Reprinted with permission of the author Zoe Bishop.

************************************

My name is Zoe Bishop, and I am a journalist with a major bee in her bonnet.

Yesterday, while cruising the web, I came across an article that really torqued my tushie, and I'm hoping that you can help me set it right:

In this article, the writer did not research his facts and the sources he cited were taken completely out of context. It is a common practice, but this irritated me more than usual because the writer -- and I use the term loosely here -- disguised his article as a car review, when really, it was no more than tabloid trash.

My take is that if you're going to be a gossip columnist, then be one -- don't disguise yourself as a journalist.

I wrote a response and sent it to the website that printed the original article, as well as to Ford Canada, but it occurred to me to reach out to fans of Kiefer Sutherland -- the celebrity that this writer trashed -- and ask them to post my response (found below) as a bulletin with a request to forward, and as a blog on their Myspace page.

In this way, if someone does a search for this hack journalist's work, and more specifically this article, your Myspace blog will pop up and he'll be exposed for the fraud of a writer he is.

I appreciate your time and beg your forgiveness in being so forward in my request.

Thank you for your consideration.
Zoe Bishop

**********

Seeing Red Over Yellow Journalism
By Zoe Bishop

As a journalist, I fully understand the inestimable power of the written word; I know that nothing approaches faster than a five o'clock deadline; and I understand that a well-written article can keep our children out of the free lunch line -- but I also understand that my need to pay the mortgage does not negate my obligation to write with integrity.

That is not to say that journalists are super-human or that we do not make mistakes. We are as human as those we entertain and educate, and because we are human, we are inherently imperfect. We make mistakes, just like everyone else, and there is no shame in that.

But when we quote our sources out of context, or we twist our source material into bendy little shapes to reflect our personal opinions, we cross the line between journalism and gossip mongering. Perhaps I'm an idealist, and you can strip me of my rose-tinted glasses if you like, but the practice of spinning facts to sell an article is still yellow journalism.

Such was the case with an article spewed across the Internet via automobile.com, by one Trevor Hofman, editor-in-chief of CanadianAutoPress.com. The article in question was titled "DUI Bad-Boy Kiefer Sutherland Probably Not The Best Spokesperson For Ford."

Forgetting, if we can, that Mr. Hofman cannot seem to craft a concise, concrete headline for love or money; his article asserts that Mr. Sutherland, who recently pled no contest to a DUI charge, makes for a questionable choice of voice-over talent for Ford Motor Company.

He argues that Sutherland's recent brush with the law could result in decreased profits for the automobile manufacturer, and surmises that the company is "no doubt doing some serious soul searching," as to whether or not to release Mr. Sutherland from their employ.

He cites a quote from Gina Gehlert, the Public Affairs Manager for Ford of Canada: "Public safety is a top priority at Ford of Canada and we are glad it appears that Kiefer Sutherland will seek treatment."

How this translates to Mr. Hofman's claims that Ford of Canada is embarking on a collective spiritual journey is beyond me, for it sounds more like a show of support for the actor's apparent remorse and willingness to make a positive change.

But to hear Mr. Hofman phrase it, we are expected to believe that Ford of Canada's High Muckity-Mucks are all but experiencing performance anxiety over the stress of potential lost revenue. His reasoning? Ford's broadest customer base, which he asserts are women of child-bearing years, might think twice before buying another product sold by a "DUI felon."

With all due respect -- an amount dwindling at an alarming rate -- Sutherland is not a felon. A felon is defined as someone who has been convicted of a felony. Mr. Sutherland has been charged with a misdemeanor. Mr. Hofman might want to invest in a dictionary. They are a lot less expensive than a libel lawsuit.

But beyond Mr. Hofman's unfortunate choice of words, what really torques my tushie is the following statement, "And now that Sutherland's criminal behavior has proven to be repetitive, his chances of offending again are high."

He cites an article by Dr. Thomas Brown, titled Groundbreaking Research on DUI offenders, quoting it completely out of context. The point of this article is that those who do not seek remedial counseling are more likely to be repeat offenders.

And while this is hardly "groundbreaking" news; and while Sutherland is, in fact, a repeat offender; it has nothing to do with a lack of remedial counseling. According to court documents, he did seek and complete his counseling for his previous conviction.

In Dr. Brown's study, "information was gathered about health, psychosocial adjustment, family background, memory and mental functioning. Moreover, blood, urine and salivary samples were collected to test for signs of alcohol and drug use, as well as distinct measures of biologically and genetically determined brain activity."

Now, unless Mr. Hofman has been swabbing Kiefer Sutherland's toothbrush for salivary samples, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that he has no scientific data, no expert opinions, nothing on which to base his claims against the celebrity.

And to what end, these claims? Does Mr. Hofman's poorly researched piece of tabloid drivel even make a valid point? Am I, as a consumer, so pathologically stupid that I would base my decision of a major purchase not on the quality of the product, but rather, on the personal choices made by the voice that sells it?

If so, then I must also believe that should Mr. Sutherland park too close to the curb, it will wear the tread off my tires; if he spills coffee on his console, my stereo will stop working, and if he drives barefoot, my foot might slip off the brake.

His article has done nothing to sway me from purchasing a Ford product in the future, nor has it convinced me that others might. It has, however, ensured that I will never utilize the services of the web site that Mr. Hofman represents.

Never the less, if he is truly concerned about Ford Canada's profit margin, he would do better to hope they do not pull the plug on Sutherland, for if they do, fifteen million hormone-happy, gravelly-voice-loving women of child-bearing years will start shopping Chevy.

Why? Because women are, by and large, willing to cut some slack to those who show true remorse for their actions. They realize celebrities are not super-human, and that they make mistakes; that though they entertain and educate us, they are only human; and because they are human, they are inherently imperfect. They make mistakes, just like everyone else, and there is no shame in that.

Yes, driving under the influence is insanely dangerous. I am well versed in both the cold statistics as well as the personal loss of DUI. According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, drunk drivers will kill almost 17,000 people this year alone.

That is seventeen thousand good night kisses that will not be shared; seventeen thousand birthday cakes that will not be baked; seventeen thousand dreams that will never come to fruition. It is a very serious issue, and therefore one that should be taken very seriously.

But from what I understand, Mr. Sutherland has taken his actions very seriously, and has not shirked from the consequences. Rather than try to wheedle, whine, and dine the public in a pitiful attempt to extricate himself from trouble, he has willingly agreed to serve more time in jail if it means that others will not have to pay for his mistake.

Had Sutherland seen the charade through, he would likely have cut his time served in half, but he chose instead to accept the plea bargain, and not because he needs the job -- the man has more money than God, he's hardly sweating the mortgage. It seems more likely that this is a man who recognizes his problems, is seeking help to overcome them, and is taking sole responsibility for the consequences.

The irony here is that while Mr. Hofman sits in his cushy little chair, spinning facts into yellow yarns, Mr. Sutherland will do the right thing and cool his heels in county lock up, leading this reader to conclude that Sutherland makes a far better spokesperson for the automobile industry than Hofman and his gossip-mongering ilk will ever make for journalism.