The Downside of Advocacy Journalism

Many journalists say that there is no such thing as objectivity — and that there should not be. They say the search for truth is more important than being balanced. Why, they say, would a journalist present a certain point of view if it’s socially repugnant (racist, for example) or simply not true? They are right… to an extent.

While the search for truth is indeed the most important aspect of journalism, it’s dangerous for reporters and correspondents to justify not being fair with the excuse that they are standing for the weak, disaffected or victimized. The bottom line is that often times the truth is elusive or relative. A journalist claiming to stand by the truth may end up simply — and incorrectly — standing with one side of an argument.

I often read so-called advocacy journalists who claim to be spreading the cold hard truth about a certain subject. They feel they understand a story well and, therefore, feel comfortable offering perspective. However, while cloaking themselves in the mantle of truth, they end up ignoring or not paying enough attention to valid arguments. While searching for their version of accuracy, they end up rallying one side of an issue, alienating another and damaging their own credibility.

Many Americans are surfing blogs and websites looking for reporters who present certain points of view. It’s refreshing to see journalists who are adamant about conveying facts, no matter how unpopular.  At the same time, it hurts the cause of journalism for news consumers to realize that some journalists are passing on opinion as truth because they were too arrogant or lazy to admit their own limitations.

The Price of Cheap Energy

Many residents of southwestern Pennsylvania seem to know as much about what happens under their homes as around their communities. That’s because what happens below ground has for decades had a strong impact on their daily lives.

I toured the area for a feature on longwall coal mining and its impacts. The decades-old practice has become increasingly mechanized and efficient in mining large quantities of coal. While it provides cheap fuel for America’s energy hunger, it also causes significant damage on the surface. Land subsides, homes crack, trees move and streams can go dry.

Many folks in Greene and Washington Counties — in the far southwest corner of the state, near West Virginia — know where the longwall mining machine has been and where it will go next, much like they know the layout of the roads. Maps show exactly where the long, rectangular areas of coal will be removed. Damage occurs almost as quickly as the coal is extracted.

Pennsylvania law requires mining companies to work with residents to prevent or correct damage. Many people get lump-sum settlements. Still, the debate over the adequacy of regulation and the benefits of the practice are ongoing.

Whatever one’s view on the controversial subject, it’s easy to understand people’s complaints. Americans elsewhere would be shocked to learn that residents in southwest Pennsylvania, and other communities around the nation, have to deal with the ground going down several feet under their homes.

And now, with the natural gas boom from the Marcellus Shale, area residents must share the land not only with sprawling mines but also with natural gas wells, waste ponds and the constant movement of heavy equipment through rural roadways.

While many politicians and advocates want to move the U.S. toward more sustainable, renewable energy, we’re not there yet. Regions like southwest Pennsylvania pay the price of keeping the lights on.

The Importance of King Juan Carlos

For many people, especially Americans, royalty is a thing if the past. Critics call it a expensive and unnecessary anachronism. In Spain, however, it was the vehicle for long lasting Democracy.

In some ways, King Juan Carlos can be called Spain’s George Washington. As dictator Francisco Franco’s handpicked successor, Juan Carlos rose to the Spanish throne in 1975 with wide powers. He swore to continue Franco’s post-Civil War authoritarian movement, which managed to survive the fall of fascism elsewhere in Europe. However, almost immediately upon taking office, he began the process of democratization and national reconciliation. The King not only gave up power, but also used his hard-earned prestige to secure the success of the democratic experiment.

King Juan Carlos faced skepticism and hostility from the right and the left. His own father, Don Juan de Borbon y Battenberg, the exiled rightful dynastic heir to the Spanish throne, had doubts about his son’s democratizing intentions and was often uncomfortable about Juan Carlos’ relationship with Franco. On the other end of the ideological spectrum were the military and Franco’s cronies, determined to protect the hard-line regime. In the end, the King gained the acceptance of the left, the love of many in the middle and managed to neutralize the far right, despite several coup attempts.

King Juan Carlos has ruled Spain for more than 35 years, most of which under a Constitution he helped promulgate with popular support. The path to the throne started when he was just a boy, after his father sent him to Spain to be educated under Franco, hoping it would help lead to a restoration of the monarchy under the Bourbon dynasty. The plan came close to failing several times. In fact, it was often more of an improvised gamble than a well thought out plan. It was Juan Carlos who made it work. Historian Paul Preston, author of Juan Carlos: Steering Spain from Dictatorship to Democracy, says the King  was often the only reason Democracy survived.

In his book, Preston quotes a Spanish commentator who said, “Whilst we Spaniards thought we deserved something better than a king, it turns out that we have a king we don’t deserve.” Because of their commitment to pluralistic politics and their warm relationship with the citizenry, the Spanish royals enjoy strong approval ratings. Spain went through several false starts toward Democracy and much bloodshed in the process. King Juan Carlos was the leader who made it stick.

Immigration Still Top Political Football

Concrete action on immigration reform still seems unlikely at least until after the 2012 elections. Neither party wants such a controversial issue seeping into the campaigns.

Today, in an interview with Univision, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was able to attack House Republicans for a peculiar move — cutting border security spending as part of their drive to balance the budget.

The move is peculiar because GOP leaders have spent the past several years attacking Democrats for not wanting to spend enough money on the border. In fact, many Republicans have said over and over that they would support moving forward with debating immigration reform measures once the border is secure.

Here are some of the House cuts:

-International Container Screening – $62 million.
-Border Security Fencing – $350 million.
-Construction and Facilities, Customs and Border Protection – $78.5 million.

Leader Pelosi and her fellow Democrats can’t claim the high ground either. She blamed Republicans in the Senate for blocking passage of the Dream Act and debate on broader immigration reform efforts. The truth is, many Democrats have also been wary of the issue.

Pelosi said President Obama did not break his promise on immigration reform. However, despite his efforts, the White House prioritized health care and the Wall Street overhaul, which left Democrats with no political capital to really push for immigration reform.

Immigration reform advocates insist the issue is one where conservatives and liberals can reach common ground. At the same time, its an issue that both sides can use to attack the other. And they will.

The problem is also in the details. What exactly will a “path to legalization” mean? Plus, how to address the guest worker issue in a manner than satisfies both business and labor interests? Notice how Leader Pelosi stressed the need to “protect workers” as part of comprehensive immigration reform.

Back To Blogging

It has been more than a year since I wrote on this blog.

I did blog a bit during that time for Capitol News Connection, where I was a reporter and editor. I wrote mostly about the immigration reform debate — or lack thereof — and other issues related to Congress and the media.

I am now working for Environment and Energy Publishing, covering environmental and energy issues for online publications like Greenwire and Environment and Energy Daily.

While I’m enjoying my beat focusing on mining issues, I still want to occasionally comment on immigration, media and other legislative topics. I hope this blog becomes the outlet for such writing.

The Salahis In Us All

Tareq and Michaele Salahi are becoming Washington social outcasts after crashing the White House state dinner. But before people snicker, scoff and judge, they should remember the Nation’s Capital breeds mindless social climbers like the Salahis appear to be. And, perhaps, there may be a bit of them in everyone.

It’s fair to say that most human beings hope others see them according to their abilities and the content of their character. But that’s still in many ways just a dream. It can be difficult and take time to get at someone’s essence. Therefore, people all too often limit themselves to studying what a person does for a living and who they socialize with.

People are not only looking to judge others but also achieve something. Many crave proximity to power because it may mean power for themselves, or at least the illusion of importance. Fame or notoriety also often makes people feel important. And, hey, we all want to matter in the end. It’s no surprise many of us feel the need, even the pressure, to play the social climbing game. It can be perilous not to. Good connections often equal high paying jobs or important appointments that can define a career.

Washington has a rich history of high society and social climbing. In the “olden days” political wives had to make regular calls on other wives. It helped create friendships and camaraderie among the nation’s political players and decision makers. A much evolved version of the dynamic happens today.

Eleanor Roosevelt was born into wealth and prominence. According to historians, she hated the social games of her age. But she learned to cope with them and use them for good. She employed her status to advocate for what she thought was right.

There may indeed be a Tareq and Michaele Salahi in all of us. But it may be the shallower, more unpleasant side that they represent.

Journalism and Social Media

An editorial by the Washington Post’s ombudsman shows that many news outlets and journalists are struggling to adjust their craft in this new world of social media. Many people in newsrooms around the country are wondering how to use tools like Twitter and Facebook to get out news. Some journalists find themselves Tweeting or blogging about everything from their hair to personal opinions. Others, in their confusion, simply choose to ignore the social media world.

I respectfully suggest that it doesn’t have to be so complicated. Journalists can use social media to disseminate information faster. They can use blogs and other tools to add information not included in the evening newscast or morning paper. And they can also offer perspective and intimate knowledge about a story.

My bottom line is that journalists don’t need to violate their code of ethics or delve into the trivial in order to participate in the social media world.

Click here to read the Washington Post editorial.

Leaving A Community

Many people don’t know yet that I recently announced my departure from ABC 13 News. It’s a bittersweet move. On the one hand, I’m looking forward to moving back to the Washington, DC area and covering politics for radio stations around the country. On the other hand, I feel like I’m abandoning my friends – thousands of them.

I’ve only been in the Lynchburg – Danville – Roanoke area for a little over three years, but I have literally met thousands of people over that time. They include officials, emergency workers, teachers, politicians, and many many many of our viewers. I have driven up Tobacco Row Mountain in Amherst County and down Route 11 in Chilhowie. I have been boating on Smith Mountain Lake and hiking on the Appalachian Trail. I’ve seen area residents at their best and at their worst. I leave with great respect for the area and its people.

In this modern world, people often come and go. They hold many jobs and live in numerous communities throughout their lives. Reporters must often do just that to move up in the world. Still, my goal has always been to feel like a local wherever I live and to learn from that community. When reporter like me leaves a place like Central Virginia, he leaves home.

The Search For Truth

Reporters are often accused of being unfair, bias, or slanted in their reporting. I wish people would give more of us at least the benefit of the doubt. I am not saying reporters are perfect or that none of us have an agenda. Yet, it has been my experience that most journalists are simply in a quest for the truth.

Of course, truth is often hard to come by and journalists face numerous obstacles in getting to the bottom of a story. Deadlines are tight and the same goes for many people’s lips. Plus, sources often want to spin things to their own benefit. That’s why reporters must do their research, keep an open mind, and talk to people with various views on a subject.

Everyone, including reporters, has values and pre-conceived notions. But just like reporters must temper their own views when reporting certain stories, audiences should also keep an open mind. I respectfully submit that a news report is not bias just because it disagrees with someone’s point of view or because it includes different ideas.

Again, I am not saying reporters are perfect. It’s healthy for journalists to have a watchful audience to “keep them honest.” I myself sometimes wish I had more time to dig into a certain subject or make one extra call about a report. And I have sometimes come to the conclusion that a certain story is unfair or too slanted.

Too often, however, I have seen stories criticized just because they include both sides of an issue. And too often I have heard people accuse journalists or newsroom managers of inserting their own opinions into a story when, in fact, they did not. We must remember that the free exchange of ideas has been one of America’s more precious values.

Covering The War In Iraq (From 2005)

With the Nation at war, it has become common for reporters to cover countless soldier homecomings, vigils, and send-offs. It was on Sunday, June 19, 2005 that I met with the loved ones of a dead soldier for the first time. Erik Heldt from the small town of Hermann, Missouri had become an American hero and now his family wanted to talk to the country.

Six camera crews from Mid-Missouri and St. Louis gathered at St. Paul’s Lutheran Church where the family would meet with us. It was the church where Erik married his wife Crystal about two years prior. The old brick building overlooks the Missouri River and the aging but quite majestic iron bridge that crosses “big muddy” into town. The carpet is dark red and the stained glass windows bear religious phrases in German. The Sunday service was over and we had the whole place to ourselves. I could not help but look above at the wood beams holding the roof and the large cross cascading above the sanctuary.

Erik’s brothers, Matt and Chris, spoke on the family’s behalf. First they gave us several pictures of their brother, who died near the Iraqi city of Ramadi. The first picture was Erik’s stoic, official Marine portrait. I didn’t think it very flattering. The phrase “stiff upper lip” came to mind. But the wedding picture entranced me. Erik was in uniform and wore a broad smile. In the picture, he was standing only a few feet away from where I was kneeling at that very moment. Then there was one photo of Erik with his wife and daughter, and another with his two big brothers - they were all athletic, light eyed men. I felt a needed to study each picture carefully as a way to thank him for his sacrifice and let the family know I cared.

It was tough for Matt to talk about his baby brother. The family preacher told us not to even “dare” ask family members how they were feeling because the answer was obvious. If we did, he promised to “kick us out” of his church without hesitation. We took the warning very seriously. “I hope nobody ever has to feel the pain we are feeling,” Matt said. Of course, by that time, more than a thousand American families had experienced that pain. Matt said it helped to know the town had joined them in mourning. He told us that a few moments after getting word of his brother’s death, he got another call from a town leader announcing that all flags in Hermann were at half-staff. Yellow ribbons immediately went up on flagpoles around area. A church service was quickly organized and plans to memorialize Erik began. “I cannot think of a better tribute than that,” Matt said with his eyes red and watering.

Erik was on his second tour of duty when he died and the military had already informed him that he would be back for a third.  His brothers say he wanted to be a diesel mechanic and a football coach. “He was very active in school football,” Matt said. “He was a member of the best team that has ever come through Hermann.” Now, former teammates were planning to name the town’s new high school field after Erik. A monument would also be built there. That evening I wrote in my story that the lights would keep shining on Erik just like they did in his teens.

Matt and Chris described their little brother as, “the referee” between them in their youth. “He always stood up for the little guy,” they said. It was one of the reasons he was in Iraq. He joined the Marines after the September 11 attacks. He joined expecting to go to into combat. Erik had a choice between the Army and the Marines but chose the latter because he felt it would allow him to do more for his country. “He paid the ultimate price so we could go to church and see our kids. He did it because he thought it was the right thing to do,” Matt said. While the nation debated whether fighting the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, Erik knew that serving his country was. Us reporters didn’t ask the family if they were supporters of the war. That didn’t matter; this was about their brother.

Whether or not the American invasion of Iraq was right, their brother’s service was honorable. And Erik’s name would be engraved in stone somewhere in Hermann just like his grandfather, who fought and died in World War Two. To me, such American immortals are examples of how there is always a duty bigger than ourselves and how there are still those willing to sacrifice for some undefined good.