The advantage of having a journalist in my immediate family is that we get “Breaking News”.
For example, a major news network report this morning was about a black bear visiting a neighborhood. I believe it was hoping to borrow a cup of sugar, but you never know.
On the video from the owner, it (the bear, not the owner, although this outcome would not surprise us) is leaning up against the house feeding on a bird feeder. Naturally, the owner did the following:
- Crank open the window.
- Lean out with his cell phone to attract the bear, whose is not more than 2 feet away.
- Proceed to have the bear swat him, as if to say, “I’m a bear – what do you think you are doing?”
What gets me is this: This fellow did a stupid thing (defined as something I would do). The bear provided an appropriate correction (proving that the 2nd amendment allows for us to arm bears). And then, he (the owner, not the bear, although, once again, this outcome would Not surprise us) is willing to display his stupidity by posting this video on the internet (and, admit it, this blog is the exact same thing, but without the large following).
The important fact is this – at least these journalists had footage. Unlike the bear sighting in Cleveland, for which I provide a link for your viewing pleasure ( see Cleveland Bear Sighting)
Some poor homeowner saw a black bear in her backyard. She was NOT stupid enough to take out her camera and face the bear. She called the police (what exactly was she thinking?) and the bear wandered off safely.
Of course, that can only mean this… the news story had to provide a faithful recreation of the incident.
You know the story is going off the rails when it starts with “This is probably what the bear looked like, except real.” Yes, the intrepid staff had a cardboard cutout of a black bear. Their budget clearly could not afford Cocaine Bear – She’s got a SAG Card and was wayyyyyyy too expensive to make an appearance on local news.
Undaunted, the journalist continues. The bear was sighted again: “This recreation identifies how witnesses say the bear escaped into the woods.” Yes, the reporter, ducking behind the cutout of the bear, shows it galloping off like a thoroughbred racehorse to “escape” as if it were some sort of LA Freeway car chase. I suspect that the bear was actually going home to binge-watch The Bear on Hulu.
To validate this story, they bring on a Cleveland area naturalist who is excited and happy to see a bear. She explained that “Black bears can be on the ground, or they can climb trees.”
Yes, you can see this one coming…. the reporter is standing on his tippy-toes demonstrating how a standing bear would look if he (the bear, not the reporter, which as we have said would NOT surprise us) could stand sideways on the tree defying the laws of gravity.
Mind you, “She’s never seen one [a bear, not a reporter] but has come close.” By this we mean that our fearless naturalist has seen bear “scat”, thus answering the age-old question “Does a bear (or a journalist, which as we have repeatedly said WOULD NOT surprise us) scat in the woods?” Maybe it wasn’t escaping, it just needed some privacy. [As an aside, I wrote that joke before I heard the reporter say the exact same thing. Go figure.]
So, the reporter asks if we should be concerned? Apparently, “We are not bear food” per our naturalist. They like organic and shop at Whole Foods.
And then, if the bear cutout was not enough, the reporter says, “and neither are our pets.” Perfectly reasonable, up until the point he puts on a Rabbit Head to explain “I’m good… I’m, uh, faster than a bear.”
Yes, journalist integrity in action. I just grin and bear it.
LARRYLAND 
Leave a reply to Adrean Hersh Cancel reply