Gilligan's Island

Does no one else find it troublesome that the News Editor begins a news article with the following sentence?

Helen Park found a way to remember her brother, while reminding others about the true meaning of Christmas. (Tammy Real-McKeighan, Fremont Tribune)

That I have to reference “Feminist Ryan Gosling” to explain my point makes me laugh, but…seriously:

Even though we live in a country that insists on privileging one religious celebration over all others in December despite the varied cultural beliefs of its inhabitants, I’m really looking forward to our New Year’s Eve party. (December 22)

One friend cautioned me last time, “But you have to remember, this is Fremont. A good majority of the people here ARE Christian, and ARE (fairly) conservative (at least to my knowledge).” And certainly I want to be clear that I have no problem with McKeighan’s personal beliefs, nor do I want to restrict the rights that Fremonters have to celebrate Christmas through the lens of Christianity. What I suggest, though, is the inappropriateness of a news article incorporating such implicit coding for faith values.

That the vast majority of people in town are Christian and subscribe to the Nativity story does not grant a pass to the Tribune for throwing perspective to the wind.

The most common response to my frequent criticism of the Tribune is “Well, this is Fremont.”

Do these people mean to suggest a) that the paper’s hires are not the cream of the crop or that b) the bar for quality is situated low in Fremont? Either way, I refuse to be complacent with any standard other than excellence - or the pursuit of that ambition.

Look to this link for an example. Journalists use a series for breathing room. The subject is either so expansive as to exceed the allotted newshole for the day or it is a running story (meaning that the subject is likely an ongoing event, like Occupy Wall Street).

The series is perfect for anniversary events. And apparently it is the 10th anniversary of the continuous learning calendar. Cue series.

Brett Ellis produces a lackluster and fragmented beginning that (were I his editor) would lead me to seriously consider scrapping the whole project.

There are a couple of major problems with Ellis’ piece. First, he lacks focus: what does he want to tell readers? The narrative moves from 1997 to 2002 in a few paragraphs’ space, completely disregarding that the point of a series is to tease out the intricacies of the tale. It is as thought someone hacked the copy to pieces before it made it to press.

Second, there’s no where to go from here. Think back to the broad success of serials in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: each publication left readers with a reason to come back. I’m sure that the Tribune will now take a look at the teachers and at Washington School, which recently adopted the continuous calendar. I’m already asleep. What story hasn’t yet been told?

One of these days I want to sit in for a staff meeting at the Tribune. -sigh-

The blossoming of new voices, the explosion of conversation, has in fact been breathtaking, a modern marvel. News outlets have been forced to step down from their pedestals, and that’s mostly a good thing. The idea of communities reporting on themselves, pooling knowledge in service of journalism, is indeed attractive. But if the FON consensus is right, then the public has a problem. You can call it the Ida Tarbell problem, or you can call it the Nick Davies problem. The problem is that journalism’s true value-creating work, the keystone of American journalism, the principle around which it is organized, is public-interest reporting; the kind that is usually expensive, risky, stressful, and time-consuming. Public-interest reporting isn’t just another tab on the home page. It is a core value, the thing that builds trust, sets agendas, clarifies public understanding, challenges powerful institutions, and generates reform. It is, in the end, the point.

(Also, related: “Teaching and Learning from the Old Grey Lady”)

One story, two points of view. Check it out:

“Bilingual ballots not required” - Fremont Tribune

“No Spanish ballots for Fremont-based Dodge County” - Lincoln Journal Star

Objectivity is (pardon my language) bullshit. Still, journalists and the public operate under the assumption that our news represents a fair picture of the world we live in. While that idea persists I am constantly astounded by the blundering missteps of journalists at all levels who masquerade under that label. Nothing like the accusations of the “liberal mainstream media” that earn nearly as much airtime as the election horse race, but a deeper level of systemic dysfunction.

The story that has my attention today ran in the Fremont Tribune today and concerns the bias of its News Editor.

In the wake of the Penn State scandal, Nebraska’s football game last weekend against the Nittany Lions was guaranteed to draw attention. One of the more touching scenes  to come out of the game centered around Nebraska coach Ron Brown’s pre-game prayer.

In the 48 hours after the game, video links of the shared moment between Nebraska and Penn State players filled my Facebook feed and appeared in national news coverage. Without a doubt the scene created a poignant image.

Media grasp at these soft frames: what’s the “human angle?” A group of more than 225 football players and coaches gathered on the field sharing a faith message — that’s fodder for journalists.

Today the Fremont Tribune’s Tammy McKeighan published her own interview with Ron Brown. In concept, covering Coach Brown’s prayer is fine. In the context of the Penn State scandal the prayer represents a positive (if arguably misguided) event worthy of soft news coverage.

The problem: McKeighan is the Tribune’s News Editor. But she also publishes a column, Spiritual Spinach, about her faith life. One’s faith, like race, sexuality, marital or parental status should not preclude a journalist from writing about a subject-matter (some organization’s ethics codes do wade into politics). However, professional standards frame an expectation that journalists exercise self-awareness and consciously work through their biases. McKeighan makes no effort to do this.

This is where I return to Coach Brown’s appearance in the Tribune. McKeighan’s story might as well read: Coach Brown is unjustly called controversial. Faith — and I mean Christianity — is what’s needed to bring these boys, and our nation, together.

Journalists may not always expressly state their case, but their choices reveal quite a bit. Three passages especially make her point in this story:

“Where have we been silent when we should have been speaking up about injustice to God that comes out of abortion and evolution and homosexuality and in all kinds of ways that go against God’s teaching in the Bible? We’re no different,” he said, adding, “I’m tired of being politically correct and trying to have everybody like me. I’m here for the approval of God - not the approval of men.”

Ron, who leads the FreedMen Nebraska ministry, said he believes God has given him the courage to unite men and boys across the state to “stand up for the principles of Christ, even though they’re unpopular and it might cost us our jobs.”

What happened at Penn State is an atrocity, but also what’s happening around the world - how we’ve downplayed God and squeezed him out of the equation in our lives - that’s an atrocity,” he said. “The Penn State situation should be a reminder to us of the many other atrocities performed against God on a daily basis.”

These three tidbits most draw my ire. The story is published to the “Faith & Values” area in the “Lifestyles” section of the paper. I suspect that a content analysis would reveal that only a narrow slice of life appears here. In my quick survey of the website, I did not see a single story branching away from Christianity.

What of the nearly 25% of Americans who aren’t Christian? How about the 8 million  people who openly identify as LGBT? Christian isn’t the only lifestyle. It’s certainly not the one most-persecuted in the U.S. (no matter what Coach Brown’s quotes suggest). And furthermore, it’s offensive and misleading to present “Faith and Values” as synonymous.

Forget McKeighan’s religious conviction for a while. She isn’t even in the business of accurate reporting. She fundamentally mischaracterizes the ACLU by conveying and not correcting Ron Brown’s belief that the “American Civil Liberties Union [is] trying to silence the Gospel message in the public schools.” I expect such ignorance from the general public — the ACLU poorly crafts its public image and as a result loses out to a louder, more raucous opposition voice.

But a News Editor? Come ON!

And how did this pass snuff with her editors?

McKeighan should no longer be News Editor of the Tribune if this is the quality of work we can expect of her. A clear conflict of interest needs to be addressed and resolved. And the newspaper’s editor-in-chief, Tracy Buffington, should look more closely at the content going into the Tribune. The more I look, the more disappointed I am that this newspaper is my hometown press.

Harvey Levin spoke at George Washington University yesterday before delivering a keynote address at the National Press Club later in the afternoon. The audience at GWU was an undergraduate social media class and smattering of others. (The School of Media and Public Affairs extended an invitation to the rest of us, so you bet a few of us graduate students jumped at the opportunity.)

Search #SMPASocial on Twitter for a record of tweets from the talk.

He left us with a lot of good soundbites - not surprising from the man behind TMZ. But he also came across as something of a visionary.

His vision makes me nervous, in some ways.

Levin tells the story of TMZ-DC, which almost made its debut some three years ago. For whatever reason it didn’t work out then, but Levin remains adamant that he wants to bring TMZ to the capital. He believes there is an audience out there who is interested in politics, but feels alienated by the style of discourse that dominates this city.

The story he tells to demonstrate his point revolves around Aaron Schock’s abs. After publicizing the man in board shorts and shirtless, TMZ drew a crowd of thousands to Schock’s constituent phone conference. Suddenly, Levin remarks, Schock had a platform to share his message.

Do the people drawn by his physique really care about House Republicans’ work on trade, national security, and so forth? I’m sure some do, but how great is the media effect and how enduring is it? The pictures were posted in 2009 - I wonder how large Schock’s phone conferences are today.

Levin talked about injecting personality into DC politics. But he blurs the line between good communication practices and character performance. Research already demonstrates Americans’ preference for dramatic story frames. And goodness knows the amount of identity management and overarching campaign dynamics have diminished the effectiveness of our government. I worry that TMZ-DC would amplify these conditions.

I won’t argue that our politicians need to communicate on a personal level with constituents. Or that they need to convey complex policies and proposals in terms that can be understood by people from diverse backgrounds.

I just don’t think that needs to be facilitated by seeing pictures of a U.S. Representative sunbathing.

A question I’ve been turning over in my head: does the media’s agenda-setting function carry an inherent value as good or bad?

My knee-jerk reaction says to answer “bad.” Media should not shape public conversation, but merely be a reflection of it and the world we live in. My English thesis dwelt on the impossibility that journalists can ever be truly “objective,” but the image of an editor consciously manipulating the public is one I stringently reject.

But then I encountered the linked WaPo story about gender discrimination in India. The inclusion of the story in the paper sends a subtle cue to readers that the issue carries (at least some) weight. There’s a reason we should care.

I think it is generally accepted that our American media system is largely produced by and for a narrow, homogenous slice of “America.” That knowledge piques a part of my journalistic ethic that tells me I am responsible for finding underrepresented voices and making sure their stories are shared.

Now how does that fit into our conception of the agenda-setting function of mass media?

I’m still working out my answer.

The kindest word I can offer to the Tribune’s latest series, examining the condition of Fremont’s sports facilities, is disingenuous.

In the first part of the series, writer Chris Zavadil tackles Memorial Stadium. The picture he paints of this 1953 city-owned facility sounds morose: leaky concessions, torn-up grass, cracked track surface, etc.

Good thing the city unearthed these concerns in 2007 with a “comprehensive” study. Though, I ask you: why would the Tribune be covering the findings now…four years later?

Although Park’s director John Schmitz concludes that the stadium serves its purpose “for now,” the well is being primed for actions already very much on Schmitz’s mind.

A plan exists for a new sporting facility located on the east end of town by Highway 275. The new complex would not only feature a football stadium, but also new baseball fields. (Note today’s second part to the series gives attention to the Moeller baseball fields.)

During discussions that took place this summer, the tentative plan had been to break ground already this fall.

From my vantage point the Tribune’s series smacks of manipulation — although I won’t suggest mal-intent, just overzealous pursuit of city progress. However, it is grossly inappropriate for the newspaper to take part in these activities.

If Schmitz and the members of his committee want to garner public support then they ought to do so openly.

Megyn Kelly responds to outrage for booing at the GOP Presidential Primary Debate on Sept. 21. She wants to temper the media response by sharing her own lived-experience. In her rebuttal she contends that only two men were responsible for the utterances. This might suggest (fairly) that media latched on to the episode as part of a pattern established in the previous two debates, when audiences responded to comments about the death penalty and health care.

But not so fast. Had Kelly stopped there, I might have agreed. But she continues. Read for yourself:

“I can tell you that there were perhaps a total of two boos in an auditorium of over 5,000 people. Moreover were the boos in fact directed, as Ms. Behar contends, at the gay soldier or at his question on the issue of gay rights in the military, which is very controversial? Listen for yourselves: Do they boo when they see that it is a gay soldier, or when he makes clear he wants gay rights protected?”

So the boos weren’t directed at the gay man, but at gay rights? That makes it completely OK, then! …or not.

Kelly uses rhetoric typical of the anti-gay rights movement: it’s not you, it’s them. I don’t have a problem with YOU, you’re a hero, but I don’t agree with the lifestyle (whatever that vague term might imply).

Disconnect the personal and attack the concept by associating “the gays” with threats to “family values,” “moral structures,” etc.

But props to Fox News/Google for airing the soldier’s video at all. Although certainly included because of the official end to DADT, his was the first question on gay rights to be asked at any of the three GOP Presidential Primary debates.

“Ah, fall. Thankfully it’s just around the corner.”

That’s swell, Don. I enjoyed your poetic efforts some. (“Like the goose who, beckoned by a dancing northern breeze, lifts south in migratory response, we also sense the approach of fall.”) You lost me, though, when you started on “Miss Hottie Summer.”

And darn those “nightly walkers with [their] pedometers and cool hydration containers!”

Not following? Yeah, I found the connection void too.

We’ll try again next week, I guess. See you then!