Preparation! H
The onslaught of Anti-Measure H writings has been fierce. Of course, it’s all the work of one person, but it’s been prevalent and our local media’s need for “balance” is helping to create a feeling that there is more support for denying the school parcel tax, than there is for it.
I’m not just talking about the guest editorials, which are becoming ubiquitous, but also some of the “coverage” of the arguments against the parcel tax. I use the “quotes” because I don’t think that writing articles that basically just let people say whatever they want without back-up is “covering” anything. It’s repeating it.
I’ve been out of town for a few days, and decided to take some time off from writing (thus the lack of any posts for the last week). During this time, I’ve been reflecting on some of the media messages that are getting out there about the parcel tax measure, and I’m embarrassed for those who are almost actively NOT covering the issue.
The argument against Measure H, as made by the opponent of the measure, boils down to “no taxes.” Not a nuanced, there are problems with this tax, the one-man anti-H lobby has been a major factor against just about every school, hospital, etc. parcel tax. All of them. And the arguments that are being made are a litany of “Let’s look and see what we can find to back up our central idea that all taxes are bad.”
I can’t fault the ideology. “All taxes are bad” is a perfectly acceptable stance as far as I’m concerned. The issue becomes the impugning of everyone who’s involved with supporting the parcel tax. The ill-informed “Why did they wait until it was too late?” arguments that show that the speaker hasn’t been paying attention. Or my personal favorite “Our leaders should have been working to fix the state funding inequities for education!” As if nobody as ever tried, and is all one has to do is ask for it to be fixed with real conviction and it will just happen.
Again, it all points to a complete lack of awareness, which I believe is a constitutionally guaranteed right, along with one’s ability to say really uninformed things. But, and this is a big but, it’s incumbent on everyone else to be aware that these speakers are speaking from a position on non-information. And it’s important to be aware that these “community leaders” are not taking the time to understand the issues that they are so boldly taking a stance on and criticizing people who have worked very hard on these issues.
It’s also incumbent on our local press to look into the arguments that these folks are making and publish the facts that either back them up or refute them. That’s what informing the public is all about. Any crazy person can make a statement and throw around a couple of numbers to support it, but we should expect our papers to confirm that those “facts” are correct before printing them as the word of god. It shouldn’t be left to the letters to the editor to clarify statements that run on the front page.
As the media landscape changes rapidly around us, we need to hold our local media accountable and to a standard that informs, rather than just repeats whatever the last person they spoke to says.
Popularity: 10% [?]
Jeff Mitchell
April 17th, 2008 at 11:16 am
John … where do I start? First, I’m glad you’re back from the land of fresh air and great coffee. And, btw, you were right. I have confirmed through sources that indeed state Sen. Don Perata (along with Mayor Beverly Johnson) actually have endorsed BOTH Democratic candidates, Loni Hancock and Wilma Chan, as they vie to replace Perata when he terms out of offce later this year. Personally — and I will be writing more about this on my own site http://www.bapolitix.blogspot.com again soon — I believe that political leaders would be best served by not sending mixed messages to the voters when it comes to endorsements. They should either step up and take a stand and support the candidate they like best or just sit down and shut up. Endorsing both candidates in this case is just wimping out, plain and simple.
In any case, I wanted to respond to your criticisms of the local media and its coverage of the Measure H campaign.
What I think you’re really complaining about is a lack of depth in the reporting and the lack of context. These are reasonable and valid complaints. Those of us who have actually gotten out of our jammies and went to work to put out a real newspaper know all too well what you’re talking about. It’s a chronic issue in the news business.
Unfortunately, as the wheels continue to fall off the newspaper industry, you will see news staffs continue to shrink and shrink. This will only make the situation worse. My former company, Bay Area News Group, is in the lead of such horrible consolidations. The recent buy-outs to the newsrooms in Alameda and Oakland alone remain shocking to even the most seasoned of print news veterans.
All of that said, I think your criticism of the local scribes trying to cover the Measure H campaign is a little over the top.
While the coverage to date is in need of better backgrounding and context, real working reporters are trained to seek out the opinions and comments of ALL sides — and they must do it with balance, while under pressure and while on deadline.
And, in the case of Measure H, that balance in coverage becomes even more important. After all, it is a public election involving taxes.
It’s a shame that such measures in our state have to hurdle past 66.6 percent of the electorate to win. In these cases I have seen districts have nail down 66.5 or even 66.6 percent — clear majorities in any one’s book — and still lose.
Nevertheless, I also believe that those campaigns that have the truth, facts and logic on their side will always prevail with the voters. That means that the proponents of Measure H should be prepared for all possible criticisms and arguments — no matter how silly or ill-informed. It just a part of the process.
Moreover, the comments of the opponents do indeed have their place in the local newspaper coverage.
That said, I will tell you that it is a reporter’s job to question the alleged facts coming out of a source’s mouth — or at least point out that others disagree with those alleged facts.
Frankly, I’m glad that the reporters we have left around these parts are still fighting to get as many opposing views into their articles as they can. If anything, we need to be supporting their efforts. When they fall short — and they will — we should politely point out their errors and work with them to improve the level of coverage. That doesn’t mean that hard, awkward questions won’t be asked in return. That too is part of the process.
Back when I was in journalism school (when dinos still roamed the earth) my professor had a favorite saying: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” It was good advice then and it’s good advice now.
All too often we love to bash the working media, branding them as biased, lazy or just not tuned in to what’s going on around them.
We need to realize that in 99 percent of the time these good folks got into this low-paying, high-stress profession because of the ‘public mission’ aspect of it and because they believe that trying to keep their fellow citizens informed is the first and best way to preserve a democracy. That may sound a bit corny to you, but it really is the truth.
Page Barnes
April 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Jeff,
While I agree that the local media has an obligation to present the position of the opponent of Measure H, I think that in the case of Measure H, the local media really has fallen down on the job of putting the support and opposition into context.
If you haven’t looked recently at the list of Measure H endorsers which is available on KASE’s webiste (www.alamedaschools.org), I would encourage you to do so. The list really runs the spectrum of political factions and community leaders in Alameda. People who I would never in a million years have believed would agree on anything have come together to support Measure H. As far as I can tell, there has been absolutely no mention of this unlikely coalition in the local press.
Instead, the local meda has given outsize coverage to the opposition to Measure H which seems to consist of a party of one. This party of one is certainly entitled to express his opinion and the local media is right to cover it. But I think that the local media also has an obligation to put the scope of the opposition and support into context and not give unquestioning and potentially misleading credibility to one person whose position is riddled with errors and misinformation.
John Knox White
April 17th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Jeff,
I’m going to first echo what Page writes, but also say that what you said: “That said, I will tell you that it is a reporter’s job to question the alleged facts coming out of a source’s mouth — or at least point out that others disagree with those alleged facts.” is exactly my point.
If I didn’t make that clear, then I was more tired than I thought when I wrote it. I think that these voices should be included, but writing front page articles that quote people making statements that don’t hold up to even a little critical analysis is a problem.
My point wasn’t “don’t quote XXX view” it was all views should be substantiated when being given coverage. My apologies if that was unclear.
Jeff Mitchell
April 17th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Page, John: I generally agree with both your sentiments. And I agree that Measure H has garnered the support of a wide and unusual swath of the Alameda political world. And while I don’t normally disclose how I plan to vote, I will volunteer here and now that I too plan on voting for the measure.
The issue in question here – as I mentioned in my first post – is context, balance and perspective in the reporting. If you feel the position of the opposition has received an unfair amount of ink (or electrons or both?) then my suggestion would be to ask for and get a quick meeting with Julia Tracey at the Sun or Connie Rux at the AJ. While I really don’t know Julia, I do know Connie and she’s the real deal. She’s got 20+ years in the news business and was the Oakland Tribune’s city editor before being transferred to the island to take over the AJ. Connie will listen to you. For that matter, when it comes to the AJ, talk with Peter Hegarty, the paper’s lone staff writer. Peter is a good friend and I can tell you that just like Connie, he will gladly listen to your concerns.
I know that a lot of folks have some idea that we editors sit in gilded throne rooms, completely sealed off from any contact with the readers of our products. The truth is that we’re just folks trying to do the best jobs we can with very limited (and ever shrinking) resources. Gawd knows that when I piloted the AJ you all were NOT shy about letting me know when we screwed up. There’s no reason to be that way now. Seek these folks out and explain your concerns face to face. I suspect you’ll be pleasantly surprised by the response.