A gun is an inanimate object. It is incapable of inflicting harm on anyone or anything on its own. It is not inherently good or evil by itself. It takes on the traits of whatever person decides to use it.

Evil exists in our world. It always has and always will, but not in inanimate objects. It is human nature, however, to place the blame for evil acts on inanimate objects.

I own a pistol. I practice shooting it a few times a year and am a decent shot. It stays next to my bed, mainly because I believe in my right as a person to protect myself if need be.

With that being said, do I believe that an ordinary person should be able to walk into a store and buy an automatic rifle? Absolutely not.

Our country's gun control laws need to be looked at. There needs to be a standard, across-the-board set of regulations that are actually enforced.

But do I believe revised gun control laws will stop evil from happening? No.

Evil doesn't follow rules or regulations. It never has, and it never will.


If you're one of the people who believes all guns should be outlawed, good for you. I don't dispute your views and I'm certainly not attacking them. Please don't waste your time telling me how bad guns are in the comment section. Let's just agree to disagree.

Members of the media see bad news every day. After awhile it has a numbing effect. You tend to brush off the robberies and burglaries, shake your head at the drug arrests and related shootings. Chalk it all up to a harsh world and the fact that your job is caught in the crossfire.

Friday, December 14th, was a hard day for America. Instead of buying presents, the families of 20 children will be buying coffins. And aside from those families directly affected by the senselessness of this tragedy, no one felt the horror of that day more so than the media - forced to watch the tragedy unfold all day long.

We'll be criticized for the way we handled our coverage. We always are in these situations. We'll be called insensitive, tasteless, emotionless. But in all truthfulness, we were just doing our jobs -- and there is no easy way to cover these situations.

Doctors and other experts will diagnose Adam Lanza as mentally ill. The media will dutifully relay that diagnosis to our viewers because it's our duty. We won't call this man what we really want to - a monster, evil.

I'd be lying if I said stories like these don't affect us.

You can turn the channel when you've had enough of a particular story. We spend the entire day, sometimes weeks and even months, reliving these stories over and over again.

We may not call these monsters out for what they are. We may not shed tears while we're on the air. But that doesn't mean we haven't been affected, that we don't feel the heartbreak.

Maybe I'm reaching, but our jobs are one of the hardest in the world. We may not relay bad news one-on-one to those who are directly affected by it. We don't take on that huge responsibility.

We just have to relay the news to everyone else.

It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.
Buddha

Members of the media aren't expected to have opinions, but when it comes down to it that expectation of impartiality is probably the hardest journalistic character trait to embody.

I speak from personal experience when I say it is impossible for news people to be impartial. We are human. We have opinions. Most importantly, we're allowed to have opinions. Where things get tricky is when we're allowed to express those opinions.

This week, one of our anchors expressed his opinion on the air about this year's college football bowl game assignments. As a producer, this is something I wouldn't even flinch at. Sports is really the only place within one of my shows where opinions are generally accepted. However in this instance, the anchor angered a viewer who supported a particular team. That viewer has since blown up our Facebook page, which in turn has invited other viewers to get in on the "argument". Fortunately for us, most of the viewers are supporting our anchor saying that he is entitled to his opinion.

So is there really no room for opinion in a newscast? And if the answer is no, is it truly possible for opinions not to somehow work their way in?

It's my opinion that opinions are always interjected into a newscast in some way. Now, I'm not saying that when I write a story I slant it one way or another. In fact, we strive to show both sides of every story in an equal way.

However, everything about my show in some way reflects an opinion - from the way it's stacked, to the way it flows together, to the very words that are chosen to tell the story.

Here's the bottom line: delivering the news is just like telling a story. Everything from the inflections of my voice to the facial expressions I'm making to the words I choose to tell you about my trip to the store make a difference.

So where do we draw the line? Obviously I'm not going to tolerate one of my anchors or reporters saying "I think he's guilty" about someone who's been arrested on murder charges. That would be ethically wrong. But should we be banned from saying "I don't agree with the way the playoffs are set up?"

One of the things we've found viewers like is when our on-air talent show their humanity. If we don't allow any opinions at all, that humanity is lost. But in allowing our anchors to express themselves, we risk angering at least one person.

So are we damned if we do, damned if we don't?

Maybe as journalists we should just go back to the basics and address our ethics. We should ask ourselves if voicing our opinion about a particular subject, story or person will jeopardize our integrity and hurt our credibility. If the answer to that question isn't clear, maybe we should avoid it.

We have to remember that journalists don't have a voice. It's not our job to tell people what we think.

It's our responsibility to give the people a legitimate voice.

Mi amor,

This may sound like an overused cliche, but I love you more than anything. Marrying you was the best decision I've made. So I've decided to start writing you love letters at least once a month to thank you for all the great things you've brought into my life.

We've been together for nearly three years, and been married for almost three months. It feels like a lifetime.

Two weeks ago when my Papa died, you kept me grounded. If you hadn't been with me throughout that week, I would probably be dehydrated from all the tears I would have shed. You were my rock.

Even in the toughest of circumstances, you can make me smile. I hope you never lose that ability and that I am always susceptible to it.

I can't wait to spend the rest of our lives together.

Love Always,
Ashton

Interviewing the President of the United States is every reporter's dream gig. There's so much you could talk about, but for the sake of professionalism you always stick to the basics.

But what if you got to interview the President outside the realm of the journalistic ethics? What would you ask?

I've put together a list of 10 of the questions I'd never dare to ask but not-so-secretly want to know about the POTUS.

1. When you get a booger or a wedgie, what do you do to get it out without being photographed?

2. What's one silly thing you do that you hope no one ever finds out about?

3. What's your favorite room in the White House? The Oval Office doesn't count.

4. What's the weirdest, craziest thing you're afraid of?

5. What's the craziest thing you've ever done to get a girl's attention?

6. If you could only eat one food for the rest of your life, what would it be?

7. Who's one celebrity you've been dying to meet?

8. What's the most embarrassing song you could be caught singing along to?

9. What's the biggest law you've ever broken?

10. Which reporter/member of the media do you dislike the most?


Here are some questions some of my coworkers and friends would like answered:
-Mr. President, would you have run the ball against Texas A&M?
-What would you REALLY like to say to your harshest critics?
-Boxers or Briefs? Pepperoni or Cheese? Beach or Mountains?


What non-political questions would like to ask the President?  

I've been very lucky in my lifetime to not lose any close family members. That changed this morning.

I've spent a majority of the morning wiping my eyes and blowing my nose. I don't know how to deal with this, so I'm turning to what has helped me in every other difficult situation I've been in - writing.

My Papa wasn't an easy man to get along with. In fact, sometimes I wondered if we argued more than actually talked. But there are a lot of good things I'll remember about the 26 years we spent together.

"I'm as old as my tongue and a little older than my teeth."

You were full of wise cracks. Even when you reached that stage where you were doing good just to catch your breath, you'd never miss an opportunity to throw one of those sayings I'll always associate with you into a conversation.

You taught me how to whistle, albeit not very well and never as good as you. And to this day I still wish I could wiggle my ears like you could.

Remember that time you leaned too far back in your chair at the kitchen table just to prove to Mema that you could and flipped it over?

Little red caboose,
little red caboose,
little red caboose behind the train.
Smokestack on its back,
coming 'round the track,
little red caboose behind the train.

That's still one of my favorite children's songs. I still like playing checkers, and riding through cotton fields -- but I don't think I've climbed up in a cotton trailer since the last time I did it with you.

There are too many memories for this blog, so for now I'll just leave it at this:

See ya later alligator.

Because we all could use a little motivation sometimes.

A few weeks ago I posted a video of a news anchor standing up and calling out a viewer who sent her an email that attacked her weight. Since then that video has gone viral. The anchor has even appeared on CBS News This Morning promoting her anti-bullying standpoint.


But there's another side to this story. There are those out there who would call this anchor the bully, or at the very least question her journalistic ethics.

When first confronted by the possibility that this anchor may in fact have turned into a bully over one email, I scoffed. I told myself, these people just don't understand what it's like to get countless emails and calls criticizing everything you do or say. But the possibility made me think.

As a producer, would I have given one of my anchors more than 4 minutes to chastise one viewer over an email they received? Not likely.

I think so many journalists reposted and liked this video because in all honesty it's what we wish we could do, and given the chance we all would do it without hesitation. But that doesn't change the fact that journalistically, what this anchor did was not ethical.

I find myself asking how a producer justified giving up four minutes of their show over hurt feelings. Sure, they preface the tirade by saying it's bullying prevention month, but the segment only devotes 30 or so seconds to actual bullying. Instead, this anchor talks about how hurt she was by this one email.
So why this email? I have a hard time believing it's the first mean viewer feedback she's gotten, and I'm sure someone has referenced her weight before now. If not, she should consider herself lucky. My anchors, reporters and even producers get a constant stream of rude emails, phone calls and actual snail mail. You read it, choose whether you want to respond to it, and then you move on. End of story. Never would it cross my mind -- seriously, anyway -- to call out our viewers on the air.

Do I believe this anchor should be upset over the email she received? Absolutely.

Do I think she handled the situation correctly? Not exactly.

Do I still wish I could have four minutes to give our mean viewers the what for? Without a doubt.

Would I ever do that? Definitely not.

When we give in to our critics, those people who only contact us to cast stones, we become no better than them, sacrificing our journalistic integrity in the process. And if you lose that integrity, you lose all credibility, and without credibility a journalist is worthless.

We should never let our critics determine our worth.

We recently had a producer/reporter position open up at my station, and while I haven't been directly involved in the recruiting process, whenever we do bring someone in for an interview I get to kind of assess their potential.

Usually that assessment is pretty standard: they take a writing test, and I describe the duties of whatever job they're applying for. When I'm concluding my quote-unquote interview, I always ask, "Do you have any questions?" If they do, it's usually along the lines of clarification, or they ask about money and where a good place to live would be, maybe about the area if they're not from close by.

Earlier this week I oversaw a writing test and then had some one-on-one time with a potential candidate. The test part typically takes an hour, and the interview part doesn't last more than 15 minutes if that. After I described the job, I asked the obligatory "Do you have any questions?". This is what she asked: What do you find is the most challenging/difficult part of being a producer? My answer probably scared her...

I love producing. Other than magazine layout, it is my dream job and perfectly suited to my talents. With that being said, I truly believe that producers have the toughest job in the newsroom.

As a producer, you are responsible for everything that's in your show, regardless of if you pulled it from the Associated Press, a national news network or one of your local reporters handled the story. If something airs wrong or incorrect information is put out over the air, it falls back on you. Other than your director, who's only looking at the technical aspects of each story, yours should be the last eyes on a story before air time.

Time is your worst enemy. Either you have too much content and not enough time to fit it all in, or you're running out of time to get all of the pieces of your show produced. Deadlines are not flexible. Once you're on the air, you're out of time. And your time management skills aren't the only ones you have to be mindful of -- Reporters can either make or break you when it comes to the actual timing of your show and getting content into your show.

Being a producer means constantly thinking about your overall product. It's being flexible and going with the flow, even when stories are falling apart or something huge blows up right at news time. It's about knowing when to give an extra 30 seconds here and take 15 there. It's about relationships -- with the reporters, anchors, meteorologists and sports guys. It's knowing your audience, their tastes and interests, even those little things that get them all fired up. It's about vision and knowing how you want your show to look on air.

Make no mistake.
Being a producer is stressful.
You either love it or hate it.
There is no in between.

For a sneak peek at my wedding day bliss, check out our photographer's blog post:

http://cherokeespiveyphotography.com/2012/09/ashton-chris-september-15-2012/

This past week was a rough news week. We've had so many sad and depressing stories, it's nearly impossible not to let them get to you.

In one day alone, we had a multiple-victim shooting, police standoff and a fatal car accident in which the victim was trapped in her burning car.

On that day, I posted a status that read: "Shooting, standoff and now a person is trapped in a car that's fully engulfed in flames. I'm gonna need for this day to end already. Sheesh."

The whole intention of the status was that too many bad things had happened in the day and it needed to end so nothing else horrible would happen. However, not everyone took it that way and I got a kind of condescending comment about how the people involved in all three of those incidents was surely having a worse day than me.

Really? You think I don't know that? As a journalist I am acutely aware of all the bad shit that's happening in my viewing area, not to mention the rest of the country and elsewhere around the world. It's part of my job.

Another day this week, a 4-year-old boy was fatally mauled by a dog. On yet another day, three teenagers were killed in a terrible car accident. In both of those instances, my reporters ran into opposition. I can understand not wanting to talk about it, but is there really any need for rudeness?

What people fail to understand is that these are the type of stories we don't like to cover. The situations are always awkward, and we are well aware of the fact that we're intruding. But it's our job.

There seems to be this idea that journalists thrive on this type of carnage, but that's a misconception. Sad stories about someone's loss are not our idea of a juicy story. The 'bad' news we'd rather cover is corruption, scandal - something that actually takes a little bit of investigative work.

So the next time you blast a member of the media for being insensitive, remember that they're just doing their job and chances are they don't want to be in the middle of this sad situation just as much as you don't want them there.