Modified On August 14, 2012
News of the Villanova University incident that we posted about Monday and yesterday is rippling through the WWW (and, from what we can tell, through the MSM in small wavelets).
We’re left with a question or two.
It’s rather obvious that the reporter (Cathy Gandolfo) did a serious hack job on Steve Trevino. It would appear from the piece she filed that she made no attempt to contact him for a statement. Unless we’re mistaken, that would be standard procedure in a story such as this one. And, it seems that she made no attempt to verify the particulars of the story as it was presented by the folks at ‘Nova– 90-minute contract? Pulled after 15 minutes? Used the “N-word?”
We must wonder, though, exactly why she failed to adhere to even the minimum of journalistic standards on this story. A rookie reporter would at least try to find a student or two who might have found Trevino to be entertaining, perhaps if only in the interest of presenting an account that had some tension, some “texture,” maybe. Gandolfo found none. Judging from the tone of the story she was determined to characterize Trevino as clearly wrong and characterize the university and the students as obviously wronged. We suppose that this is standard operating procedure for Local Television News.
Or is it?
Perhaps the incident at Villanova is yet another example of shecksism!
It was nearly a year ago that we coined the term “shecksism” (rhymes with “sexism”):
Shecksism (shĕk’siz’əm)
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on employment in the field of humor; especially : discrimination against standup comics
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on making one’s living telling jokes
The rest of that post is here.
Gandolfo (and her editors at ‘PVI) displayed a remarkable willingness to believe the story fed to her by the University, and they displayed a total disregard for the comedian’s side of the story. This is unusual. Even common criminals, or those charged or about to be charged– politicians, rapists, mobsters– are accorded the courtesy of at least an opportunity to answer the public allegations made against them.
Are we making too big a deal out of this? Hey– we aren’t the ones who devoted a rather substantial two minutes and eight seconds of a half-hour newscast to the story. If the GM at WPVI thought it was a big deal, it was a big deal.
More importantly, though, it was a big deal to the comedian himself. And should be a big deal to all comedians. The subtext of the story was that a comic blew into town, disregarded the University officials, used foul language in an inappropriate setting, violated his contract and acted in a wholly unprofessional manner. And, perhaps the most damaging (and untrue) allegation of all, in this post-Michael Richards world, was that he used the “N-word.” They went nuclear– if you want to seriously damage a (non-African American) professional comedian in 2007, you tell people that he is a racist. You tell them that he used… it!
Did they lie about that part? How could they say the heard something when they didn’t? Easy. The Female Half uses no word stronger than “shit” or “ass” in her 30- to 45-minute act. Yet, countless times over the years, she has been confronted by audience members, after the show who castigate her for using the “F-word.” They will even get to the point of arguing with her when she denies their claim, contending that she is mistaken! How could this be? Simple: People hear what they want to hear. And they especially hear what the reporter wants them to hear.