Reporter Suspended for Comment on Blacks

[dave]

Reporter Suspended, Could Lose Job Over What He Said About ‘Young Black Men’ Live on the Air

Jul. 14, 2014



News 12 reporter Sean Bergin has been suspended after he argued on the air that the “anti-cop mentality that has so contaminated America’s inner cities” is largely the result of “young black men growing up without fathers.”

A source with direct knowledge of the situation confirmed to TheBlaze on Monday that Bergin has, in fact, been suspended over his remarks about the black community and may end up being fired. The source said Bergin was asked not to come in Monday and Tuesday as the news station figures out how to handle the situation.

News 12, a network of news stations serving various areas mostly in New York and New Jersey, did not return messages left by TheBlaze on Monday.

Here’s what Bergin said on the air:

“We were besieged, flooded with calls from police officers furious that we would give media coverage to the life of a cop killer. It’s understandable. We decided to air it because it’s important to shine a light on the anti-cop mentality that has so contaminated America’s inner cities. This same, sick, perverse line of thinking is evident from Jersey City, to Newark and Patterson to Trenton.”

“It has made the police officer’s job impossible and it has got to stop. The underlying cause of all of this, of course: young black men growing up without fathers. Unfortunately, no one in the news media has the courage to touch that subject.”

Continued at:

www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/14/video-reporter-suspended-over-unfiltered-remarks-on-young-black-men-growing-up-without-fathers/


I would agree with his sentiments, but if I were the news director, I'd fire him. You don't want reporters editorializing on societal trends or solutions.  You leave that to me in management by how I choose the stories. 

[clarencebunsen]

I don't know that that generalization can be supported with facts. Even if there is a correlation it wouldn't establish causation.

[dave]

Agreed. That's why I agreed with his sentiments, if not his theory. There have been many studies done on the effects of missing fathers on families and while the effects aren't good, I'm not sure specifically what they've found.

Also, we'd need Mr. Bergin to be more specific about "all of this." He said,

" ... shine a light on the anti-cop mentality that has so contaminated America’s inner cities. This same, sick, perverse line of thinking is evident from Jersey City, to Newark and Patterson to Trenton. It has made the police officer’s job impossible and it has got to stop. The underlying cause of all of this, of course: young black men growing up without fathers."

I have a feeling that incontrovertible evidence will be hard to come by. There are too many with an agenda of their own. Here's a paragraph from the Capital Youth Empowerment Program, written by a Wade Horn, PhD, Past President of the National Fatherhood Initiative:

"Studies have shown that children in America living in homes without fathers are 5 times more likely to live in poverty than children who live with both their mother and their father. Fatherless children are also 2 to 3 times more likely to develop an emotional or behavioral problem requiring psychiatric treatment. Studies have shown that children who grow up without fathers also are more likely to commit crime, and do poorer in school. Perhaps most tragically of all, children who grow up fatherless also are more likely to commit suicide than those who grow up in a home with both their mother and father."
www.cyep.org/our_mission-why_fathers.htm

Hmmm. I suspect there are so many urban black families that make up the bulk of the study population that poverty, lack of opportunity, lack of education and full time life in a crime zone could easily be responsible for the effects, as well as lack of a father. (This is related to my constant lament about surveys and studies done bi-racially where I want to say, "please give me those numbers without the blacks." E.g., my favorite, "three fifths of young adult males in America have had a serious run-in with the law, not including traffic tickets." Say what?

[clarencebunsen]

I suspect a study of any single parent household would get much the same result. Raising kids is a joy but it is also work and can be a financial and emotional burden. It's easier as a team effort. It would be too politically charged to ever get funding but I would love to see such a study that also included households headed by two adult males or two adult females.

For some reason I remember the old sitcom "My Two Dads." I haven't thought about that show in 25 years.

I wonder how my brother & I would fit into the continuum. For the first years of our lives we had not only Mom & Dad but Grandma & Grandpa and several adult and near adult aunts & uncles in the same household.

[Deleted]

Reminds me of a graduate course I had to take which was called" Teaching the inner city black student". I often wondered why they left out the inner city white student but they might have had an advantage. Well I don't remember anything I learned from the course and I don't remember if I really needed to teach differently to some inner city black youth I had in my classes. I do remember that in the PSEN science classes I taught no one regardless of color wanted to know anything about the life cycle of the fern or angiosperms or gymnosperms.

[Deleted]

Reminds me of a graduate course I had to take which was called" Teaching the inner city black student". I often wondered why they left out the inner city white student but they might have had an advantage. Well I don't remember anything I learned from the course and I don't remember if I really needed to teach differently to some inner city black youth I had in my classes. I do remember that in the PSEN science classes I taught no one regardless of color wanted to know anything about the life cycle of the fern or angiosperms or gymnosperms.

[dave]

When I retired and re-entered the education field my company gave me a grant for further education and was surprised when I chose to spend it getting my Class A driver's license (tractor trailer) rather than on graduate course work in Teaching topics. When asked why I made that choice, I answered there wasn't enough Dramamine in the world to get me through another Education course.

I could segue from here back to the National Teacher's exam, but I think we did that topic.

[dave]

Followup ...





'There's no doubt I went off the reservation': Ousted TV reporter who made comments about young black men appears on Fox News saying he knew there would be consequences

Sean Bergin was suspended from News 12 New Jersey because he voiced 'opinion' and was not objective
He included comments in report on interview with widow of man who killed of cop in Jersey City
Bergin, 49, told Megyn Kelly on Fox News: 'This has got to stop. Somebody has to have the guts to stand up and point at this'

By Snejana Farberov

Published: 17 July 2014



A white TV reporter who was suspended for claiming that an 'anti-cop mentality' is caused by fatherlessness among young black men appeared on Fox News Wednesday for the first time since his ouster, telling Megyn Kelly that he knew what he was doing when he made his remarks.

Sean Bergin was reprimanded by News 12 New Jersey because he voiced an opinion rather than remained objective after an interview with the widow of a black man who shot dead a rookie Jersey City police officer.

The widow, Angelique Campbell, told Bergin that Lawrence Campbell should have killed more officers, but she later apologized for her statement.

During his appearance on The Kelly File Wednesday, Bergin shed some light on what preceded the incendiary interview with Angelique Campbell, saying that before News 12 New Jersey aired the segment, the station had been 'besieged' by phone calls from local police officers asking them not to run it.

According to the veteran reporter, he went to his producer and suggested to shelve the interview with the widow, but since it was a News 12 New Jersey exclusive the station made the decision to air it.

After the interview, Bergin concluded his Sunday night report by saying that the underlying cause of an anti-police mentality is young black men growing up without fathers.

He said: 'It's important to shine a light on this anti-cop mentality that has so contaminated America's inner cities,' Bergin said. 'The underlying cause of all of this, of course, young black men growing up without fathers.'

Bergin, a contracted employee, said the station told him that his assignments would be cut to one a week and he declined to remain in the position.

The ousted reporter has reiterated that he decided to address the subject of young black men in the context of the officer’s killing because he wanted to send a message.

‘This has got to stop. Somebody has to have the guts to stand up and point at this and say, “Hey man, we gotta start talking about this."

Continue at:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2695415/Sean-Bergin-comments-young-black-men-appears-Fox-News-saying-knew-consequences.html

[kit]

One can go 'round-and-'round about whether Sean Bergin's opinion about fatherless marriages is correct or not, or whether or not he should have expressed that opinion 'on the air'... but our First Amendment grants him the right to do so, which he did. All the resulting hubbub about it is based on someone else's opinion, or opinions.

I can only equate all the consequential chatter to the many TV soap operas and reality shows, and especially radio's rabble-rousing talk shows. Many people are so deeply immersed in someone else's situation that they don't seem to have a life of their own.

If one turns the tables for a moment and thinks about voicing an opinion of their own and having so many people do to them and their opinion as Sean is having done to him, they'll see that it's not so comfortable when viewed from that direction.

Sean is as entitled to his opinion whether it's whispered in the forest, or broadcast on national TV. So are you and so am I.

[Deleted]

The real root cause : a total disdain of authority.

[Clipper]

I agree with you all, Dave, Kit, and Alan. What happened to the 1st amendment freedom of speech? Political correctness and the fear of raising the ire of minorities has gotten to be pure and unadulterated BS. We can't offend the Muslim population, we can't offend the Hispanic population, although they are flooding our country with illegal immigrants, and we certainly can't offend the poor persecuted black folks, God forbid.

How about we try telling it like it is and letting the chips fall where they may? I offend a lot of people because I express my personal opinions, and I truly don't give a crap. It is a right of every American to express their opinion and to speak freely.

I guess that our media is muzzled by MONEY. They have to conform to the political stand that puts the most money in their coffers, and brings them the most viewers or listeners, regardless of whether what they spew is the hard and cold truth or pure party line garbage. Any employee not quietly laying down like a whipped puppy and conforming to the bull being spread by their employer is dumped or disciplined, in a clear violation of their right to their own opinion. I guess I would most likely not work for anyone that insisted that I compromise my own principles for a paycheck.

[dave]

This is largely theoretical, but the place for public opinions on controversial topics in America has historically been in the newdpapers, public speeches and now the Internet. Television and radio has normally been held to a different set of rules because of a philosophy the FCC came to call the Fairness Doctrine after wording in the Communications Act of 1937 was developed into hard policy around 1960 when Kennedy was running for President.

This doctrine held that the airwaves were a public trust, limited by a fixed space in the television and radio frequency spectrum, and therefore fairness demanded that all opinions get equal time on the public's airwaves. (There were other aspects of "public trust" that encouraged networks to develop educational programning for the betterment of the minds of listeners. Edward R. Murrow's first job with CBS was specifically to hire college professors and help them develop programming material for weekly broadcasts that were so boring people tuned in for help in getting to sleep. The network persisted because they believed they were held to that standard by the FCC. Murrow benefitted by getting to now many European academics he helped re-settle in the United States before war broke out. And later CBS sent him to Europe to set up a string of correspondents over there before the war to chronicle the 'gathering storm,' as Churchill later called it.)

But the Fairness Doctrine does not apply to public speech where anyone with an orange crate can get up and speak to crowds, subject to local safety ordinances.

Nor did it apply to newspapers where anyone with some money could print whatever he or she wanted. (Like I said, this is very theoretical.) The problem with the Fairness Doctrine for broadcasting companies is that, unlike newspapers, as soon as a controversial opinion is stated on the air, any number of people with opposing views can show up and demand free time to express their views. There were a number of court cases that upheld their right to do that. "Free" is a word that strikes fear in the hearts of broadcasting executives and it is the reason why I would fire Sean Bergin, even though I agree with him. The station will not want to be put in a position where they have to give away air time because of what a news reporter said n the air.

Today we can all find examples on television and radio of opinion pieces parading as news shows ... thinking of the talk shows and some of the "current affairs" programming. Things began to change rapidly in the 80's and 90's. But local shows of straight news still try very hard to maintain a balance of opinion by avoiding opinion altogether. Many stations consider this important and accomplish the objective with pride.

Our first amendment recognizes your right to an opinion and the right to express it. It does not grant you the right to have it published in my newspaper or to hold a rally and speak in my front yard. For that you'll need to pay for the privilege. You may through the Fairness Doctrine get free time on a TV station or network to express your opinion, but as my employee you may not without my permission use my facilities and resources to reach the public to express your opinion. Sean Bergin did not have the right to express his opinion on the news show without his employer's permission. And within the normal behavior of his profession, it was not very professional of him to do so, exposing his employer to the controversy and potential loss of viewership, advertising revenue and Fairness Doctrine issues.

And by the way, why should Sean Bergin have access to audiences for his opinions that the rest of us do not have? That's OK with us because we agree with him? What if we did not?

What will we say if Fareed Zakaria of CNN opines we should kill our teenage daughters for kissing the boys in class at school? Will we say nothing because he has a right to his opinion and we especially don't want to offend his religion?

[Clipper]

You make excellent points in differentiating between the printed media and the broadcast media Dave. As usual, your post has been educational and informative. Thank you for clarifying the issue, explaining the "fairness doctrine" which explains the perfectly justifiable reason for the employer's disciplinary actions taken against Sean Bergin.

[dave]

I should have mentioned the Fairness Doctrine is no longer official policy as far as FCC regulations. But it is still a legal concept that can be argued in court. Here's a better history of the doctrine than my meager explanation, above:

content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1880786,00.html

If the above doesn't work, try

www.windsweptpress.com/temptemp/fairness.htm