When (do) blogging and journalism collide (?)
Some folks, primarily Sam Spagnola, raised some questions in this thread at JR's place about my approach to covering Greensboro's truth-and-reconciliation process, and about my work blog in general. JR asked me to address them. I've done so, but my response ran kind of long, so rather than posting it on his blog as a comment, I'm posting it here as a separate thread and will link to this from JR's blog comments when I've done so.
First, if you're here you probably already know that one of the things the News & Record is trying to do with its Town Square project is to explain more about how and why we do the things we do (which is what we mean by "transparency"), via our blogs as well as by other means. That's key to understanding this whole discussion. If by some chance you are NOT familiar with what we're trying to do, please read my original report on the subject for some essential background.
Next, if you want to follow along at home, understand that the post from my blog from which Sam Spagnola has pulled most of the quotes in his comment at JR's place was intended to supplement the stories I wrote for the print edition about the gathering here in Greensboro of truth-and-reconciliation groups from across the U.S. and from four other countries. As are many blog posts, this one is a hybrid of reporting and analysis, along with some thinking-out-loud-type questions about what I've seen and heard. There are even a few personal opinions in there, albeit not as many as Sam thinks and certainly none that I think impair my ability to report fairly and accurately on the TRC.
I'm going to address each of the passages Sam quotes individually, then conclude with some more context. Bold passages are quotes from my original blog posts; italic passages are Sam's comments on the passages. My response to Sam follows in regular type.
But the most important, the one that most makes truth-and-reconciliation projects necessary, is the fact that in every culture there are two communities -- them that has, and them that don't -- and the first group invariably is willing to use violence to keep the second group in its place.
This is clearly an opinion about not only the value of the commission but a political statement about class.
No, it isn't: It's reporting what the seminar participants were saying, which fact becomes clearer if you read the paragraph immediately preceding the graf Sam quotes: "Today's story mentioned that the various truth efforts represented at the convention have noted a number of common experiences and observations, despite their differences of geography and language and the varying distances back in time of the respective events they are investigating."
***To those participants***, that fact was the most important. I have no idea what the most important fact is. I'll grant for the purposes of discussion that their statement was a political statement about class, but it was theirs, not mine.
"There are arguments from a number of religious and philosophical backgrounds that seek to justify that arrangement -- Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a big one out here in the blogosphere, for example -- but sooner or later they run up against both religious and secular notions that we share a common humanity and that to a certain, significant extent, the problems of one portion of the community are the responsibility of us all."
Ditto on the opinionation. This goes beyond context into political philosophy.
This isn't opinion so much as a simple, factual observation, recognizable by anyone who spends a lot of time in the political blogosphere. I'm not arguing that one school of thought or the other is right or wrong; I'm simply pointing out that both schools exist and are often used in blogging, and that they conflict. Sam is welcome to offer any evidence he might have opposing that assertion.
I included that observation because, in my professional opinion, based on firsthand observation, the statement is a bit of context essential for understanding some -- not all, but some -- of where the vehement disagreement about the nature and value of Greensboro's truth-and-reconciliation process is coming from.
"Another is the demonization of the truth process by those involved in the oppression, or their successors/descendants. Here in Greensboro, there's at least a small group of people -- I've heard from some personally in my short time covering this process -- who seem categorically unwilling to accept even the possibility that those involved in this process are sincere or that any good can possibly come from what they're doing."
"Demonization" is not a characterization? "...of those involved in the OPPRESSION..." Believing there is "oppression" is not an opinion? It certainly seems like he is lockstep with the T&R Commission on that. How can he be trusted to write objectively if he has already drank the proverbial "Kool-Aid"?
The first sentence Sam quotes is a general observation about the historical events that led to the creation of the groups that sent representatives to the Greensboro gathering. It is not about Greensboro specifically. Moreover, it is an observation made by ***convention participants***, not me. I'm simply relaying it -- reporting it -- in this blog post. And certainly, oppression has been documented beyond a reasonable doubt in South Africa and Wilmington, to name just two examples off the top of my head.
The rest of the passage is a related point: Irrespective of the facts, some people in Greensboro have gotten in touch with me to say what I've described them as saying. These people's communications suggest they neither know nor care what the facts are. "Demonization" might strike readers as a subjective description of what they have said to me regarding the truth-and-rec process. But in my professional opinion, it's also a fair and accurate description.
"I think some people, like former dictator Augusto Pinochet, ought to rot in prison for the rest of their lives no matter how decrepit they are now, just to serve as examples for others at any level of government who might be prone to sanction state violence or other state-sanctioned human-rights violations. But seeking only retributive justice, I'll grant you, won't make future episodes less likely, and it does little or nothing to address the problem of making one community out of two groups, oppressors and oppressed."
Note how that paragraph started with "I think..."
It did indeed. The first sentence is pure opinion, undiluted. And I stand by it, as I have done previously many times on both this blog and my personal blog. Heck, I'll repeat it here: TORTURE IS BAD. But for Sam to meet the burden of proof required for his criticism to be relevant to my coverage of the truth-and-rec process, he must explain in what way expressing this opinion make me a less capable journalist in general and/or less effective in covering the truth-and-rec process in particular.
The second sentence is opinion, but it is opinion based on two decades of reporting and wide reading and research. As to the first part, that retributive justice alone won't make future episodes less likely, that's a prediction based on history: Governments have done bad things in part because they don't think they'll ever face retributive justice even where mechanisms for it exist (and in many places they exist only on paper). The second part of the sentence is plain fact: Retributive justice isn't intended to bring about reconciliation and it contains none of the elements known to contribute to reconciliation. It doesn't rule reconciliation out, of course, but any reconciliation that results from it is happy accident.
"What are oppressors fighting so hard to keep oppressed from getting?"
(No specific comment from Sam other than to label this opinion.)
As the context (particularly the sentences immediately following) makes clear, this is a follow-up question I would like to have asked the attendees who posited the whole notion of oppressors and oppressed, but didn't get the chance to ask. It's not my opinion.
"I realize that money and power are two obvious candidates, and that dynamic has led some local folks to suggest that Greensboro's entire T&R process is nothing but a smoke screen for the victims of Nov. 3 to seek more money from the city. Convention attendees both local and out-of-town roundly disparaged that notion this afternoon. I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case, at least up to now; certainly, it doesn't look like the kind of work one goes into to get rich."
(No specific comment from Sam other than to label this opinion.)
The first phrase makes clear that I'm guessing but don't know the answer. I don't see anything particularly wrong with doing that in a blog post as long as I'm not trying to disguise my guesses as facts. Other people have made the same guesses, a fact borne out by the suggestions I've heard that the shooting survivors are just in it for the money. I mentioned that fact during my Q&A with convention attendees, and they did indeed roundly disparage it, mainly along the lines of, "If I were in this for the money, then why would I [engage in various activities that hardly look like clear moneymakers and in fact are COSTING me time and money]?" Finally, I report what I have observed (or, technically, haven't observed), with the disclaimer "at least up to now," meaning I haven't ruled out the possibility that such evidence exists.
"Would you not agree, for example, that regardless of your feelings about Klansmen and Communists, the people of Morningside Homes deserved more protection on Nov. 3 than they got?"
(No specific comment from Sam other than to label this opinion.)
First, a little note on blog culture for those following along at home: Sam is now quoting from the comments below the post, rather than the post itself. Dialogue and discussion in blog comments tend to be a little less formal and more freewheeling than do the original blog post on which the commenters are commenting. Now, moving on:
This quote, the question, "Does that make it [the report] completely wrong?" responds to an assertion from Sam in the comments below the post that there was nothing in the report that hadn't been predicted by critics from the outset. He seemed, although I might be overinferring here, to be saying that because the report had been so predictable (to him, anyway), it was worthless. I questioned what I understood him to be saying. In fact I do think that the people of Morningside Homes deserved more protection on Nov. 3 than they got. Indeed, as a longtime resident and taxpayer, I think it is only reasonable for any resident of any neighborhood in Greensboro to expect better protection, under the circumstances, than Morningside Homes got, based on the reported facts. But one would not have to hold that position to raise the questions I did with Sam in the way that I raised them. And again, I think the burden is on Sam to demonstrate how my expressing this particular opinion damages in any way my ability to do my job.
One other observation about this opinion: So far, to judge from local conversations and blog posts, it appears to be the only conclusion in the report around which any kind of community consensus is emerging. So, yeah, it's my opinion, but it's very widely shared. That doesn't prove I'm right. But it does suggest that the same set of facts is leading a lot of people who disagree about a lot of things about the truth-and-rec process to agree on at least this one point, for whatever that might be worth.
"Would you not agree that the long line of questionable decisions and missed opportunities by Greensboro police in the weeks leading up to Nov. 3 constituted a problem?"
Sam: "opinion disguised as rhetorical question."
Well, first, it's not a rhetorical question at all, Sam: Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why? Is the behavior of the GPD as documented in the report consistent with your idea of the behavior of a professional, competent, prudent law-enforcement organization?
Second, law enforcement gets warnings all the time about impending violence, whether it's from informants trying to head off a murder or spouses who've been abused before and know they'll be abused again. Yet, as I am sure Sam would agree, most of those warnings don't result in five homicides and ten other felonious assaults in the space of less than two minutes. There are numerous reasons for that, but one is that in my observations over years of reporting, police tend to take certain steps in response to such warnings that they simply did not take before and on Nov. 3, 1979.
"I've heard that argument, and although it makes sense on the surface, I'm not sure I buy it anymore."
Sam: " - opinion. If it was purely news, why should it matter whether he "buys it" or not?"
That's not an opinion. That's saying I don't know what to think. It's literally the opposite of an opinion.
"But to make that argument is to presume that these events took place in a vacuum. They did not -- not even the Greensboro shootings, as the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report makes clear."
Sam: -argumentative opinion.
First, for those following at home, this passage is from a separate post from the post and comments we've been discussing up to this point.
Second, Sam calls that statement opinion. To me, it's a logical inference based on the information provided by convention organizers about each of the events that led groups to send convention participants to Greensboro.
"Each event took place within a system of antidemocratic repression. Now, the drivers of that repression vary from one instance to the next in terms of their relative levels of influence, but the repression is a constant. By definition, then, class issues are also a constant -- one is either a repressor or a repressee, and money tends to be the demarcator. And in the U.S., class issues and racial issues, particularly in the South, often have been very difficult to tease apart, a fact that has contributed in many instances to the longevity of the repression by dividing the opposition to the oppressors."
Sam: - opinion.
The first sentence factually characterizes the events that led other groups to Greensboro, with the possible exception of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. The second sentence again factually characterizes the descriptions of those events. The third sentence is, I believe, factual. Sam is welcome to point to any instances of institutionalized repression in which class was not involved, in which money was not a major demarcator between repressor and repressee, if not THE demarcator.
And the last sentence is an observation of a phenomenon that has played out in Southern politics, at least, for decades. I've been aware of it since I was a 10-year-old in Charlotte listening to the public debate over school busing for integration. Its apotheosis was probably the "hands" TV ad created for Sen. Jesse Helms' 1990 re-election campaign against Harvey Gantt.
Now, at long last, the conclusion and context I promised.
As I noted above, blog posts, unlike newspaper articles, often are a mixture of reporting, analysis, questioning (sometimes for clarification, sometimes in a devil's-advocate role), pondering "out loud," and opinion. I understand that this mixture is disconcerting, at the least, to people who have long been used to the idea that newspaper reporters deal in documentable fact only. And even for those of us who've been reading and writing blogs for years, the idea that some lines that aren't crossed in print can and, in some cases, must be crossed online is a little hard to take and harder still to negotiate.
For better or worse, though, blogging has adopted the ethos advocated by sports-talk-radio host Jim Rome: Have a take and don't suck. In other words, advocate a position and do it well. There are some positions journalists can't, and shouldn't, advocate. But as I try to help the N&R navigate the new world of blogging and interactive media, I figured out a long time ago that "Have no takes at all" wasn't going to get the audience involved with us. The trick is to have takes that don't compromise your ability to report fairly on whatever it is you're covering AND are interesting to readers. How do we do that? We're still figuring that part out, and as with any long-term series of experiments, sometimes we will fail.
And for all our reputation as a national leader in newspaper blogging, we are still experimenting. Still. When I wrote the Town Square report to which I linked above, I wasn't doing any reporting -- I wasn't involved at all in the daily news flow, in fact -- so I had the luxury of hypothesizing about how blogging by a reporter could work without the immediate necessity of making sure it did. Now we're into the lab work, so to speak: I'm trying out on my blog some of the things I thought could work. Sam has expressed some concern about the mix. He didn't make clear exactly why, but I infer -- please correct me if I'm wrong, Sam -- that part of it is that he's simply used to the convention of print reporters dealing strictly in documentable fact and that part of it is that he's also having some trouble telling some of the various ingredients of a blog post apart. That's a legitimate problem, one I take seriously. (For what it's worth, which might be nothing, commenter "bystander" elsewhere at my place says he/she doesn't have much trouble with this approach.)
But I've been blogging for years now, and in that time I've also heard from some people who have chosen to attack my journalistic bona fides not because I've actually done anything wrong but because I've raised questions they didn't want raised, or reported facts they'd rather not have heard (and CERTAINLY didn't want anyone else hearing). I also heard from such people before I started blogging. And I give blog commenters every opportunity to prove they don't fall into this category. One or two have failed the test, but most either show up front that they're serious about constructive criticism or, when challenged, begin offering it.
When I blog about what I'm covering for the paper, I'm trying to give you, the reader, the benefit of everything I can bring to the table on a subject, and to transcend the length limitations and conventions of print, while also doing my best to make clear that some things I bring are more reliable than others, that some are merely grounds for additional reporting, that some are informed opinion and that some are wild-haired guesses. To the extent that someone like Sam, who clearly isn't dumb, can have trouble telling some of the pieces apart, I need to do a better job of delineating them -- and I promise to try to do so.
But if there are questions or issues I think need to be raised and discussed as part of my reporting, then I'm going to do it no matter what aspersions commenters might cast on my intellect, politics, morality, competence or status as a carbon-based life form as a result. That's what JR pays me to do, and I hope readers expect no less.
And where I don't know what the answers are, I'm going to say so. God knows I don't know everything. But maybe you know what I'm wondering about at that particular time, or someone else reading the paper or this blog does. That's when interactive media works the way we all hope and expect that it can. And in my current job, I'd be nuts -- and negligent -- not to give it every possible chance to do that.
Comments (22)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I read the whole thing and agree with your explanation.
Blogging is not the same as straight reporting and as much as Sam hangs around these parts, I would have thought he would have seen that by now.
Of course reporters have a take but are (rightly) stifled from expressing them in straight reporting. (How they do it, I'll never know)
I think the question for Sam is... Do you detect opinion in Lex's original print-edition piece? If so, then that would certainly be worth all of this 'splainin'.
Your bona fides are intact, at least with me, Lex.
Posted on July 24, 2006 6:04 PM
I just take issue with the whole concept that objectivity necessarily precludes a reporter from having or expressing an opinion.
This is the assumption that is at the root of the horrid trend in journalism that every story must have a "on the one hand then the other" aspect to it, so that the most ridiculous or heinous position is given moral and factual equivalence with its opposite.
I can't imagine covering the Civil Rights movement of the 60's with "some say the bombing of the church in Birmingam was a bad thing, but Billy Ray says it is important to keep the Negro in his place. Opinions differ."
Screw that.
Posted on July 24, 2006 6:42 PM
I find Lex's original article to be slanted and biased. I thought that's what Sam was complaining about in his original post.
As you say, some of what you put in the article was a result of comments, attitudes, etc., of the participants. You could have attributed the comments to the participants and it wouldn't have sounded so much like your opinion.
Posted on July 24, 2006 10:51 PM
Nice try, Lex. On the one hand, you attribute the "oppressor" statements and class based statements to the participants. Then you claim as your own the following statement:
"Each event took place within a system of antidemocratic repression. Now, the drivers of that repression vary from one instance to the next in terms of their relative levels of influence, but the repression is a constant. By definition, then, class issues are also a constant -- one is either a repressor or a repressee, and money tends to be the demarcator. And in the U.S., class issues and racial issues, particularly in the South, often have been very difficult to tease apart, a fact that has contributed in many instances to the longevity of the repression by dividing the opposition to the oppressors."
Sounds an awful lot like the opinion you attribute to the participants. Coincidence that it is so similar to your "news" article?
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is obvious you are not objective about the T&R and cannot be objective about it. Therefore, you had no business writing a "news" story about it. I didn't go to j-school, but I suspect that a professor would not accept your explanations and agree that your "news" article(s) contain too much of your own opinions instead of just telling us what happened.
John B- "I just take issue with the whole concept that objectivity necessarily precludes a reporter from having or expressing an opinion."
That's fine, John. Just don't call it "news".
Posted on July 25, 2006 4:15 PM
Still the sore loser Sam? Maybe all that objectivity is clouding your reading ability. Lex kicked your butt here. You were too busy crowing to notice.
Posted on July 26, 2006 1:37 AM
greendog, were you reading the same thread I was??
"Lex kicked your butt"...??
Lex merely spewed out more double-talk gibberish in a lame attempt to defend his bias and liberal slant.
His position is no more unbiased or unslanted than the original article.
Posted on July 26, 2006 7:59 AM
To all: Sorry about the delay in responding. I was out sick yesterday.
David, John & greendog: Thanks.
Sam: Please point out anything in my printed articles you think calls into question my ability to report fairly and accurately on the process.
jaycee: Uh, OK, whatever.
Posted on July 26, 2006 9:04 AM
jaycee, spewing double-talk gibberish is your specialty not mine, so I guess I'll stop reading and just take your word for it. not.
I can't find the bias and liberal slant in Lex's article or his comments. Why don't you break it down line by line for us. Be specific and go slow, we're not experts like you.
Posted on July 26, 2006 12:05 PM
greendog, you can find NO bias in anything Lex has ever said????
My goodness, I guess brainwashing didn't go out of fashion after the Korean War...
You and Lex can go cuddle now. Clean up after, um-K?
Posted on July 26, 2006 7:18 PM
Lex, I will grant that your "news" article (the first one that was printed in the paper) did not contain the commentary that was presented on your follow up on your blog. However, your blog opinions are so similar to those of the TRC group that it does call into question your ability to be objective.
First, you never pointed out until now what statements were your own versus those of the T&R commission. Perhaps you should adopt a different writing style. Nowhere in your post does it state that you were only reporting what "they" were saying. If your paragraph had read "But the most important (important what?) ACCORDING TO THE PARTICIPANTS..." then there may have been less confusion. Of course, that still doesn't explain the similarity between your own opinion and that you claim belongs to the TRC.
Second, were those T&R statements actual statements or did you characterize them? It seems to me that you characterized them with your own opinions mixed in.
Third, you have not challenged my comment about the striking similarities between the TRC views and your own views on "oppression", "represssion", and class. Are we to believe this is a coincidence? The exact same language and terms? It casts a lot of doubt in my mind as to whether you really were just reporting the opinions of the TRC meeting that night or adding your own. Perhaps someone should get a transcript...
Fourth, you can print "news" and have every bit of it be true. But you can also choose not to print everything, or only one side. Instead of talking to people critical of the process in your "news" story, you used straw men. The fact is, you have very strong opinions about a subject you are covering for the news division. Your opinions are quite sympathetic to one side over the other. It is reflected in your "news" coverage and you essentially admit it in your commentary.
Fifth, anytime you use "I" in a news story, you have crossed the line. Granted, you did this only in your commentary, but you attempt above to rationalize this as a mere observation. If you are merely reporting news, or placing it in some context, it still shouldn't matter what "you" "think" or what you "buy" or who you "demonize" or who you think should "rot in prison" or what makes "sense" to you. There is simply too much of your own beliefs in here for you to dismiss it as the opinions of the TRC.
Finally, you are entitled to your opinions, Lex. I have enjoyed arguing with you about them on the blog. However, I think JR is better of putting someone else on assignment to cover TRC for the news division because you are too sympathetic and biased to one side. It's that simple. r what makes "sense" to you. There is simply too much of your own beliefs in here for you to dismiss it as the opinions of the TRC.
Posted on July 27, 2006 11:35 AM
Sam, having tried and failed to use actual evidence to prove bias, you're now claiming the ability to read minds.
You want my opinion? I have NO IDEA whether the T&R process will produce the desired result. I'm not sure there's even a consensus on what the desired result is. I don't know whether the process is worthwhile, primarily because I don't even know in my own mind what "worthwhile" looks like, let alone what a community consensus on the definition of "worthwhile" would look like. I'm content to let the community decide whatever it will regarding the report's recommendations, whether that means adopting them all, ignoring them completely or something in between. All I know is that the process is here and my assignment is to cover it. I didn't choose that, but that's the nature of my job.
you never pointed out until now what statements were your own versus those of the T&R commission.
Yeah, and I've already admitted that and promised to more clearly delineate the various ingredients of future blog posts.
were those T&R statements actual statements or did you characterize them? It seems to me that you characterized them with your own opinions mixed in.
Which ones are you talking about?
you have not challenged my comment about the striking similarities between the TRC views and your own views on "oppression", "represssion", and class.
Yeah, I did. Go back and read the post. I used the terms they used because I was discussing what they said. I'm not sure what other "striking similarities" you're talking about.
Instead of talking to people critical of the process in your "news" story, you used straw men.
I covered an event at which "people critical of the process" were not present. If I were writing about the issues raised by the event, rather than the event itself, then, yes, a wider range of views would have been appropriate.
The fact is, you have very strong opinions about a subject you are covering for the news division. Your opinions are quite sympathetic to one side over the other. It is reflected in your "news" coverage and you essentially admit it in your commentary.
No, Sam, the FACT is that my opinions are as expressed above. The FACT is that you INFER what my opinions are, but your inference is false.
Granted, you did this [used the word "I] only in your commentary, but you attempt above to rationalize this as a mere observation.
I didn't rationalize anything, Sam. I told you what I was thinking. You, for whatever reason, choose not to accept the plain meaning of my words. In any event, if you think any of my observations are objectively false, you're welcome to point out why.
If you are merely reporting news, or placing it in some context, it still shouldn't matter what "you" "think" or what you "buy" or who you "demonize" or who you think should "rot in prison" or what makes "sense" to you.
As I noted above, you seem to have some problem with the differences in convention between blogging and traditional print news media. I understand that, and I've agreed with you that I owe readers of the blog a clear delineation among the various elements of a blog post.
But the online medium has its conventions, and the N&R has good reasons, both business and journalistic, for engaging in them in ways that don't compromise our mission. I don't think I've compromised that mission, and so far as I know, my supervisors don't either. If it's the conventions of the medium with which you have a problem, then by all means stop reading blogs.
There is simply too much of your own beliefs in here for you to dismiss it as the opinions of the TRC.
Well, again, Sam, that's not my belief, that's YOUR IMPRESSION of my belief. I've told you what my beliefs actually are because I'm quite comfortable with them as they relate, or don't, to my ability to cover the story fairly. You appear unwilling to take my word as to what my beliefs are, although I have no reason to lie about them: I could simply refuse to discuss them one way or the other.
Finally, you seem to take it as a given that anyone who holds strong opinions on an issue cannot cover that issue fairly. Not only is it possible for me to do so, I've done it before. I covered religion for the N&R from late '95 to mid-'98, and although I made it quite clear from time to time in my weekly religion column that I did not agree with many of the people I covered, I didn't get very many complaints about that coverage ... and got a fair bit of complimentary mail from people who knew I disagreed with them theologically (and disagreed with them, as a result, on certain real-world issues as well). Specifically, I come from a mainline Protestant (i.e., "liberal") tradition, but evangelicals (i.e., "conservatives"), as well as non-Christians from a variety of faiths, generally told me my coverage of them was fair and accurate.
Posted on July 27, 2006 3:07 PM
"Each event took place within a system of antidemocratic repression. Now, the drivers of that repression vary from one instance to the next in terms of their relative levels of influence, but the repression is a constant. By definition, then, class issues are also a constant -- one is either a repressor or a repressee, and money tends to be the demarcator. And in the U.S., class issues and racial issues, particularly in the South, often have been very difficult to tease apart, a fact that has contributed in many instances to the longevity of the repression by dividing the opposition to the oppressors."
Is this, or is this NOT your opinion? When you say "I think", is not what follows an opinion?
Apparently JR thought that I raised enough concerns (along with "some others" as noted in your post) that he asked you to respond.
What if I wrote the following news story:
"Today, the President announced that his tax cuts created 5 million new jobs. I'm not sure I buy that, because the rich are getting richer and the poor are being oppressed.
The President stated that the tax cuts freed up more capital to invest, thereby requiring more employees as businesses grew. However, growth does not occur in a vacuum, and certainly this White House should know that there are other reasons that could explain job growth besides tax cuts. After all, who could not agree that the President missed a great opportunity to help the poorest people in this country when he cut only taxes for the rich?
The President has also demonized Democrats who criticize his tax cuts, labelling them as "tax and spenders". I'm not sure I agree. It seems the administration is unwilling to accept that tax cuts for the rich may have an adverse affect on the poor.
However, unless both parties can come to an agreement and realize that the rich are oppressing the poor, a solution seems unlikely."
Do you think that would pass as news? Do you think the person who wrote that could really give the President a fair shake when writing about the economy? Do you really believe that there is no personal opinion in that "story"? Is that simply "analysis" or does it show a clear ideology and bias?
Posted on July 27, 2006 4:23 PM
Sam, do you agree or disagree that class is an issue in repression? As I pointed out in the original post, you are "welcome to point to any instances of institutionalized repression in which class was not involved, in which money was not a major demarcator between repressor and repressee, if not THE demarcator." Is what I said objectively untrue, in other words? You haven't taken issue with it except to call it opinion. It isn't. It's fact, as any half-decent history course will make clear.
Further, I claim that race has been used in political races in the South to divide people who otherwise might have been united by their economic interests. That's a fact; whether it's my opinion or not is irrelevant. Nixon's 1968 "Southern strategy" and Jesse Helms' Senate campaigns are just two illustrative examples.
Apparently JR thought that I raised enough concerns (along with "some others" as noted in your post) that he asked you to respond.
And I've responded. And he has seen that response and said nothing more to me.
And, finally, your "news article" bears no relationship whatever to the actual news articles I published because you've written what you call a "news article" with the conventions of a blog post.
One more time: The conventions of print journalism and blogging are different. The same person can do both. *I* can do both. You appear to think otherwise but offer no evidence that that belief is true in any case, let alone in my particular case. If the conventions of blogging make you uncomfortable, then by all means read something else.
Posted on July 27, 2006 5:08 PM
I've stayed away and not commented for a while because this is a waste of time.
Trying to tell Lex Alexander ANYTHING is pointless. He knows everything and always has. I think he was born with all the knowledge of the world.
I don't have the time or energy to get involved in this and read it all and go back and forth.
But, I will say this: Lex's ATTITUDE is insufferable and contributes HIGHLY to an overall dislike by "regular people" to newspapers and news reporters. It's not enough that these people know everything, they're so self-rightous in every way.
Just read anything Lex writes.
Posted on July 27, 2006 5:11 PM
Okay, Lex. Whatever. If you can't see the problem now, you never will.
Posted on July 27, 2006 5:33 PM
Lex wrote:
"That's a fact; whether it's my opinion or not is irrelevant."
The problem is, Lex, you can't tell the difference between the two and your reporting confirms that.
Posted on July 27, 2006 7:26 PM
Jim, where can I read your stuff? I'd like to see how a real pro does it. I bet you could teach us all a thing or two, yessirree bob. How'd they do it back in W - W - 2?
I think I can help clarify Sam's points. Here they are:
1) Lex wrote a news article that Sam admits contained no opinion or bias.
2) Sam perceives that Lex's opinions on oppression, repression, and class, as expressed on Lex's opinion blog, differ from Sam's own, and more closely resemble those of a group of people Sam dislikes and distrusts.
3) Therefore, Sam feels that, even though it hasn't happened up to this point, Lex may suddenly begin reporting his opinions. Sam is just sure that Lex's opinions, which Sam is still trying to discern here on this blog, are just too dangerous and irresistible. He can't take the chance that Lex may forget how to report news. It frightens him. He calls for his mommy, JR, and tattles.
4) In summary: Lex does objective news reporting. Lex writes blog. Sam doesn't like blog. Therefore, Sam criticizes Lex's news reporting. Everyone wastes a bunch of life-hours listening to Sam.
Clear as day.
Posted on July 27, 2006 10:38 PM
Sam, I've taken a lot of time and effort address your concerns. I've asked you for examples/illustrations of some of your explicit or implied assertions, none of which you've provided. And now you say "whatever"?
OK. Whatever. I'm going to be out of the office for a week, so we may as well end it here.
greendog: I appreciate the support. That said, in all fairness to Sam, he made the valid point that I should more clearly delineate between reporting, questions, opinion and the various other meats and vegetables that go into this particular stew.
And I'm sympathetic to the fact that people who've been brought up on a particular understanding of how newspapers work, but aren't in the newspaper business, aren't yet up to speed on the way things are changing. That's part of what this blog is for: explaining the changes.
to all: have a good week.
Posted on July 28, 2006 10:22 AM
JR, my mommy? He'd love that. Maybe you should ask him. I've been harder on him than I have on Lex. By the way, Greendog, did you read JR's post three days ago about perceived bias in another story about the T&R?
Posted on July 28, 2006 8:13 PM
Now I did. The N&R's headlines are pretty regularly awful. They're not written by the reporters.
Posted on July 29, 2006 1:57 AM
Lex -- Why do you waste so much time and effort responding to people who are clearly unreasonable?
Ignore them, ban them from the blogs if other readers complain that they're hijacking the conversations, and move on. That's my advice.
Blogging will be successful when it caters to the other 99.999% of your readership, not the handful of people who long ago settled on simple slogans to comfort them in this chaotic world.
Posted on August 6, 2006 7:08 PM
I'm reluctant to ban because I generally think the solution to problem speech is more speech, not less. Also, I'm a bit wary of the fact that it's not always possible to infer tone accurately from a text message -- something I *think* might be snide or snarky might actually be sincere. (I try to be aware of that in my own posts and comments, as well ... not always successfully.)
I have banned some people who did nothing but fling feces. But even trolls ask good questions once in a blue moon.
Posted on August 7, 2006 10:06 AM