, pointing out that cable news provides sensationalist, shallow coverage of stories with questionable news coverage… how’s he going to enlighten us next? Maybe tell us that it gets dark out when the sun goes down? “Network” came out 30 years ago.
I’m curious, what happened to Mr. Ziegler’s aggressive pursuit of his legal rights concerning his “wrongful arrest” at USC?
Tom_Shipley on October 17, 2009 at 9:08 AM
As I said, I was no where near a television but I understood it shut down Reverend Ike Obama and his revival tent meeting in New Orleans,
///
Now that was the best part,I bet he whined all night night about that:)
ohiobabe on October 17, 2009 at 9:09 AM
Night night??? Well,maybe that is what he says to m before going to sleep!!
ohiobabe on October 17, 2009 at 9:10 AM
I didn’t watch any live coverage either. I kept wondering what people were hoping to see by watching it live. To see a young boy crash and most likely die? Then the reaction of his parents? Ziegler is right that it was potential news. We could’ve been updated after the fact.
What’s really ironic–as much as Obama gets face time, even he was interrupted by the story.
conservative pilgrim on October 17, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Apologies if I missed a post on it Ed, but what are the Cavuto emails?
Spirit of 1776 on October 17, 2009 at 9:15 AM
It also exposed how woefully inept the reporters are *cough* wolf blitzer *cough* without scripted Q & A’s. Blitzer blew that question with the family and floundered. It’s like asking someone with a junk food diet to run a 5k. Won’t be pretty.
conservative pilgrim on October 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Ziegler is wrong and I might add, a bit too impressed with his supposed insight.
This story was covered the way it was because it was very unusual and the media calculated correctly that their audience would be interested in it. They and everyone else at the time thought there was e very real posssibility that a child was in that balloon.
If that turned out to be the case, would Ziegler now be carping about the wall to wall coverage? What if the child had fallen out or frozen to death?
Yes, now the story has become something entirely different from what it was originally about, but Ziegler can’t look at it with 20/20 hindsight and pass that off as unique wisdom.
RadClown on October 17, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Did the major networks cover the story or was it only cable?
conservative pilgrim on October 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Why did the citizens of Rome head over to the coliseum? For the baklava?
Balloon Boy story? Over covered. Most certainly.
The public’s desire to see more of it? Pretty much an indicator of who we’ve become.
Baklava, anyone?
coldwarrior on October 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Well, as I understand it, everyone thought so. I wonder what the reaction would be had there been and MSNBC kept cameras lovingly on Messiah fielding “Why do they hate you? God is Love” questions as “balloon boy” floated across the sky.
Marcus on October 17, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Yeah, we’ve become pretty much the same as people have always been. And we’ve also become arrogant enough to think we are or should be different.
RadClown on October 17, 2009 at 9:34 AM
What people think might happen is not news, certainly not 2 hours worth. Besides, as was pointed out in the video, the live broadcast was actually on a delay so they could cut away if something really happened. So what was the point? Put it on tape and if something happens, show it — like any other news story. You said you didn’t watch it live. Do you feel like you missed something important?
Ronnie on October 17, 2009 at 9:38 AM
I don’t buy into that at all. Common decency has become umcommon as has common sense.
The answer? Wish I knew. But being led around by the media, and having it all justified as some sort of public right to know, well, that doesn’t cut it either.
Bread and circuses.
coldwarrior on October 17, 2009 at 9:39 AM
I was at work so I didn’t experience the media onslaught first hand. Instead my wife e-mailed me with updates every few minutes. (just as bad) (I hope she doesn’t read this)
But I have to agree with him. This is what has happened to journalism, it is a race to shock, not a race to facts anymore. And we are at fault for letting it happen. We create this idiotic monster by watching. I must admit, if I was home I would probably have as well.
conservnut on October 17, 2009 at 9:49 AM
I didn’t see one minute of it live, but a child in a runaway balloon isn’t newsworthy?
Marcus on October 17, 2009 at 8:52 AM
It’s only newsworthy if true. In this case it was also completely ridiculous for anyone to believe that someone was in that balloon-physical impossibility.
Alfresco on October 17, 2009 at 9:55 AM
He is completely on target here.
Flyboy on October 17, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Ziegler is right. I had to turn off the TV after I saw the ever so light landing of ballloon boy. It was obviously a hoax. The Internet already had damning evidence that this family loves attention. Cavuto spent an hour on this! But thank God Glenn Beck came on to play noteworthy news.
cubachi on October 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Monday-morning quarterbacking is much easier than actually playing in the game, Ziegler.
I saw about two minutes of the “pornographic” coverage of the “chase” and have to say the image of the balloon floating across Colorado — presumably with a little boy in it — was pretty compelling and bizarre.
IMO, Ziegler would have found fault no matter how this was handled. He’s that kinda guy. When you’re not in a position of responsibility with your finger on the “red button” in the newsroom, you can always make the right choice.
MrScribbler on October 17, 2009 at 10:27 AM
pornographic? Well, I kept hoping for that but it never quite got there.
WWS on October 17, 2009 at 10:32 AM
If you only watched two minutes of it, it couldn’t have been all that compelling.
Ronnie on October 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Ziegler. News outlets were relying on a trusted source – the cops – in reporting that the balloon was running away with a child apparently aboard. It was a compelling story, right up until the kid was found safely hiding in the house.
flipflop on October 17, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Ed, was this video shot on your new camera? The audio was as impressive as the video.
On the topic itself, this clearly wasn’t a dime-a-dozen car chase which, in my opinion, should never be given air time, even locally.
But a missing kid and a balloon is quite newsworthy, knowing what was known at the time, and I don’t fault the decisions to cover the story.
I do, however, fault the manner of coverage. The cables should’ve maintained their regular programming while giving periodic updates, with some video here and there. Or, shown the full balloon chase PIP, if they wanted.
The problem is, they (including Fox) are ratings whores, whose revenues are based on the numbers of eyes and ears they can capture on a daily basis.
That’s the business they’re in and as long as advertisers use this standard, the rest of us can complain until the cows come home.
It ain’t gonna change a thing.
TXUS on October 17, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Sometimes, work is more important than watching TV, “breaking news” or not.
MrScribbler on October 17, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Even if the trusted source got it right — which is not the case — you were watching a tape delayed video. If anything interesting happened, you weren’t going to see it, so what was the point? Two hours of a balloon floating around is not news until something happens — and nothing did. There’s no value lost in waiting for the result before you put it on the air.
Ronnie on October 17, 2009 at 10:55 AM
I agree. Didn’t watch the story live and I had to avoid twitter because it was all people were talking about. There were so many more important things going on at the time. And that’s if it was real.
If it was real is it newsworthy, sure. Absolutely. Worthy enough for nonstop live coverage? No way. A small segment after the fact would’ve been sufficient.
Trent1289 on October 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Some of us were watching, and praying as we watched, to see the little boy be rescued (although I started getting suspicious about the whole thing after a while). The same reason I watched the rescuers work so hard to get little what’s-her-name (Jessica?) out of that backyard well years ago. Or have watched to see a puppy rescued from a storm sewer. Rescues are great, life-affirming things to see, and they remind me to count my blessings.
KyMouse on October 17, 2009 at 11:06 AM
The problem is that you think of cable news and “news.” To some extent it is, but it’s really become more entertainment, or “let’s put shiny objects on TV for people to look at.” I mean, this literally was a shiny object. You watch the local Chicago news and they’ll lead with a fire in some section of the city. You look at the Chicago Tribune the next morning and their might be a mention of it in the Metro section.
To pretend that how cable news covered this says something about journalism is like saying blog posts are reflective on the state of the literary world.
Tom_Shipley on October 17, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Sorry, not following the thread, but great interview Ed!
@ntif@n on October 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM
That was clearly the desire of the press.
The balloon’s flight was followed live in eager anticipation of the kid plummeting to his death from 10,000 feet. What Zeigler meant with his pornography comment was that the media were hopeful parties to the production of a snuff film.
Also, had the kid died in a fall from the sky, the media would then as a bonus have been able to blame it all on Rush Limbaugh and conservatives for creating an atmosphere of terror wherein a frightened little boy’s only recourse was to steel himself away inside a UFO-shaped balloon, release its mooring cables and fly off to Never Never Land where Peter Pan, Michael Jackson and Ted Kennedy would embrace him with loving, open arms.
FlameWarrior on October 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Ever wonder why the NYT is losing readership?
a capella on October 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Insane balloon boy dad to make “big announcement” in ten minutes on live national television.
What could go wrong?
Maybe he will commit suicide.
trapeze on October 17, 2009 at 11:52 AM
The problem is people keep stretching the envelope as far as what you see and/or hear about when your BS detector should go off.
Nowadays, anytime you hear about some bizarre home invasion, kidnapping, disappearance and then return, etc., alarm bells go off, because so many people want their 15 minutes of fame they’re willing to do anything for it. But until Thursday, nobody had used an experimental balloon to fake sending their kid two miles into the sky, so the BS detectors weren’t primed and ready for this stunt.
The coverage may be a little excessive, but at this point you want to keep the spotlight on dad, since it’s growing more and more likely this whole thing was a hoax. But as far as big media pornography goes, this isn’t even in the same league as something like the Duke lacrosse rape hoax and the media circus that surrounded it, because fake charges like that had been made before, but the racial aspect caused most of the media to run with it unquestioningly.
jon1979 on October 17, 2009 at 12:05 PM
He’ll have to think of something original if he wants to get that ABC reality show (“Dead Dad”? “Help Us, Our Father’s Committed Suicide”?). R Bud Dwyer did the gunshot to the mouth thing 25 years ago.
jon1979 on October 17, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Yeah they should have talked about healthcare for the 200th day so that they could feel good about themselves as we changed the channel to someone who was covering it.
DaveS on October 17, 2009 at 1:01 PM
This whole event can fit very nicely with this.
January 31, 2007, Boston bomb scare
never foget.
tjexcite on October 17, 2009 at 1:03 PM
The aftermath is a legitimate news story, but the insane way it is being covered is entirely illegitimate. To start savagely going after the family because one little thing the six year old said is just insane. It’s clear that the family did not plan this as a hoax.
Of course, we have people taking the words of the intellectual six year old in the Oval Office seriously – a guy who is so unbelievably stupid as to talk about “profit and earnings ratios”, and then have people take his musings on finance and our nation seriously – so, I guess this is just the mass sickness of the US that we have to deal with, these days.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 1:08 PM
If runaway balloons will keep Obama from getting face time on TV, we need more runaway balloons, with or without child inside.
Dasher on October 17, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I hate to say it, but the Balloon Family are a prime candidate for a future murder/suicide, carried out by the father. I can see that there is something serious brewing in the mind of this undoubtedly unhinged man and I have a feeling his family is in danger.
Sharke on October 17, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I was interested because I wanted to see how the obvious hoax (planned by a family made up of reality show actors, storm chasers, “psyentists”, rap artists, publicity whores, etc..) would play out. Even a mother that changes her level of accent to suit the situation (e.g., could barely speak English on the 911 call). Interesting that the mother spoke great English on the reality shows when cursing and flipping out for days on end with the swapped hustands.
I thought it would be humorous seeing the parents arrested at some point, especially immediately afterwards. Just like COPS.
It’s also interesting to see just how many people are gullible enough to be punked from start to finish…….even still unable to see or admit the obvious (or simply in denial of their own naivete or lack of intuition.)
One only has to watch one episode of Wife Swap to get a sense of this family and what they are capable of (including the children). Amazing how quiet and withdrawn the children were during the TV interviews, huh? The kids wouldn’t shut up on the reality shows and enjoyed giving the finger and screaming the F word at the swapped wives.
It’s hilarious to see these hypocritical commenters that pretend to detest the story, but are hell-bent on commenting, watching the vids, reading the blogs, articles, news, etc… They just can’t help but to click on any link that says “balloon boy” and type in their hypocritical 2 cents.
nottakingsides on October 17, 2009 at 2:01 PM
I don’t want to see any more of this family other than courtroom drawings of the parents on trial.
Maquis on October 17, 2009 at 2:14 PM
So now this piece of trash wants reporters to come back after dark tonight to see if, pretty please, he will answer some of the questions they have placed into his cardboard box. It would take him more than nine hours to come up with some answers? And maybe he’ll answer, and maybe he won’t?
I hope no one shows up at his house. Ever again.
KyMouse on October 17, 2009 at 2:47 PM
“Good journalism” in the Ops page. Whaddyaknow? They probably just ran out of column-space above the fold.
The Race Card on October 17, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Yeah, because making a psychological assessment of someone through the television makes you the paragon of sanity and stability.
IMHO, you don’t “hate to say it.” You need to. You’re hoping your prediction comes true so that you can then remind us how correct you were in your original remarks.
The Race Card on October 17, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Jiffy-Pop popcorn news story? God created video tape? This guy sounds more like Failin’-Palin every day.
Note to Ed: Interviews are always a bit more enjoyable to watch when the audience doesn’t need to pop a dramamine to counter the incessant shaking of the camera. Might be a blood-sugar thing…
Good4Onan on October 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Look: journalism is the craft of providing entertaining, inexpensive filler to go between the ads; that was very good journalism.
But anyone who watched it is a voyeur.
PersonFromPorlock on October 17, 2009 at 4:51 PM
For a pretty smart guy you are exhibiting an inordinate amount of gullibility on this issue. It is not at all clear the family did not plan this as a hoax. The balance of evidence tends to indicate that they are mentally unstable scam artists and, if so, need to be held accountable for wasting tax dollars.
trapeze on October 17, 2009 at 5:33 PM
I should have said that it “seemed clear to me”. Perhaps I am being gullible in this, but the reactions looked pretty genuine and I don’t think the whole family are psychopaths (which they would have to be to pull this off, again, by my thinking).
Even if they are not guilty of intentionally fooling people into thinking the kid was in the balloon, I have no problem with them being held responsible for some measure of the expenses. They should have looked all over the house for the kid and, had the kid not been thought to be in the balloon, no one would have cared and most of the expenses would have been spared.
I might very well be wrong on my assessment of the family (I haven’t followed this all that closely) but it just didn’t ring true to me from what I had seen. I certainly don’t see the kid’s mention of “for the show” as damning.
Just my opinion of it, though.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Oh cram it toots. It is possible to make a casual psychological assessment through any medium, whether it be a snippet of speech, a radio interview, a piece of artwork or in this case, the TV footage and past history of a man who is quite obviously obsessed and single minded but who has not seen any kind of tangible success since at least the early 90′s and appears to be getting more and more desperate to make his fantasies come true at this point in his life, to the point of involving his young children in a highly irresponsible publicity stunt, the work of someone who appears to have resorted to groping in the dark for fame and notoriety. The balloon stunt was the product of a mind long since capable of making rational judgments.
Of course this is speculation. Everyone speculates given whatever information and impressions they have. It’s a natural human function so don’t get your panties in a bunch sweetpea.
And yes, I do “hate to say it.” If you believe that I would like to hear of such a tragedy then you’re an idiot.
Sharke on October 17, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Seriously…read this and then tell me that you still think that the incident was not a hoax.
Read this, too.
Go dig up the two, count ‘em, two separate episodes of “Wife Swap,” watch ‘em and then explain to me and everyone else that these people aren’t world class attention whores.
These two adults are certifiably nuts and starved for attention. They called the media before the authorities. Do you even know how to contact the local media? Everyone knows how to dial 911 but ask yourself how you would go about contacting the local television news media. Think about it.
How does an undersized child get into a garage attic that law enforcement did not think to search because there was no visible means of access? Why does a severely hyperactive child stay motionless and quiet for five hours all the while people are calling his name? No food or water or bathroom break for five frickin’ hours. Think about it.
How does someone build a balloon, fill it with helium, watch it go aloft and not know by direct frickin’ observation that it does or does not carry a six year old child? Think about it.
Of course it was on purpose. Of course it was a hoax. A scam. These people do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. They deserve to be locked up before their next attempt at celebrity kills someone.
trapeze on October 17, 2009 at 5:54 PM
A car chase is local news worthy. If there’s a car chase on a highway you’re about to take, you want to know about it NOW, not after you’re stuck in traffic.
Phoenician on October 17, 2009 at 5:54 PM
From a story on FNC:
Only certifiably crazy or unfathomably stupid people work on perpetual motion machines. Or con-men.
Take your pick.
trapeze on October 17, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Yes, he’s a nut. I don’t have any problem with that. And I have no respect for people who go on reality shows, like Wife Swap. There’s no doubt that they are attention whores. I just don’t see the intentional hoax part of it in claiming that the kid was in there.
Like I said, I have no problem going after them for some of the expenses, anyway (reckless irresponisibllity, or something of that nature) but I’ve never heard of car chase perpetrators being billed for the costs they incur for copters and such, or any other convicted criminals. I think there are some laws against that for conflict of interest considerations for the enforcement authorities.
I still don’t get the child protective services part, just because the father takes the kids on dangerous things like the storm chasing. Taking a kid in a car is an inherently dangerous situation. As a smoker, I’ve had more than enough of the nanny state crushing my liberties in order to act as the champion for health and safety – which is a crock, to begin with.
progressoverpeace on October 17, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Here is an account of a student that worked for Richard Heene that states in no uncertain terms that this was a publicity stunt. It’s a long and detailed account and is much more believable than anything that has come out of the mouths of Richard or Mayumi Heene.
The author’s account totally agrees with my speculation about the attic. BTW, I would hazard to guess that the unventilated attic temp on a sunny day in mid October is well over 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Forcing a child to stay in what amounts to a low-temp oven for five hours is abusive by most people’s standards.
From the above linked story:
trapeze on October 17, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Well,it was a story about boy in a balloon,
secure and well protected!!
And,thank gawd tho,he wasn’t in it!!
canopfor on October 17, 2009 at 8:03 PM
If I may sum up the hype surrounding Balloon Boy–
NON-STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BobAnthony on October 17, 2009 at 11:25 PM