Bloggers, be careful what you wish for

I don't think I've ever read an article in Salem Monthly before this week, but there was a copy of it sitting in the lunch room at work and the cover story caught my attention.

In typical tabloid style, the teaser on the cover was different than the headline of the article. The headline of the piece, by Kevin Hanson, is "Defining media: A question of credibility." I think the cover teaser posed the question of whether bloggers were journalists (I don't have the print copy to check).

I thought the piece was interesting. I have my own take, of course.

Most bloggers are definitely not journalists. They are more like columnists, or more precisely people who write letters to the editor, but also own their own presses. Bloggers, mostly, spout opinions, like those blowhards on cable news stations that don't actually cover the news, they just bitch about, well, seemingly everything.

And there's nothing wrong with spouting opinions.

Bloggers have a point of view and express it, something journalists in the traditional media try very hard not to do in their coverage of stories. Journalists (with the exception of opinion writers and columnist) spend most of their working time reporting other people's opinions rather than sharing their own (and opinion writers actually share the opinions of either their editor board or their publisher, which may not be their personal opinion). The job of the journalist is to cover an issue as objectively as possible, to give both sides of the issue (or as many sides as are practical given time and space constraints). Journalists attempt to be fair and balanced. Bloggers have no such limitation.

But let's be honest here. Not all journalists, or all media, are created equal. Not all have the same level of skill or training or experience. This is largely a function of staff size. Papers with small staffs often do not have the luxury of having specialists or people who can spend an entire day, let alone several days (or weeks or months) working on one story. In my earlier life, as an editor in charge of local news reporting staff's at a couple of different newspapers where I worked, I used to have a saying. That saying was repeated often to let the reporters I supervised to remind them of what was expected of them.

"Two stories a day keeps the editor at bay."

I even made up an 8-by-10 sign that hung on my desk to remind reporters of the slogan even when I wasn't at my desk or speaking the words.

Given the number of reporters we had and the general amount of space we had for local news, we needed an average of two stories a day. The New York Times may boast that it's pages contain "All the news that's fit to print," but many papers print whatever news fits. Sometimes the stories have to be whittled down to fit the space, and sometimes you have to make sure you have enough stories to fit the space that will be available.

When a reporter writes two stories a day, those stories are not going to be in-depth investigative pieces. You do what you can, talk to who you can reach quickly and you write quickly.

At the bigger (and better) of the papers where I used that mantra, having most of the reporters meeting that "quota" meant that we could afford to have a reporter every week concentrating on an in-depth story, and we could have a reporter or two a day focused on the biggest story, or stories, of the day for our front page or local section cover. A story could fall through and we wouldn't have to scramble. It gave us flexibility.

Bigger news organizations have more flexibility. They can hold a story if it isn't good enough. If it doesn't pass muster. More people get a chance to read a story it before it makes it to print. Check for typos. Ask questions if things aren't clear or don't make sense. There is someone to ask/deman someone make one more phone call, get one more source, check one more fact.

That doesn't mean a one-person blog or website can't employ journalistic principals. Heck, there are still a few newspapers in small communities out there that have newsrooms that size, or are not much larger.

In the Salem Monthly/WillametteLive.com article, it uses as example of a blogger who wanted to cover a closed session by a government body as the crux of defining just who, or what, a journalist is in Oregon. It's ironic, even comical. I won't comment on whether Mark Buntner, aka Torrid Joe, of loadedorygun.net is a journalist. He's the reporter mentioned in the article, if you didn't follow the link. But I do know that government agencies like the Lake Oswego City Council cannot and should not define what a journalist is or a legitimate news media outlet is.

Journalism is not the government, nor is it is licensed or sanctioned by the government. Oregon has some great open meetings and public records laws, which allows representatives of the news media to attend most types of executive sessions, however discussions in those meetings are not supposed to be reported. A media representative is there, ostensibly, to make sure the members of the government body doesn't do something they are not supposed to do in one of those meeting, like take a vote or discuss a topic other than what they said they were going to discuss in closed session. But one thing I learned as a journalist working for more than 10 years in California, where the laws are not so favorable to the media or the public, it is possible to report the news without having access to closed-door sessions. It makes the job harder, but not impossible. I wished I could have taken Oregon's laws to California with me, but I worked with some damn fine journalists in California who kept government bodies accountable to the public quite well, in spite of laws that made it damn hard for journalist to get some information or prove laws were broken (or at least bent) by government agencies behind closed doors.

If Buntner/Torrid Joe, or any other blogger wants to behave like a "mainstream" media member -- want to be considered a journalist (or citizen journalist) -- and have the opportunity to attend executive sessions, I have one simple suggestion.

If you want to be treated like the news media, then act like the news media. Oregon Revised Statute 192.640 says:

Public notice required; special notice for executive sessions, special or emergency meetings. The governing body of a public body shall provide for and give public notice, reasonably calculated to give actual notice to interested persons including news media which have requested notice, of the time and place for holding regular meetings.

If a blogger/website operator regularly attends a government board's meetings and requests notification of all meetings -- and if the government body complies and includes the blogger(s) on their notification list -- it will be a lot harder later for the government body to say you aren't part of the news media. If you work like the media and are treated like the media, you are the media.

I don't know if Buntner/Torrid Joe did that or not. But if a blogger uses his or her forum to let the public know when government meetings will be held so the people can participate in the public debate too, in council chambers where the actual votes are cast, that's what the media do. If the blogger provides some measure of coverage of issues out of those meetings regularly, that is part of the role journalists play. It's not the sexy part, or the glamorous part, and it is rarely a fun part. Go figure, it's a job. It's work.

Like it or not, along with the First Amendment rights many bloggers so wish to enjoy, there would/will also come some news media responsibilities.

Oh, and one more thing. There may be such a thing as a professional journalist (as in someone who gets paid to report the news), but journalism is not a profession, in the classic definition. It doesn't pay well enough for one thing. But more importantly, journalists are not licensed and journalism does not require a doctoral degree. So for those bloggers that aspire to be considered journalists, you can become one. But if you just want to spout off about your passion for your pet or your personal politics or your shitty day, go for it. People may find that stuff more interesting anyway.

Hell, I'd much rather be a professional blogger -- that is unless blogging becomes a profession. I don't want to have to take a test and get a license.

Just your average, ordinary day of historical significance

Seeing President Barack Obama sworn in today as the nation's 44th president forces me to admit that I was wrong about something I said to friends and associates early in the primary campaign season. I predicted, erroneously, that the voters in this nation would not elect a black man president. I thought that voters weren't ready, were too narrow minded to do that at this point in our nation's history.

Seeing the public reaction to today's inauguration events was a powerful message of just how times have changed. I don't assume that racism in this nation ended today. But I hope that today, and with each successive day Obama serves in the White House, that our nation truly gets closer to a nation where race is no longer a barrier, or an issue.

It was great to read the updates posted by friends who were in Washington, D.C., today to witness history first hand. And I was struck by the realization that someone of my generation is now Commander in Chief.

Obama and our nation face tremendous challenges. I am proud that my generation, in the person of Obama, was finally able to achieve a dream many may not even have dared to dream when this generation was born. But mostly I am proud that as my daughter comes of voting age this spring, there really is the possibility that anyone with the proper skills and campaign savvy could become president of the United States of America, regardless of race or gender. I'm not sure I'd want my daughter to be subjected to all the nastiness of a national campaign, but if she wanted to do that I hope she knows emphatically that she could. Without a doubt. Not any longer.

If he accomplishes nothing else, Obama has been the change, the nation has needed.

Oh, and one other note on today's inauguration: How cool was it to see the orange and black of Oregon State University featured so prominently during the inauguration in the wardrobe of Obama's brother in-law Craig Robinson, head basketball coach for OSU? Go Beavs!

Dream of equality lives, but not yet realized

Television and the Internet can sometimes make the world seem like a very small place. It's easy to get the impression we all have shared experiences. We post our little burbs on our blogs and Facebook and MySpace pages, we Twitter and text and talk incessantly on cell phones. Communication is non-stop.

We share data and details with those near and far. However, that doesn't mean there is true sharing or understanding.

In watching the post-election coverage Tuesday night, so many of the commentators, analysts and pundits were talking about how far we have come as a nation to elect Barack Obama, a bi-racial man, to the highest office in the land. Obama, who was born before the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act became law, is now seen as the hope of a new generation and the embodiment of what so many generations have fought -- and died -- to achieve.

Even Obama's acceptance speech was different than those that came before in its attempt to be inclusive of all of America.

"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. ... It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red
States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America."

-- Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

In the rush of euphoria, perhaps it seems that the worst is all behind us. That Americans have matured, grown wise and understanding and inclusive and accepting of people and their differences. But on the same night Obama was elected the next president of the United States -- on the night he mentioned homosexuals specifically in his speech-- that very same electorate also voted to exclude others. Voters approved a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to heterosexual couples only in California and similar measure in Arizona and Florida -- three of 30 states that have now adopted such measures. And on Tuesday, Arkansas voters passed a measure that keeps gay men and lesbian women from adopting children or serving as foster parents.

The headline on commentary piece by Joseph Galliano on the Guardian website calls Obama a pro-gay president.

Yes, we've come so far, but our nation still has so far to go.

"There's something deeply wrong with putting the rights of a minority up to a majority vote," Evan Wolfson, a gay-rights lawyer who heads a group called Freedom to Marry, was quoted as saying in an Associated Press story. "If this were being done to almost any other minority, people would see how un-American this is."

Fortunately, we have a system that does not merely rely on majority rule. We have a system that offers checks and balances. But we haven't achieved true balance or true equality yet.

Just ask the gay community.

I can't understand it. I'm perplexed why anyone would care that two people who share their lives and responsibilities also share the same gender. But then again, not everyone has had the same life experiences I've had. I am thankful and fortunate to have so many friends and family members who are gay and open about who they are at their core. They don't live a lifestyle, they haven't made a choice to live or love a certain way. Their sexuality is as much part of them as their eye, or skin, color.

I've been fortunate to live in a community with a vibrant and active gay community, gay businesses and gay activists. I've been fortunate to see beyond the flamboyant fringes of gay and lesbian life and beyond the stereotypes. Those I care about have shared their lives -- not just the parts that are different or mysterious or spicy -- to a heterosexual who was naive about such things. I've seen that they have the same boring, vexing problems I have. But if they are fortunate to find someone they want to share their life with, they run into many more roadblocks in trying to take care of each other or share the burdens of responsibility that come with love and true commitment.

My tolerance for intolerance has worn thin. That's undoubtedly due in no small part to having family members who are Latino and gay and friends who are Latino, black, Jewish, gay, Asian, etc., in other words, people who are outwardly different than me, yet who inwardly have proven to me to offer more similarities than differences and whose differences have enriched me personally.

I'll be honest, Obama's election stunned me. I know there is still a lot of bigotry, racism and intolerance in our country. If I look close, I can still see it in myself too. I didn't think we, as a society, were ready to elect a black man as president.

I was wrong. Sometimes it's good to be wrong. But I can't for the life of me figure out how some of the very same people who voted for Obama in California, Arizona and Florida could also oppose gay marriage.

However, I am not without hope. I know interracial marriage was once illegal. I know the voting majority once supported slavery and opposed giving black men and women of all races the right to vote too. I am proud America is the type of nation that it is with the type of government it has and that majority rule is not the only rule of government or law. I am confident that one day we will achieve the freedom and equality espoused in our nation's Declaration of Independence. We are already more equal today than our Founding Fathers ever dared to dream.

But we are just not yet equal enough.

Your tax pennies at work

The check was in the mail. I got it this week. From the Oregon Department of Administrative Services. It was for a grand total of 80 cent.

I'm not sure if it's worth the gas to drive to the band to deposit it. The irony is the check is to cover mileage for my jury duty.

While I appreciate the gesture, I'm not sure as a taxpayer that I think the cost of issuing and 80 cent check and paying 31 cents postage was worth the effort. Who know what it cost for staff time, the cost of the check and envelope added onto the tally.

Shouldn't there be some sort of lower limit for the amount to which the state will issue a check to someone?

It's probably a good thing I don't work for the state, I might complain about such foolishness -- just like I'm doing now.

Then again, maybe a state job wouldn't be so bad after all. Our government doesn't seem to shy about pissing money away.