President Barack Obama was dead-on to declare that Sgt. Crowley "acted stupidly..."

My brethren in the news and entertainment industries deserve at least half of the blame by ignoring and omitting the president's statement in context: "...in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."



The news conference was about health care reform. It is sad and problematic that, in emphasizing the last few minutes of the event, the journalism comes off as irresponsible and poor.



President Barack Obama had already acknowledged that he knew only some of the facts and the context. I know that his candor probably shocked viewers, because politicians and executives rarely lay their thoughts or opinions out like that. Viewers are used to executives' and politicians' typical and chronic fear of candor or bluntness, as they fear a public misunderstanding and even wrath.



The president’s declaration was newsworthy, but it was a little less important than the purpose of news conference. It is old, frustrating, and problematic to have my brethren, or future brethren, in the news and entertainment professions choose either easy or lazy options. Those options emphasized what is “sexy” and sensational over what is substance, well-informed, and well-reported This may be the most pleasant way to describe.



From what I noticed from three and even four different news room TVs, the talk program producers and print editors conspicuously chose voices that admonished the president's candor; some doing so in subtle voices, others in blunt ones, and others in voices that force one to ask oneself if they were watching a whole other show. It has been bizarre to see and hear those dominate the conversations as they have.



The Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Mitchell, a woman of color, admonished, "...how does the same man who spent his campaign running away from racial issues jump into this convoluted incident when he clearly has much bigger fish to fry?"



In a comment section at the Detroit Free Press, Eddie Johnson of Royal Oak, wrote, "President Barack Obama acted stupidly when he stated on national television that while he did not have all of the facts in the case he still accused the police of acting stupidly. The police acted on an eyewitness report from a concerned neighbor. They had no choice but to bring him in when he would not cooperate and became abusive."



Also in the Free Press, someone who identifies themself outside of the "racial" binary, with which North Americans are most comfortable, thinks that Sgt. Crowley was wrong. "I am neither black nor white but outraged all the same. The officer should have apologized, at least after knowing the facts."



"My next-door interracial couple met with the same treatment...The man investigated a noise in the back of his house and was arrested. The man told the officer, "This is my house," to which the officer responded, 'I have heard that before.' Later, when facts were clarified, he was released, but without an apology."



That I only found the pro-Obama tack being taken on the Addicted to Race podcast, that the Manhattan diversity training firm, New Demographic, produces, might be telling. One must wonder if it's simply too bold and too unpopular, even heretical, to speak from the pro-Obama corner of this heated-up soapbox? (It's very disappointing that, the podcast's sound quality is meager. But that does not taint the insights or wisdom.)



The president's declaration did not stir the tumult.



Editors' and producers' decisions to emphasize one striking and off-topic part of the healthcare reform news conference played a pivotal part. I am convinced that the incessant coverage, analysis, and over-analysis stirred more of the tumult; at least, they kept the embers of the story from losing their glow. Please, someone kindly and cogently explain why "everyone" has hopped upon this one corner of the soapbox!