RFFM.ORG

Snopes.com Info on Best Buy's Christmas Greeting Policy Outdated: Continued Boycott Unfair

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

The other day, my wife and I visited a Best Buy store in the Chicagoland area and were pleasantly surprised.  As we were checking out, the young cashier went out of her way to wish us both a very merry Christmas.  My wife and I were taken aback by the young lady's obvious enjoyment in extending her greeting, to the point it was a topic of conversation as we left the store.

Shortly afterward, I received an e-mail sent out by an individual who was supporting a boycott of Best Buy.  The individual was forwarding an e-mail he had received which, unbeknownst to him, referred to outdated information regarding Best Buy's policy related to Christmas greetings issued by employees (or the lack thereof) to their customers.  The e-mail suggested Best Buy was conducting a war on Christmas, as some retailers are, and the writer said the information was true because he confirmed the information by going to Snopes.com.  He even provided the link to the website which supposedly reports on whether issues are factual or not.  The only problem is, none of the people who forwarded these e-mails--which supported the continued boycott of Best Buy--went to Snopes.com and carefully read the information posted on the site at this link: http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/bestbuy.asp. 

Subsequently, I went to Snopes.com to see if Best Buy was indeed not allowing employees to wish customers a merry Christmas.  This was factual, but the only problem was the information was clearly outdated.  The Snopes.com data was posted in 2006 and since then Best Buy has obviously changed its policy.  Now, of course, during my visit to the store, there might have been an entire shift of rogue employees who were putting their jobs on the line and ignoring store policy regarding the prohibition on wishing customers a merry Christmas.  But anyone with common sense would perceive Best Buy had changed its policy regarding the issue, but Snopes.com had failed to update the data it provided in 2006 regarding Best Buy's policy. 

Obviously, the e-mail regarding a continued boycott against Best Buy is unfair.  Also, I was taught a lesson because those who administer the Snopes.com website fail to do their job.  Subsequently, the store is being punished without merit.  This story should be a lesson for all when receiving forwards.  Those who pass such information along to their databases have a duty to confirm the information by contacting the actual source and not depending on Snopes.com as the ultimate purveyor of the truth.

In a time of economic depression, there are those who obviously believe Best Buy is continuing a policy which surely has resulted in the store's loss of revenue.  Perhaps at one time, the boycott of Best Buy regarding its policy towards Christmas greetings had merit.  But, sadly, the retailer is a victim of inaccurate and outdated information.

Right at the top of the Snopes.com website, it clearly states, "Collected via e-mail 2006".  Near the bottom of the same page it reads, "Last updated November 2006".  So, I suppose Snopes.com is blameless, but, at the same time, Snopes.com should be blamed for its omission of current information about Best Buy's current Christmas greeting policy. 

RFFM.org wishes everyone a Merry CHRISTMAS and a new year filled with God's blessings. 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Support the White Ribbon Against Pornography Campaign - Get Involved

by Arlene Sawicki *

 

Each year, Morality in Media [MIM] www.moralityinmedia.org urges every American concerned about the floodtide of pornography into all areas of our society to get busy and play a part in combating the “obscenity plague.”  Through their White Ribbon Against Pornography [WRAP] campaign, they make the public aware of the damage that pornography has done to healthy relationships between men and women and the tragic affect it has on our innocent children through Internet porn channels.  Please visit the MIM web site and find out how you can become a participant in the WRAP campaign now and throughout the year.

We are aware that there are federal and state laws prohibiting distribution of obscene materials in interstate commerce.  In recent decades, Congress has also strengthened these laws on several occasions, including an amendment in 1996 to clarify that “…use of an interactive computer service to transport obscene materials in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce is prohibited.”

The Supreme Court has held that enforcement of obscenity laws DOES NOT violate the First Amendment and that “legitimate governmental interests are furthered through enforcement of these laws.”  These  include the “public safety itself” and protection of “morality,” “family life” and the “total community environment.”  The Court has also said there is a “right of the nation…to maintain a decent society.”

The Internet, in particular, is also awash with hardcore pornographic materials that are available to minors without cost or proof of age and surveys indicate that large number of children have been inadvertently exposed to these materials or have deliberately sought them out.  The Child Internet Pornography Act [COPA] Commission, created by Congress, has concluded in its October 2000 FINAL REPORT,  “We believe that an aggressive effort to address illegal, obscene material on the Internet will also address the presence of harmful to minors material.”  It is troubling to note that the American Library Association www.ala.org and the ACLU have consistently fought to overturn COPA.

Under President Clinton, the Justice Department rarely enforced obscenity laws.  Under President Bush, there has been significantly more enforcement, but not enough to stem the floodtide of obscene materials.

Morality in Media urges voters to encourage our presidential candidates to make strict obscenity enforcement one of the priorities in their election campaigns.  MIM’s statement to the candidates reads:

“I understand that there are many pressing issues facing our nation, but evidence abounds that hardcore pornography, among other things, debases women, ruins marriages, corrupts children and contributes to sexual exploitation of children, sexual trafficking, sexual harassment and rape.

“If you haven’t done so, please make your position on enforcement of federal obscenity laws known to voters. 

“If elected President, please do all in your constitutional power to ensure that the U.S. Justice Department vigorously enforces already established federal laws dealing with commerce in obscene materials.”

In the meantime, it is our duty to do all we can to fight the battle on the homefront.  MIM provides a reporting web site:  www.ObscenityCrimes.org  whereby complaints about Internet pornography can be forwarded to the Justice Department and to the U.S. Attorney in the federal district where the complaint has been submitted.  We can also use the text at this link as a model for a letter to family, friends, church or other organization members or to the editor of your local newspaper.

Remember, ONE PERSON CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE! 

Support the White Ribbon Against Pornography campaign – October 26 through November 2 - and throughout the year.

* Arlene Sawicki is a veteran Catholic pro-life/pro-family activist who resides in Illinois.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]  

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Part 2 of Series What's Wrong With Journalism? Illinois Blog Blurs Lines of Journalism: A Matter of Trust

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Editor

 

Most purists would agree the standards applied to the field of journalism have declined during recent years.  From tawdry periodicals to the proliferation of the Internet, the art of the written word has been spread thin.  At one time, there were hard and fast rules adhered to by reporters, columnists and authors which gave the practice of journalism continuity.

 

Today, as in other professional and artistic forms, rules no longer seem to matter and with this new paradigm has come a devolution of journalistic standards.

 

A case in point regarding how the lines between journalism and gossip have become blurred is demonstrated in a series of columns posted by a Midwestern blog called the Illinois Review (IR) [www.illinoisreview.typepad.com/].  Recently, the IR blog posted a well-written series on Illinois politics.  The author offered scathing criticism of Republican Party leadership and how the state GOP lacks credibility.  The second part in this series addressed questions dealing with financial contributions, citing a lack of integrity demonstrated by Party officials.  To this point, there has only been three installments of this series which the blog calls "occasional" and "ongoing".  Presumably, the meaning is ... whenever the contributor to the IR blog deems it politically necessary, another column will be posted on the site.

 

At a glance, again, the series is well-written, it sounds reasonable and may or may not be factual, depending on one's political perspective.  However, there is a glaring problem with the series.  The name ascribed to the author of record, Tyler Jones, is fictitious.  There is no Tyler Jones.  Make no mistake.  The series is presented as being written by a legitimate contributor to the blog.  Indeed, a disclaimer at the top of the Illinois Review states: "All statements made on this blog are those of the authors' only.  Any disputes must be addressed to the writers, who are solely responsible for their posts.  We welcome comments; but reserve the right to deny or remove them.  Content may not be used without permission of the authors."

 

Questions regarding the identity of not only Tyler Jones, but John Ruskin, another Illinois Review contributor, first surfaced in the comment section on another blog, Illinois Reason, [www.illinoisreason.wordpress.com/] which wrote:  Have you ever seen "articles" written by "Tyler Jones" or "John Ruskin" on Illinois Review?  Those people don't exist.  Both are actually ...

 

The identity of Tyler Jones was again questioned on the comment section of The Capitol Fax Blog Mobile Edition [http://www.thecapitolfaxblog.com/wp-mobile] when a comment was posted stating:  ... on that Illinois Review blog thingee.  Liz Gorman gets ripped too of course.  It's supposedly from one "Tyler Jones" but that's actually ...

 

RFFM.org attempted to find out whether or not the speculation was true regarding Tyler Jones and/or John Ruskin.  Via e-mail, the following comment was issued by one of Illinois Review's operating officials, Dennis LaComb: 

 

Dan:

 

Thank you for your query.

 

We don't provide information about our contributors unless they determine to do it themselves.

 

Regards,

 

Dennis + Fran

 

Dennis LaComb and Fran Eaton are self-described owners of the Illinois Review and they offered no further comments regarding the true identity of Tyler Jones, after numerous inquiries by RFFM.org.  LaComb's response flies in the face of IR's disclaimer which, essentially, once again, states, "...All statements made on this blog are those of the authors' only.  Any disputes must be addressed to the writers, who are solely responsible for their posts..."

 

Obviously, the operative question is:  How can queries be put to authors who exist as pseudonyms alone?

 

Hopefully, this article will not be construed as an attack on the Illinois Review.  But it can be interpreted as an indictment of the Illinois Review and its failure to adhere to journalistic standards.  The problems which arise when publications post material under fictitious names are myriad.  Who is responsible for the posting?  Does the target of the fictitious author have access to a redress of grievances?

 

American society is founded on certain principles.  In the area of law, we have the right to confront our accusers.  The same principle should hold true in journalism.

 

Not specifically addressing the Illinois Review situation, of which he said he was unaware, Bernie Schoenburg of the Springfield State Journal-Register, [http://www.sj-r.com/] told RFFM.org, "In general, and not about any particular case, if something is published anonymously or under a fictitious name, that means there's a lack of accountability.  If our newspaper were to publish writing from a person we do not identify or someone using a false name, that could certainly open the paper up to legitimate criticism."

 

Of course, there are situations when pseudonyms have been legitimately used by authors in the past.  However, in the case of the IR series, an appropriate criteria for such literary license was not met.

 

"Credibility is perhaps the most important thing a journalist can have," said Frank Whittaker, Station Manager/Vice-President of News, NBC 5 Chicago [http://www.nbc5.com/].  "And trust is a key component of credibility.  A reader or viewer must be able to trust that what the journalist is reporting is true.  If the identity of the journalist is not known, that becomes very difficult."

 

Mr. Whittaker was also not aware of the Illinois Review series and was commenting in general terms about the rules of journalism.

 

RFFM.org will not speculate on why the Illinois Review would use fictitious names for contributors to their blog.  The purpose of this column is not to ascertain any motives.  The criticism levied within the series may well be based in truth.  But the fact the IR editors did not present the series according to the rules of journalism invalidates the postings and may cause others to search for ulterior motives as to why the Illinois Review owners and editors felt it was necessary to take this tact and, by doing so, the Illinois Review opens itself to criticism.

 

With the 24 hour news cycle brought about by cable television, along with the plethora of web sites and blogs, journalism will probably get worse before it gets better.  The dominant media cannot be excluded from this criticism.  The truth is, with this departure from accountability will come more responsibility by those who seek out information from any source and that's probably the way it always should have been.

 

Part 1 of Series What's Wrong With Journalism? Russert Tribute Overblown, Journalists Think They're Celebrities can be read at the following link:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/06/part-1-of-series-whats-wrong-with-journalism-russert-tribute-overblown-journalists-think-theyre-celebrities.html -- posted June 15th.

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]   

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.