Rip and Read...

I was going to write about the recent "State of the Union" speech, but after trying to write something that wasn't just another slam against the current president, I ripped it up.

As one with a degree in journalism and communications, I remember the days of delivering the news on our college radio station (a 3000 watt station broadcasting to the entire community, not just a campus wide "carrier current" station). We were supposed to write news stories using as many sources as we could muster, including interviews with the newsmakers, themselves, if possible. Quotes were helpful, but even better were "actualities," or recordings of portions of the interview. Today, we might call these "sound bites."

However, if we were running late from a class, or got caught up in a chat session with a friend, we might just "rip and read," meaning we would go to the teletype machine and rip off a long strip of news from the Associated Press or the New York Times News Service and just literally read it verbatim on the air. The problems with "rip and read" were many fold: the stories may not have much--if any--interest to our local audience; even from one of these major press outlets, they may have been hastily and poorly written, making the on air talent sound like a moron; or they could be just a glorified headline, with the actual story to follow at a later time. Our professors hated "rip and read." It wasn't our work (for the better writers among us, it clearly wasn't our work, and for the lousy writers among us, it clearly wasn't their work, either!). And even if the story had a local angle, with no follow up or consulting a local source, "rip and read" would take what could be a "hot" local story and turn it into a bland piece of stock copy that got no ones attention and sparked no interest.

Today's "Breaking News!" is yesterday's "rip and read." No one in the studio really knows the story, as they are just handed the headline, and even if there is a live reporter on the scene, she or he is just as clueless, running around with a microphone and a trailing camera, asking any live body questions  willy-nilly. And often the spur-of-the-moment inquiries shot by anxious reporters at witnesses or victims on the scene come across like pouring acid in a deep gash. "Breaking News!" is often just that, b-r-e-a-k-i-n-g news, as in smashing it to the ground and stomping that sucker flat, as they say. Little, if any, information is imparted to the listener/viewer, and one often comes away feeling more like a voyeur than one who has been informed. I'll bet my professors still wouldn't like it (if any of them are still alive). "Rip and Read," by any other name such as "Breaking News!", is just "Rip and Read."

There are news reporters out there who are doing excellent work, and who are guided by a "nose for news" and journalistic integrity, and who know how to tell a story, whether in print or on the air. And then there are the others--opinion-casters who weave together goose-droppings of real facts in order to create the "air" of legitimate news. Pulitzer and other lesser regional prizes such as the Golden Quill are given sparingly to good reporters for unbiased, quality journalism. Unfortunately, ratings often go to the goose-poopers. And, like in the world of politics, high ratings may not translate into factual content. I once heard a famous broadcast blusterer say about a criticism leveled at him by a responsible broadcast journalist: "Oh he's just mad because I have 50,000 watts and a microphone just like him." Well, no, he's just upset that you are giving real broadcast journalists a bad name.

Speaking of "Rip and Read," let me suggest in closing this fine piece that this is also a dangerous way to take in the Bible. It's one thing to read it "devotionally" for edification and personal spiritual growth, but when formulating doctrines, or developing criteria for whom to include or exclude, or in labeling someone else's lifestyle as "sinful," "Rip and Read," as opposed to an in-depth, serious study with commentaries and enlightening feedback from people who understand this stuff (pastors, maybe?) is a bad idea. And yanking "clobber passages" out of biblical and historical context to use as justification for personal prejudice or bigotry is parallel to the "goose poop" reporters mentioned earlier, only with people consequences, not just a mangling of journalistic integrity. If you ever find yourself saying "The Bible says..." followed by a criticism or condemnation of another soul, you had better have done some serious homework, and consulted a few experts before lowering the boom.

So, what's the moral of this story? Well, read (or listen) responsibly. In the case of news, consult sources that have been recognized for unbiased, journalistic excellence. In the case of the Bible, if it's for your benefit, knock yourself out. If it's to lay down the law for another, it's probably beyond your pay grade, unless you've checked into the "village" of biblical interpreters. Otherwise, both of these pursuits are victims of the "Rip and Read" phenomenon. And in all cases, please reject "alternative facts," regardless of the shiny rocks from under which they may have come.