|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reflections of Ken Towery
"Civic Journalism" By Ken Towery A few days ago we wrote a column dealing with certain developments in a newspaper in our state's capitol, the Austin American Statesman, now owned by the Cox interests out of Atlanta, Georgia by way of Ohio. We said at that time we would elaborate on the subject for those of you who might be interested. We would hope this piece might be read in conjunction with the Lamplighter column of March 26. 2004. The reason for all this is that we have come to the conclusion that our old friend Dave McNeely needs some support. He's as far left as we are right, but he is basically an honest newsman who reports activities within his leftwing community pretty well. In Austin, that's a big community. If one wants to know what is going on within leftwing Democratic circles, one should read McNeely. He not only reports their activity, he reports it from a sympathetic viewpoint. So now, those thoughts: We're not vain enough to think Professors of Journalism around this country are going to be concerned, or are going to call to the attention of their journalism students the thoughts expressed herein. Perhaps one or two here or there will, but we have been in this business a long time, and we are completely aware of how many professors of journalism become Professors of Journalism in the first place, just as we are aware of how a great many professors of law became Professors of Law at our universities. (In many, many, cases, we can apply one simple rule of thumb: if they had been any good at their job (as a reporter somewhere, or as a lawyer somewhere) they would not have had to repair to a university for employment. I can't imagine any true journalist being happy or satisfied enduring the endless backstabbing that goes on in just about every university faculty.) Still, the thoughts expressed herein are designed primarily for two categories of people, those citizens who are concerned with what they read in the newspapers or see on television, and those journalists who are serious about what they produce for others to read or see. That includes, as far as we are concerned, those who study journalism in our universities, and those who read, or see what those university-educated people write or produce on television, That means just about everybody. There has evolved, in recent years, a new name for an old problem, or an old situation. It is now called, by new journalists, "Civic Journalism". The Editor of the Austin American-Statesman, Rich Oppel, is one of many champions of "Civic Journalism." He is not alone, by any means. There has always been a division among journalists, which we used to call newspaper reporters, between those who believe newspapers ought to simply and honestly report what is going on in a society, and those who honestly believe newspaper reporters ought to cause things to happen. The same can be said of television. Some newspaper reporters, and some television reporters, are content to simply report events as they transpire, and some newspaper and television reporters (with the blessing of their editors) are unhappy with doing just that, and prefer, instead, to create the perfect world, according to their own lights. There have always been those, like my old Publisher, Jack Howerton of the Cuero Daily Record, way back in the 1950's, who thought a reporter could improve society, if it needed improvement, simply by honestly mirroring a community. If local readers did not like what they saw, honestly reported, they had ample means, in a democracy, to change things. Other editors, of course, think otherwise. They believe, according to the true tenets of "Civic Journalism", that the entire newspaper ought to be devoted to what editors think might better the community. I shall never forget, I hope, a situation in which I, as the editor of the Cuero Daily Record, worried over how to editorialize about some political situation that had arisen. Howerton gave me some of the best advice I had ever received, as a very young editor: "Any time you are troubled like this, just wait until Sam Fore, up in Floresville, takes a position, and then take the other side, and 99 per cent of the time you will be on the right side." So we started watching what Sam said, and what Sam wrote, and sure enough, Howerton was right. The problem, however, was that we were a daily newspaper, and Sam Fore published a weekly newspaper. In those days weeklies were given much more latitude, in journalism, than dailies when it came to such things as what is now called "Civic Journalism." In other words, there were a great many "Civic Journalists" around, although they might not have recognized the words. Of course Sam Fore was a great friend and supporter of Lyndon Johnson, then a Congressman. Like the Austin American-Statesman when I worked for them, when Lyndon zigged, Sam Fore zigged. When Lyndon zagged, Sam Fore zagged. So much so, in fact, that when Sam died and was buried, Lyndon, as President, came down from Washington and attended his funeral, which made a big impression on at least a few of his fellow publishers. It is not difficult for a journalist to cause things to happen. Events simply have to be reported in certain ways, as Sam Fore did, and/or editors must simply be very selective in what they assign reporters to cover, and be sure the reporters who cover those events are…shall we say…"simpatico" with the owners' views. Accordingly, those newspapers that believe in "Civic Journalism" (and there are an awful lot of them) see nothing wrong with devoting columns and columns of space to anything the editors have determined to be "newsworthy," and ignoring events others might think are newsworthy. Before we go further, we will say we believe there is merit to either approach. A reporter who is assigned to cover an oil spill, for instance, should know how his editors are likely to react to what he writes. He cannot simply rely on the usual anti-business sentiments of most big-city editors, who are basically liberal in their approach to all issues. It would benefit him to know, for instance, whether his editors are going to support him, or pick his reporting apart. Not that he can't maneuver around biased editors, but it would be helpful for him to know what's ahead. Conversely, a reporter would benefit by knowing how his editors feel about honest, un-biased, reporting., even reporting that might veer from a politically correct corporate editorial party line. We've been there, we know. This division among journalists is reflected in our schools of journalism. Many Professors of Journalism, unhappy with their own political impotence, encourage their students to 'become engaged', and in the process live out a life of fulfillment they never had themselves. They seek to live, in other words, through their students. They are more politicians than reporters, but they do not have the intestinal fortitude to enter the political arena on their own and allow voters to judge the soundness of their ideas. They simply encourage their students to spend their life in politics while living off political skills learned in the classroom at taxpayer expense. There is no shortage of such characters. Occasionally, one will attempt the leap from classroom podiums to political rallies, but their history of accomplishments in the latter endeavor is not stunning. We had one such individual recently here on the South Plains who was, in a word, an extreme political activist at Texas Tech University in Lubbock. He was, of course, a committed liberal Democrat and saw nothing at all wrong with holding his tax-paid position at the University while championing his position within the Democratic Party's intellectual hierarchy. He ultimately could withstand the lure of activism no longer, and ran for Congress, against, I think, Mac Thornberry. Naturally, and thankfully, he was beaten soundly, but nevertheless it is an indication of what our journalism students have to put up with as they go about their learning experience. Many of them learn, not surprisingly, that they should utilize their college, or university, experience to change the world in their own image, rather than simply report honestly on what is happening, and allow citizens to go to the polls and change the world, if the world needs changing. (Which it usually does.) So given all the division that has plagued the reporting world for so many years, we can only be amused at the subdued uproar that has greeted Dave McNeely's allowing Mr. Ronnie Earle, the Travis County's Democratic District Attorney, to see drafts of his reporting before it appeared in the Austin newspaper. Or even before it was given to his editors, for that matter. Although, come to think of it, Dave's standing with Democratic Party stalwarts probably insulates him pretty well from any possible editorial retaliation, if that were even considered. And it must have been at least contemplated, or we can see no reason for the whole mess to end up in the lap of the newspaper's editors. As far as we are concerned, we see nothing wrong, given the Austin American-Statesman's belief in "Civic Journalism", with McNeely, or any other reporter, submitting his potential reports to a public official for clearance before submitting the revised edition, if any revision is made, to an editor before publishing. The whole process, it seems to us, is a natural outgrowth of the "Civic Journalism" approach. Additionally, it is one way to be sure the version that makes it to publication does not contain any "errors" that might embarrass the named official. That becomes more important when the reporter, the editors, and the public official are singing from the same hymnal, or would unless they got their wires crossed. Every editor must run his, or her, publication the way he or she sees fit. Otherwise, how could any defense be mounted, or how could any offense be sustained. But there seems to be a better way of guarding against errors. If a reporter has a problem with facts in his story, what's wrong with merely picking up the phone and clearing the matter with someone who knows the facts, including the Democratic District Attorney, Ronnie Earle. Why submit the entire proposed article, and ask for comments? Still, what do we know? We majored in chemistry at Texas A&M, and had to rely on Howerton in the 1950's for our journalism training. Things do change. Of course, if the McNeely approach is generally adopted throughout our Schools of Journalism…and we emphasize the word "throughout", for it has already been adopted in some Journalism Schools… certain changes will be needed to avoid charges of hypocrisy. Not that hypocrisy is unknown in certain places within the Fourth Estate, but it would become much more difficult, it seems to us, to sell the idea that editors, editorial boards, political editors, are independent and unafraid if potential political stories are run by potential targets, or defenders, of editorial displeasure before publication. Even in this business, we can't completely ignore common sense.
|
|
 |
|
