Really, was this necessary?

Those who know me recognize that I'm not a religious person. In fact, I often point out the failures and hypocrisy of religious organizations. But it really rubbed me the wrong way when I read in Rob Owen’s “Tuned In” column in the Post-Gazette that WPXI television in Pittsburgh is booting from Channel 11 a Catholic Mass that has been broadcast on that station for decades on Sunday mornings. Owen reported that the program will be shifted to the over-the-air RTV channel and WPXI’s cable station, PCNC. But anyone who gets their television signals via a satellite dish won’t be able to see the Mass. The reason for the change, according to WPXI, is that it will allow the station to begin its Sunday morning newscast at 5:30 a.m. rather than 7 a.m., in order to directly compete with WTAE’s morning news program. Here was the explanation offered by WPXI program director Mark Barash: “We were feeling like there was an audience looking for news on Sunday mornings, and our viewers were kind of saying, ‘Where’s your newscast?’ and we didn’t have one.” Yes, Mr. Barash, you did have one. It started at 7 a.m. Does he really expect us to believe that the station was being inundated with calls from people saying, “Dammit, I got up at 5:30 a.m., and you people didn’t have a rehash of yesterday’s news and video from a couple of overnight car crashes!” I'm not buying it. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm willing to entertain the notion that ratings and money somehow enter into this equation. And the needs of shut-ins and others who faithfully watched the broadcasts of the Masses? Hmmm, maybe not so much.

Here's a “Guy” who should be fired

Here's the background: A couple of football players at Division II Texas A&M-Commerce were arrested on drug charges. The campus newspaper printed an edition with the story of the drug bust on the front page. A couple of fellow football players went around campus stealing all the newspapers from racks to keep people from reading about the drug arrests. Now, one would expect that the football coach would immediately denounce the thievery of 2,000 newspapers. But no. Coach Guy Morriss had this response: “I’m proud of my players for doing that. This was the best team-building exercise we have ever done.” We? Was Morriss or someone else connected with running the football program behind the thefts? One has to wonder, because when campus police notified athletic director Carlton Cooper of the crime, he said he “didn’t think (the players) were smart enough to do this on their own.” James Bright, editor of the campus paper, estimated the loss from the theft at $1,100. In a lot of places, that qualifies as a felony. Yet Morriss thinks it was a “team-building exercise.” This guy should be fired immediately, because he clearly doesn't have the morals necessary to be a leader of young people. Cooper did say that Morriss and the players involved in the thefts (they were identified from surveillance video) had been disciplined, but he wouldn’t elaborate. But Cooper also seemed to be downplaying the severity of the incident, calling it an “error in judgment.” Do adults, even young adults, have to ponder the question of whether stealing is wrong? It’s not a judgment call. If administrators at the school are able to exhibit good judgment, Morriss will have coached his last game there.

How sincere

Troops are dying in Afghanistan, tens of millions of Americans are out of work and some nut flew a plane into an IRS building, but the BIG news this week is that Tiger Woods went before a TV camera and apologized for being lower than whale poop. The other night, with all that is going on in the world, ABC News' lead story was that Tiger was going to talk about his well-publicized, self-inflicted problems. Not that he WAS talking, but that he was GOING to talk. That's a sad statement about what passes for news judgment these days. And this wasn't even what one would typically consider to be a news conference. Tiger was going to read from a written statement and was refusing to answer any questions. It was all very self-serving, but most of the news media treated it as if Moses were coming down from the mountain to issue 10 more commandments. On Friday, Woods spoke for about 15 minutes. I can sum it up for you this way: Tiger is "deeply sorry" for his "irresponsible and selfish behavior." He has let us down. His wife didn't hit him with a 5-iron. He's not going to answer any questions about the status of his marriage. He's getting back into his Buddhist faith. He's going for more therapy. And he plans to return to golf someday. No @#$%, Sherlock. Does anybody really think Tiger is going to skip the Masters in April? Really, those were the only noteworthy statements in his entire speech. Only a handful of writers and a single TV camera were invited to this self-serving event. To its credit, the Golf Writers Association of America declined to send any of its members. Certainly, Woods has the right to set whatever ground rules he wants, but reporters don't have to be a part of the charade. The reaction of some media personalities was ridiculous. George Stephanopoulos of ABC said the speech was “one of the most remarkable public apologies ever by a public figure." Go overboard much, George? And golf analyst David Feherty of CBS said, "The vast number of people just want their Tiger Woods back." No, David. The vast majority of people really don't give a damn whether they ever see Tiger Woods again. Their lives just aren't that shallow. But CBS, I'll bet, really wants its Tiger Woods back, because he's the meal ticket for that network's golf coverage. I give credit to Rick Cerrone, the former public relations director of the New York Yankees. He saw through the BS and told CNN, "What I saw was arrogance. It was basically an infomercial." It's early, but I'd give the award for stupidest reaction to Debert Cook, publisher of African American Golfer's Digest, who said, "I think we are entering a whole new era spiritually and emotionally for Tiger Woods." Pardon me while I puke. The Onion gave the speech the gravity that it deserved, putting up a story with the headline, “Tiger Woods Announces Return to Sex." As always with Tiger Woods, it's all about Tiger Woods. And I'm guessing that I'm not the only one who believes that if Tiger hadn't gotten caught, he'd still be hitting the sack with as many cocktail waitresses as he could get his hands on.

We're not that interested

The other morning, ABC's “Good Morning America” heavily promoted and gave considerable attention and air time to a story about the start of the trial of a man accused in the beating death of a woman in Little Rock, Ark. Oh, the woman just happened to be an anchorwoman on a Little Rock television station, which also just happens to be an ABC affiliate. As murders go, there was nothing especially spectacular about this one. Somebody gained entry to Anne Pressly's home, sexually assaulted her and fatally beat her. It's a very sad case, but it doesn’t stand out from hundreds of other murders that occurred across the country last year. So why does ABC think the average American is especially interested in the trial? Could it be that Pressly was blonde, attractive and a member of the local celebrity class? It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the media virtually ignored the killing of a poor, black woman while lavishing attention on the similar death of an attractive, white woman. But I don't think that's it. I think Pressly's case is in the ABC spotlight simply because she was a fellow TV news person. If she had been a bank vice president in Little Rock, would we have seen the extensive coverage? Not likely.