I am a 35 year old man in New York City, and like most New Yorkers, I have a roommate. She is 45. You’d think that she would behave as an adult. You’d think I’d get treated as an adult. That is not the case. I just walked into the living room and said her name, in preparation to ask her a question. She curtly ’shushed’ me like I was an unruly child and gestured toward the television to let me know I was interrupting her program. I feel belittled and angry.

My friends, I come not to praise journalism, but to bury it. And appropriately enough, like last week’s fish, it will be wrapped in the pages of the New York Post, which this morning — as it does each and every day — proved that while sex sells, so does nastiness in general.

The definition of journalism is “writing characterized by the direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.” Call me crazy, but the following sentence would seem to be a tad less than objective:

“Unwelcome Libyan thug Moammar Khadafy biefly found a comfy spot to rest his foul head yesterday.”

Thug? Foul head?

The piece in question goes on to say Khadafy received “a zero’s welcome”, calls him an “international pariah” and even imply that the visiting dignitary  — which is what he is, no matter ones stance on his politics — prefers living in outhouses.

Were this an editorial — the section of a newspaper in which writers are free to opine to their hearts content — it would be a different story, but this is considered a “news story” by the good folks at the New York Post… who actually called the man a “desert rat” on the front page.

This is not an abheration but rather an every-day occurence in the pages of the popular New York City paper. Interestingly, if one flips through and looks closely at the source for stories, a distinction quickly becomes clear: Those obtained form legitimate wire services such as the Associated Press are practically offensive-adjective free while those penned in house have the lurid appeal of a tawdry romance novel.

So freely does the paper weave fact and opinion together that there seems little need for an editorial page. Given the words used to describe Khadafy in the “news” story it hardly comes as a surprise when Hugo Chavez is dubbed a “gasbag.”

This is not to say that the men in question are deserving of respect, but rather to point out that it is the job of a journalist to but aside all bias and report objectively. Perhaps the Post might want to consider hiring a few people who actually understand the difference between informing the public and bloviating. Then again, the Post is owned by good ol’ Rupert Murdoch, and if there’s one thing we know about the man — who also happens to own Fox News Channel — it’s that rhetoric and fear-mongering are far more valuable to him than facts or even, God forbid, civility.

As Murdoch’s fellow tycoon, Warren Buffet, once said, “The smarter the journalists are, the better off society is, for to a degree, people read the press to inform themselves… and the better the teacher, the better the student body.” If that’s true, I can only assume that the readers of the New York Post are what we might politely call the “special kids.”

I absent-mindedly entered on the uptown track instead of the downtown side of the subway station. I left the station and crossed over to the other side of the tracks but, of course, my metro card had been swiped and was now in a dreaded “already been used” state.

I approached the MTA booth and found a woman sitting there, apparently doing paper work. I said, “excuse me” but she did not acknowledge me in any capacity. I thought to myself, ok, maybe she is the middle of something I will give her a minute or two. Minutes passed and now at least one train went by and she did not even give me a “hold on a sec” acknowledgement.

Finally, I persisted, with “Excuse me, Excuse me, EXCUSE ME.” Then she looked up, told me to “hang on” accompanied with a real withering look. She then moved over to a different chair and asked me to swipe my card. I swiped my card, seriously, twenty times. Sometimes it said, “Swipe again,” at other times it said ” just used.” She insisted that nothing was registering on her end at that I needed to swipe it straight. Of course I was frustrated and I said, the screen read, “It was just used.” And she got haughty and said I “wasn’t listening to her.”

I kept swiping but eventually just walked away. I didn’t look at her. I didn’t acknowledge her behavior. I just left the booth and bought a new single ride pass at the computerized booth.

Go ahead MTA, replace her with a machine.

A politician can be charming and entertaining, but he should never fancy himself an entertainer… at least not during his time in public office. I mention this because it’s something that New York Governor David Paterson would be wise to remember.

This week, Rush Limbaugh — whom some are calling the new face of the republican party but who is, in fact, a radio personality/entertainer — had some not-so-nice things to say about Paterson’s proposed tax increases for those making over $500,000. Furious, Limbaugh — who reportedly made about $33 million in 2007 — took to the airwaves to express his disapproval and announce that he would be selling his apartment, packing up his studio and leaving Manhattan behind because of the increase.

The reaction from his critics was downright predictible… not to mention hilarious. Perhaps the most talked-about in the days to come was that offered up by Jon Stewart of The Daily Show.

Funny stuff, and exactly what one would expect of an entertainer… which is what Stewart is.
Governor Paterson, however, is not. So when he addressed Limbaugh’s remarks by telling the media, “If I knew that would be the result, I would have thought about the taxes earlier.”

Sure, Paterson’s remarks are strikingly similar to those made by Stewart and a slew of other comedians. But shouldn’t we expect more of our political leaders than cheap shots such as the one the governor lobbed at the radio host? Given the criticism being leveled against Paterson for many of his proposed taxes — which have drawn criticism from just about every group imaginable — this was an obvious attempt on his part to make light of the situation.

But we expect more of our politicians… or at least, we should. Paterson’s remarks were as unprofessional as they were unoriginal, and it’s worth noting that this is the same thin-skinned politico who has complained about the way he is portrayed on Saturday Night Live. Paterson may be legally blind, but even he has to see that his nasty remarks were completely uncalled for.

You can’t ride a subway or bus in New York City without seeing a sign proclaiming, “If you see something, say something”.  Now, it would appear that Metropolitan Transit Authory’s slogan — which popped up in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center  — is being slightly revised with regards to its employees who are now being told “If you see something, say something… but don’t get involved.”

In one of the most heinous and disturbing decisions in recent memory, a Queens judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by a woman who was raped in plain sight of at least two MTA employees, each of whom contacted the police but failed to take any further action to intervene on her behalf. 

After being dragged kicking and screaming past station agent John Koort, who remained in the token booth, and train conductor Harmodio Cruz, who did not stop the train or abandon his post, the 21-year-old victim was raped. Twice. 

Her attacker was not caught. 

 

 

 

 Justice Kevin Kerrigan deemed that the men took “prompt and decisive action” in summoning the police, a decision the victim correctly labeled as “deplorable”. As she and her attorney plan their appeal, one can’t help but wonder if a female judge would have handed down the same ruling. The cowardice of the men in question would also seem to prove we haven’t come all that far since that infamous night in 1964 when Queens resident Kitty Genovese was fatally attacked as nearby neighbors ignored her cries for help.

Perhaps more disheartening than Kerrigan’s actual ruling is what it says about human nature and the inevitable questions it raises about how we would react if put in the same situation. Could you stand by as a man brutally attacked another human being? Would you be brave enough to intervene, even it meant putting your own safety on the line? 

Equally disturbing is what this ruling says to New York City residents who rely on the subway station, many of whom no doubt assume that they are relatively safe riding the rails late at night as long as they remain within sight of the MTA employee safely-ensconced in the nearby booth. 

Think again.

In the past, when budget cuts have resulted in the closing of token booths, citizens in the impacted areas have often voiced concerns about the stations in question being less safe as a result. Unfortunately, it seems that with the blessing of both the MTA and the legal system, they weren’t exactly safe to begin with. 

 

I recently moved into roommate situation in a New York City apartment. I pay half the rent, yet my roommate is failing to give me half the space. There are three closets, all of which are filled with her belongings, and I have maybe 25% of the shelf space in the kitchen, fridge, and bathroom medicine cabinet to call my own. She is a pack rat and refuses to throw anything away to make room for me. What should I do?