Burnettiquette

Ad Agency Sex Video Leads to Firing

What's crackin' friends? I hope you all had a solid Thanksgiving - good food and good thanks all around.

I did. The family and I had a blast. Now I'm loungin' at home watching Goldeneye, catching up on email, too tired to go out on the town, and still trying two days later to recuperate from too much food.

On to business - I have two simple questions for you, but first a scenario:

Several days ago the New York-themed media industry Web site Gawker featured a semi-grainy cellphone video of a man and a woman having sex on the floor of a cubicle at an ad agency. They apparently didn't know they were being recorded.

The video was shot by a co-worker of the pair, who showed it to a few other co-workers and then sent it via email to even more co-workers, one of whom put it on the Web and turned it viral. No accounts of this incident say whether or not the voyeur sent the video to the other co-workers on his own time and equipment. But it's implied that he sent it from work on his work computer.

So what do you think the bosses at the ad agency did when they found out? Better yet, what, if anything, would you have done?

I'm curious for your answer to the second question, because my first reaction was I would have suspended all three for a week without pay for their unprofessional conduct in the workplace. I'm no prude, but c'mon. They were at work! Maybe you think that's too harsh or too light a sentence. Ponder it for a moment.

In the mean time, the answer to the first question is the bosses fired the videographer, but allowed the humping couple to keep their jobs. Keep in mind this video features a set of butt cheeks (sorry guys, they're his cheeks) bouncing around like two Christmas hams at the bottom of a grocery bag.

My snap judgment? The bosses were probably right to fire the video voyeur, but they should've fired the humpy couple too.

Fire the videographer for being a creepy, loser of a voyeur, and for being stupid enough to use a company computer and company email to send the video around.

And fire the humping couple for being nasty at work.

Naturally sex in and of itself isn't nasty. It's lovely, and beautiful and natural and normal, yada, yada, yada. But at work, on the floor in a cubicle? And what if that was a clueless third party's cubicle - some guy who left the office early that day? That poor guy came to work the next morning and found his workspace smelling of sweat, funk, and buyer's remorse.

Bottom line, all three of them were out of order. Keep 'em all or send 'em all packin'.

That's my word. What's yours? One more thing before you answer: There were two other co-workers snapping still shots of the humping couple, while the voyeur shot his cellphone video. But the photographers weren't fired.

Ashley Dupre, Eliot Spitzer, Hookergate, and Trick Turner

Morning folks, I thought we might start the day off with a little discussion of Hookergate, co-starring Ashley Dupre and former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

You may recall that Spitzer's political career came to a grinding halt, and he was forced to resign last spring, when it came out that he had been paying several thousand dollars an hour to hook up with Ms. Dupre.

By the way Trick Turner has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. I just wrote that down 'cause I've always thought it would be a cool stage name for a porn star or, um, a trick turner. And did you know there is a Hookergate School in the UK? I wonder what their mascot is.

But I digress. I was struck in a bad way this morning by news that Ms. Dupre has yet another interview scheduled - next up with Diane Sawyer for ABC's 20/20 news magazine - on the media tour she's undertaken over the past week or so.

When this edition of Hookergate first erupted in March, Dupre was unapologetic, not at all a disciple of the takes-two-to-tango school of thought, essentially suggesting that Spitzer was the lone culprit in that mess, and insisting that she was merely an impressionable young pawn ripped from the gritty 'hood, and earning a buck several thousand bucks the only way she knew how.

Later, it was learned that her rough, gritty, childhood was about as real as the biography that Vanilla Ice sold us back in the day of him coming from the mean streets of Miami, as opposed to the Dallas, Texas, 'burbs. Dupre had actually come from a relatively well off family and by most credible accounts had been a well cared for child.

So with that revelation in mind, here's why her media tour, which I'm guessing will lead to a book deal and/or an original movie on the Lifetime Network, bugs the crap outta me: It's not really redemption if you were never in those dire straights.

I get that trading sex for dollars means you've fallen pretty low. But I'm saying unlike a lot of people who find themselves there, Dupre had pretty solid means to avoid that life but chose it anyway.

I'm a reasonable guy, open-minded to the extent I really do believe that people deserve second (and third, and fourth, and many more chances) to redeem themselves and become productive, non-toxic members of society.

There are times I see people who've done bad things, ranging from distasteful to seriously criminal. And my immediate reaction tends to be screw 'em. They brought it on themselves. But it's inevitable that my tone softens and my role goes from critic to cheerleader if, for example, I learn later that the guy who was caught stealing $100 worth of groceries has five hungry kids at home and is unemployed due to injury. His act was wrong and technically criminal, but under the circumstances I understood it. That coupled with his apparent remorse compels me to endorse a helping hand up for him.

And then there's the drug addict with whom I'm annoyed for lacking self control, until I learn she became addicted as an impressionable 10-year-old who accepted a free sample from a sidewalk pharmacist in her neighborhood.

So giving bad actors a spotlight and opening a door for them that leads to potential fame and income is not a bad thing in and of itself. Seriously, rewarding people who turn tricks, solicit trick turners, slide down poles without the benefit of being fire fighters, deal drugs, etc., can be just fine. I write about people like that all the time. If you didn't see it yesterday here's my latest shameles self promotion article on such a person.

The difference in these people and folks like Ashley Dupre is that her ilk has the means early in life to do the right thing, and lacks the incentive to do desperate things. They don't grow up in trouble, get immersed deeper in it as they grow into adulthood and then struggle their way out. Nor do they work hard and earn big fame, fall from grace, and scrap their way back from the fall.

They grow up with support systems and decent family, voluntarily shun those support systems, willingly seek out trouble, get busted while engaged in trouble, and then do media tours and offer formulaic apologies - in Dupre's case to Spitzer's wife - not for redemptive purposes but as a precursor to the fame they hope will fall into their laps. But hey, fame in your lap is probably safer than a paid-by-the-hour set of genitals in your lap.

You know how they say that one vote counts? Well, so does one viewer. And as much as I enjoy 20/20, I won't be watching this Friday...not that ABC will care, mind you, but you get the picture.

Friday Roundup

What's crackin' friends? Another business week draws to an end, and I couldn't be happier.

No fanfare here, just our usual list of musings. Please weigh in.

• Murder - Another tragic case of a kid killing another kid unfolded in South Florida this week. Apparently one teenage girl had a crush on another teenage girl but was rejected. The reject brought a gun to school and shot the object of her admiration. The shame of all this is the murder will be politicized in a matter of days. I give till early next week before someone tries to use this as a call for gun control or better school security (the school has metal detectors, but they were apparently turned off and unmanned the day of the killing). Instead - in my humble opinion - there needs to be a greater effort to groom kids at home so that their brains are wired in such a way that shooting someone for not dating you would never cross their minds. Seriously, if I shot every girl who rejected me in my middle and high school years, I'd be a serial killer. Two lives tossed. Damn shame.
• Random Movie Crap - Finally got around to watching Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer last night, 'cause I wasn't willing to pay for it in theaters. And I'm still puzzled about a few things. Is it really necessary for that fiery dude to yell "flame on!" before he sparks up and flies away? I mean, if he doesn't say that will he not ignite? What if he had a slip of the tongue and shoulted "fame on?" Would it work then? Or is yelling "flame on" like yelling "four" on a golf course - only meant to be an advanced warning that a flaming super hero will be passing by shortly? Also, not to be pervy, but Ben Grimm is made of stone. How do he and his girlfriend have a love life, since she's made of meat and skin like the rest of us? And what about "relief" - do kidney stones even matter to him? Just curious. I know, too much time on my hands last night.
• A Fair Question in Politics - Question number 20 on the extensive job application-questionnaire for positions in President-elect Barack Obama's administration asks applicants to "please provide the names and details of any individuals and organizations with which you or your spouse have been associated with which (sic) might present a conflict of interest with your proposed federal office or have the potential for embarrassment." So whether your a fan of the president-elect or not, do you think this question could keep him from getting a job in his own administration, 'cause of past affiliations that "have the potential for embarrassment?" Don't get mad. Just askin'.
• Weird - For some reason I find this tidbit odd. If you don't have time to follow the link it's about a study Folio did on an annual lifestyle magazines survey. One of the results of the study was that the average age of readers of Seventeen magazine is 27. Hmmm. And the average age of Teen Vogue readers is 25.8. Could explain the number of clueless adults - albeit younger adults - still trying to dress like they haven't finished high school.
• Disturbing - With this news that obese kids have the arteries of 45-year-olds, I wonder if all those "funny" ad campaigns aimed at scaring kids away from cigarettes haven't been misdirected. Instead of only spending that money criticizing cartoon characters like Joe Camel for subconsciously urging kids to suck smoke into their lungs, maybe some of those ads should be criticizing Donald CrackRonald for using his kiddie attractions to get kids to suck fatty foods down their throats.
• The Body of Christ - If this guy really does believe literalistic teachings about church communion, then he's a cannibal.

Just so you know...

I was nowhere near Pittsburgh last night. Besides, I print my B's in cursive.

All kidding aside though, for those of you who wonder from time to time why I force conversations on race and perception even when you're tired of hearing about those things, that link above is why.

I have one bit of advice for the young woman referenced in the link above: Next time you use a mirror to decorate your face with an alphabet, stick with something easy like the letters "A," "H," "I," "M," "O," "T,"  or "U." No matter how poor your penmanship, there's no danger of writing those letters backwards.

And I have one question for my peers in media: Why were you so eager to run with this now-proven-false story, in spite of the painfully obvious red flags it waved from the very beginning?

Joe the Plumber

What's crackin', friends?

So I was sent this morning to cover a Democratic campaign rally in Fort Lauderdale, at which Hillary Clinton was the keynote speaker.

And before any conspiracy theorists ask why my paper wasn't at a McCain rally today, I'm pretty sure he wasn't in South Florida.

But that's neither here nor there. After the event concluded, I jumped in my car and started driving to Evil Media Headquarters to write my story. En route, I did what I always do while driving: channel surfed between talk shows. I bounced between each end of the political spectrum, from Thom Hartmann to Bill O'Reilly, and even a few seconds of rush.

Whatever side you're on, don't get mad. I like to know what the pundits are up to.

And it seemed that lots of folks - at least callers, anyway - wanted to talk about Joe the Plumber. On O'Reilly's and Rush's shows, especially, callers were angry over what they felt was unfair media scrutiny of Joe the Plumber.

If you don't know the story, while on a campaign stop in Ohio, Barack Obama was approached by a guy who introduced himself as Joe Wurzelbacher. Wurzelbacher told Obama he was a plumber and that he was planning on buying a plumbing business that he estimated would earn in the $250K to $280K range.

He asked Obama if that meant he would get the crap taxed out of him, since the business would earn $250 or more per year.

Obama answered that no one likes paying higher taxes and that folks needed to spread the wealth.

Ever since that exchange, Joe the Plumber has become a rallying point for McCain supporters. He was mentioned more than 20 times at last week's presidential debate.

Inevitably, as I see it, the more McCain and surrogates held Wurzelbacher up as an example of Joe Everyman, the more the media grew curious about him.

Now, here's what I find fascinating about this whole thing: I have had friends and frienemies alike emailing me and suggesting that Wurzelbacher is being picked on by the press - since it has come out that he's not licensed to plumb in his town and since it's come out that he owes back taxes. I personally don't give two craps. I'd much prefer right now to know how James Joe the Reporter's and Mrs. B Josephina the School Teacher's taxes are going to fare.

My friends have asked why the media dug into Wurzelbacher's background like that, since he's an average citizen and not a celebrity.

I know some of you won't like my answer, but I don't think most of the scrutiny of Wurzelbacher was even remotely politically motivated.

As long as I've been in this business, any time anyone is thrust into a public spotlight, whether they thrust themselves or are put there, they are scrutinized by the media, and for good reason 99.999% of the time.

We want to know who we're giving ink to, who we're putting on the front page with big photos and what not.

It's a precautionary measure, and as far as I know always has been.

There's an old journalism school joke that if your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.

In other words don't take anyone's word for anything, unless it's something you know to be true or unless you have confidence that the source of that word has a credible track record and is to be believed.

Like I told my friends and frienemies, there are two distinct issues here: the scrutiny that Wurzelbacher underwent, and the motives for that scrutiny.

You can argue to me all day that some reporter out there or maybe multiple reporters looked into Wurzelbacher's background 'cause they were looking for dirt. And I'd probably concede that argument. But based on personal experience, I would argue back that even more reporters who looked into Wurzelbacher's background did so to cover their behinds.

And I'm not mad at them. I can't tell you the number of close-call horror stories I've encountered or heard from other reporters about some nice guy we met and wrote a story about - a nice guy with a nice story to tell and a nice smile and a nice house with a nice picket fence....and a record for sniffing women's shoes or stealing undies or something else weird.

I knew a columnist at another newspaper who wrote a really cool column profiling Average Joes, an award-winning column.

Anyway, he once wrote a profile of a clown, like Krusty, y'know? So there was this even-keeled, warmly-written profile of a kid's clown. And after it was written, our newspaper got word that the clown had been convicted of a sex crime. A background check of the clown would have prevented that.

I have written about or quoted passionate people, only to have an editor ask me "did you do a background check?" And after I did the obligatory check, I found my subject(s) had criminal records that called into question their credibility.

A former co-worker wrote an article about a preacher who was being hailed as a great community advocate, a champion of the poor and downtrodden. That may all have been the case, but my former co-worker forgot to check the preacher's background, and just a day or so before the story was to go to print, my former co-worker learned the preacher was facing sex crime charges, over allegations he abused a woman he was supposed to have helped.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Anyway, some of you are prone to hate the media, regardless. So you're more likely to believe the Wurzlebacher scrutiny was a mean-spirited witch hunt.

If you're open to a reality check though, some members of the press may have had malice in mind when they looked into Wurzelbacher, but I'll bet you most did not.

You can't blame a reporter for covering his behind. And if, instead of what many readers tell me they consider to be minor tax issues and the like, the press covering Wurzelbacher had found crime or fraud in his background, critics would've blasted 'em for not exposing those crimes.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Weekend Jibber Jabber about the Presidential Race

What's crackin', friends?

It's Saturday night, and while most of you are out there partying like it's 2009, I'm lounging, trying to write a little and wondering if I acquitted myself well in a segment I taped for CNN to air this evening.

They called me yesterday and said Campbell Brown was doing a special tonight on what role race (as in that mishmash of skin color and ethnicity) might play in the upcoming election.

For some reason they wanted me to talk about an old blog post I did in which I challenged my peers in the media - when discussing Barack Obama's ethnic and cultural background and upbringing - to give equal play to his black and white halves. Some of you vehemently disagreed with me back then, in some cases suggesting I was disrespecting Obama by not just calling him black and leaving it at that.

But as I said back when I wrote that post, I know Obama chooses to call himself black - partly 'cause he knows that's how people identify him when they see him. And that's fine, considering how visual a society America is. I would never tell him what to call himself. I call myself pretty, and I defy any one of you who's seen me to tell me I'm not.

But these are two separate issues, skin color and ethnicity. And when we talk about those elements of his background, I still say it's a disservice to his white relatives, like the grandparents who raised him, to largely leave that part of Obama's ethnicity out of the discussion. Unless they're doing some weepy profile - the kind they do on ALL the candidates on both sides of the political spectrum - you never hear pundits talk about Obama having a white half.

And at a time when up to six percent of Americans - according to an AP poll - say they won't vote for Obama because he is black, isn't it the duty of the media to report that he also has a white half?

Anyway, like I told CNN's Jason Carroll in our segment when we taped yesterday afternoon, none of that should matter now.

When voters enter the polling booth in November to decide between McCain and Obama, the only color that should matter is green, as in how much is hemorrhaging from our bank accounts.

I say "should," 'cause you never know what motivates people when no one is watching. There are people who claim to vigorously support John McCain too, people who when in the polling booth will not vote for him because they'll hold his age against him...or maybe his race. Hmmm?

Anyway, while I'm not naive, and I know race unfortunately still matters to some folks, it's also the job of the media to not over-hype it and blow it out of proportion. There are enough strident folks on either side of the political spectrum to do that without us jumping into the fray.

Exhibit A: The white woman at John McCain's Wisconsin rally a couple days ago who said she couldn't trust Obama 'cause "he's an Arab." Do I really need to explain this one?

Exhibit B: Black Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings, who, a few weeks ago, said this about Sarah Palin: "If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention...Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

OK, with all due respect to the Congressman's title and station, that was just stupid.

Whatever you think of Sarah Palin, her brand of politics, her relationship with naturally tanned people, etc., her "toting guns and stripping moose" doesn't make her a threat to Jews and blacks. Sarah Palin toting guns and stripping moose makes her a threat to moose.

Let's not deny that there are roles for race - both negative and positive - in American politics. But let's not add to those issues unnecessarily.

Alright, I'm signing off. I believe my 2.5 seconds is about to air.

Politics, Palin, Pregnancy

Let's get this part out of the way, right away: The fact that Republican Veep candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's 17-year-old kid is pregnant does not make the kid a fair topic of partisan political discussion or debate.

But I'm not partisan!

Still, while I often have beef with select broadcast pundits for having no shame in their underhanded personal attacks and their use of half truths as weapons, I believe in credit where it's due. And since the news broke about the Palin daughter's pregnancy I haven't heard or heard of one TV pundit who has gone after the girl.

All that being said, I believe there's a little confusion on facts vs. issues.

The pregnancy is a matter of fact. The girl is a minor. That's a matter of fact. The girl is not running for office. That's a matter of fact. The girl intends to keep the baby. That intention is a matter of fact. The girl's decision is in keeping with her family's public pro-life stance. None of those facts needs to be debated or publicly pondered. They are what they are.

But there are related issues that are fair game, and I'm waiting to see if the pundits address those issues in any detail.

For example, there are premarital sex by minors and unsafe sex. I agree with all sides that Palin's daughter is not a political pinball. However, her situation cast in the shadow of her mother's staunch position that the only good sex education is abstinence education, makes that position fair game for debate.

If you've read this blog before, you know my pops is a pastor, who is pro-life. You know that I attended a parochial high school, where we didn't get sex ed. You don't necessarily know that my school, while significantly smaller in size than nearby public schools, experienced several high profile pregnancies during my tenure. I was friends with the parties involved. To a man...and woman, they all said after the fact that in the moment they weren't thinking about anything but the act of sex itself, and getting it right.

So I'm not advocating over-the-top sex ed. In fact, I'm not advocating sex ed at all. If you want your kid to have it, make sure he is in a school where he'll get it. If you don't want your kid to have it, don't let him take the classes. But make sure you teach him about humans and sex at home. I say humans and sex, 'cause that birds and bees nonsense has to stop. I've never learned anything about how to have sex, or have safe sex from fowl or insects.

Anyway, I don't see any problem with the pundits asking whether or not some form of sex ed might have led to the introduction of condoms into the sex life of Palin's daughter and the daughter's boyfriend, and possibly have prevented the pregnancy.

It's not a knock on the kid. It's a question about a policy Palin supports for other American kids, kids who aren't hers.

And hopefully, if the question is raised, Palin's supporters will demand to see evidence that learning about condoms in school compels more teenagers to use them. Don't harp to me that there is data proving it. For every kid who answers sex life surveys in school, there are two or three more who either lie on those surveys or choose not to answer 'em. Let's not forget the wisdom of Mark Twain when it comes to statistics: On the sliding scale of fibbing, there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

Frankly, if I had not been such a combo jock/dork/debate club geek/barbershop quartet member/?, I might have had a legitimate shot at sex before age 17. And if I'd had such a shot, I can't guarantee you I'd have remembered a condom in the heat of the moment. I mean I kept them in my car way back then, in the unlikely event that I'd get to use them before becoming a legal adult. But even straight A students can forget things in the heat of the moment....not that I was a straight A student, in no-sex ed or any other subject.

Last and least, since the balance and fairness of media coverage always seems to leach into political debates these days, if Barack Obama's eldest daughter was a few years older and it came out that she was pregnant by a high school boyfriend, would the media react the same way, or would Obama be taken to task for preaching the "gospel" of personal responsibility while his own daughter was engaging in unsafe sex? Would the race baiters come out and argue that Obama's family was contributing to the high rate of black children born to single mothers?

On a related note, Obama's running mate Sen. Joe Biden has been classified by both partisans and non-partisan "analysts" as a socially liberal politician. If one of his youngest sons had impregnated a girl in high school, would Biden be taken to task now for letting having let his liberal ways cloud his parental judgment and hinder him from keeping his household under control?

As always, don't get mad. I'm just asking questions!

Your opinion, please?

I know a guy...

For several days now I've been wanting to blog about NBC News's announcement late last week that the network had hired Luke Russert, 22-year-old son of the late NBC political guru Tim Russert, as a correspondent to cover the youth angle at the political conventions this fall.

I couldn't write about this immediately though, 'cause I wasn't quite sure how I felt.

Seriously, my feelings ranged from slight haterism, as in silent grumblings of "wish that was me!" to annoyance, as in "what the hell did he do to deserve such a gig?" to downright anger over what I initially perceived to be a big old wet kiss from the Affirmative Action Fairy.

Then it occurred to me that this technically wasn't affirmative action, 'cause affirmative action is a formal government policy whose stated goal is to give a nudge to ethnic minorities and women who might otherwise face discrimination in certain hiring and schools admissions policies.

So I came to the conclusion then that young Russert had instead been kissed by the Nepotism Fairy, paternal twin of the Affirmative Action Fairy.

While NBC News issued a straight-faced statement saying that Russert was hired because it was crucial that the youth vote be covered thoroughly at the conventions, let's be blunt. It couldn't have hurt for him to be a Russert. Also, TV news is about ratings. So, sorry NBC News. But this has ratings gimmick written all over it.

But here's the rub: While I've engaged in debate over this thing for a few days and listened to colleagues debate over it, and while I'm still sorta bugged by it, I can't be mad at Russert.

Whatever you want to call it - a form of affirmative action, a form of nepotism, simple old-fashioned back scratching/favoritism, or straightforward and above board, Russert, a recent college grad, has a unique type of experience that you just can't get in a J-school classroom. You don't grow up at the feet of arguably the best political broadcast journalist in modern times and not learn a thing or two.

Like it or not, he does have unique qualifications for the job. And what was he supposed to do, say no to the offer? I wouldn't have in his place.

Still, I understand why some of my colleagues are ticked off about his new job opportunity. Just two weeks ago, I was in Chicago for a media convention. And while it was good to catch up with old friends, it was almost depressing to see dozens, maybe hundreds of experienced, and very qualified, and in some cases YOUNG-AS-RUSSERT!!! out-of-work journalists looking for new gigs. Everywhere they turned at the convention's job fair, they were told there's nothing out there, due to the tanking economy. So, given news like that, no matter how many pearls you try to put on this pig, NBC's announcement on young Russert was an announcement of some kind of favoritism, no matter what sort of label you put on it.

Besides, favoritism in hiring is not new in this or any other country. The government may not always be involved, but I assure you the practice predates 1961, when JFK reportedly coined the term "affirmative action." Don't get me started on all the examples of it in my own industry.

But my big question is how many critics of favoritism and special treatment and fast-tracking at work will look at this hiring and finally acknowledge that it is not "mostly" a minority thing or a female thing. It is a who's best connected thing.

Need I remind you of the legacy policies at some colleges and universities that grant the children of past graduates special consideration for admission over poor schmucks whose dumb luck was to be born to parents who didn't go to college or who graduated from different schools?

I remember the first time I was confronted about workplace favoritism.

It was the early '90s, in the two years or so after I graduated high school. I was a college student at this point and was working as a civilian journeyman machinist at the now defunct Naval Aviation Depot (Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Va.) to help pay for school.

A middle-aged white guy in my machine shop approached me in the break room and asked if my hire had been the result of affirmative action or some other government aid. I knew he was attempting snark, but I kept cool and told him no, my hire was the result of me scoring well on the Civil Service Exam and passing the hands-on and classroom portions of my subsequent apprenticeship.

He was still skeptical and followed me back to my turret lathe after we ate, and he persisted, even though I over-lubed the metal I was shaping so that it would spray him with smelly grease and metal shavings. He asked if I would ever accept affirmative action or any other sort of "unearned" advantage. And he gave the example of me and a more experienced white person vying for the same job as me. He wanted to know if I was offered the job over the more experienced person, would I accept.

It was a tricky question, but only for a moment. I come from a household of parents proud of the things accomplished in this country through and as a result of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, but at the same time proud of their personal work ethic and the fact that they really did scrap and claw their way into everything they ever earned, without the benefit of a government nudge or wet kisses from influential relatives or family friends.

So while I know my folks hated - and still hate - the notion that they'd ever need help to accomplish anything they wanted, I also know that they were savvy enough about workplace politics and negative "isms" to never look down on anyone who accepted an offer of help...whether from the government or the bosses of a major news organization. Why? Because it's just human nature to not look a gift horse in the mouth.

So my answer to his question was I may not aggressively seek that nudge, 'cause I know my work can sing its own praises. But if that nudge is offered, you better believe I'd take it. And don't be high and mighty. Most of you would take it too.

But if you have a vein throbbing out the side of your neck at this point, maybe your blood pressure will lower if I tell you that my feelings on this topic pretty much align with those of comedian Chris Rock: I don't think any unqualified person who is some form of minority should get a job over a qualified person who is white, just 'cause the unqualified person is black, or brown, or female, or in a wheel chair, or is from Mars, or is related to or friends with a well-connected, powerful person. But, if the black/female/wheelchair-bound-person/Martian/connected person is equally qualified to the white person, I don't have a problem with the tie going to the black/brown/white/female/wheelchair-bound-person/Martian/connected person sometimes.

All that being said, Luke, congrats on your new gig, and good luck with it.

They still don't get it

Not even a full week after the media exploded in hubbub over the Rev. Jesse Jackson being caught on tape saying he wanted to snip Barack Obama's cookie jar, and the pundits speculated over how "the" black community would react, another talking head has stuck his foot in his mouth...in my humble opinion.

I thought we here at Burnettiquette World Headquarters and dozens of other blogs and column spots made it clear that one of the biggest mistakes the pundits were making was to assume that Rev. Jackson was "the" leader of "the" black community.

I thought we made it clear that there are multiple communities among African Americans and other black Americans. I thought we made it clear that there was never an election to pick a designated national black community leader. I thought we made it clear that no king had been crowned, not even figuratively, since that King was taken away from us.

And yet, in the midst of a field of punditry that likes to suggest its the conservative pundits only who perpetuate this notion that black folks need to be led around by the nose, I watched Hardball last night on MSNBC, and listened to Chris Matthews pose the question: Who's leading African Americans, Barack Obama or Jesse Jackson?

Notice that question isn't book-ended by quotation marks, because I'm going from memory here, and may be off by a word or two. But the gist is there. And BTW, I've never heard anyone accuse Matthews of being a conservative.

Call me crazy, but I still say that was an outrageous question. I don't have anything against Matthews or the rest of the folks whose job it is to analyze the news and speculate about what it means. I've been on shows before and shared my opinion.

But not one of those pundits or journalists or folks who dwell in that gray area between, including Matthews, would never look at the camera with a straight face and ask who's leading white Americans.

I know they wouldn't ask that question, 'cause if nothing else, they might be afraid of some of the answers they'd hear.

Plus there's that whole silly fairness thing - you know, the one about trying to avoid painting groups of people with one broad brush.

One more time for the pundits on both sides of the political aisle: black folks don't need a king. We didn't pray for a king. We didn't ask the media, of which I'm a proud member, to give us a king. Many of us were satisfied with the King who was taken too soon, back in the day. We're not the complaining frogs in the pond in Aesop's fable. All we need, like every other American, is that level playing field on which we'll be able to access our equipment locker without hindrance so that when its our turn at the plate we won't be empty handed. We'll be brandishing the heftiest bat available.

Still Alive!!!

Sorry for no posts the past several days. Been buried. Will resurface this afternoon with a new post.