Intro to Journalism

I was recently upset by reading an article titled "People, businesses sending messages," which appeared on Page 2 in the Aug. 25 issue of the Community Free Press. The story was centered around an anti-Obama billboard that a group of local brokers had recently put up. The article struck me as biased, and honestly, it pissed me off to read it.

Let me be clear, I wasn't upset to see the sentiments expressed. The core idea, or what I imagined the core idea to be, was a good one: local citizens spend their own money to make a political statement. What angered me was that it seemed almost the entire story was focused on the opinions of one broker. No opposing view from a local Democratic official. No feedback from people who had seen the sign. No reflections from a local political science professor about the larger political divide in America. Nothing. Almost as an afterthought, the story's author, James Hanson, spoke to the billboard company about whether or not these types of political billboards were becoming more popular. That was at the butt-end of the article.

Having once been bawled out by Bob Mace, CFP's columnist, for not offering enough opposing facts and figures when I covered a local meeting on Clean Energy development, a.k.a. "Cap and Trade" legislation, I thought I'd send Mace an e-mail about my negative reaction to Hanson's story. After a couple back and forths, I was surprised to find out that the man who had something like 30 years experience in the publishing business -- he manages the day-to-day operations of a national auto-parts magazine -- didn't have a problem with the article.

In fact, he went so far as to make complaints he'd heard about the piece the focus of his column in the CFP's current issue. I was stunned. And then, I was confused. In the column, ("Sign post" Page 6) he seemed to argue that A, opposing viewpoints were too obvious to seek or mention, and B, other news was more important.

What?!?

I had to steady myself. Some background: I worked for 2 1/2 years in the same building as Mace, and while I found him to be somewhat abrasive and quick-tempered, he was without question one of the smartest people I've ever met.

I couldn't understand why the man that had seemed so strict and fair-minded when I wrote a story about Clean Energy could be so dismissive of my charges of bias in what I thought was a clear example of a one-sided story.

In case you are wondering, Hanson had expressed to me before, on more than one occasion, that he was no longer a Democrat.

Without quoting a private e-mail, I can say that Mace had said my story dealt with the underlying issues behind Cap and Trade, and thus, it required a look at both sides. James' story was just about a sign people had seen.

So, I sought the opinion of one of my former professors, Dr. Andrew Cline. Cline is a Journalism professor at Missouri State, and two areas of his expertise include political rhetoric and media bias. I asked him to review Hanson's piece, as well as Mace's column, and comment on them. I told Cline I'd quote him in this post, but I thought his analysis was so on point that I decided to share the comments in full:

Hanson's article about the "Embarrassed Yet?" billboard is stenography, not reporting.

I think it is appropriate to cover the issue of using a billboard for civic commentary given the placement, the sponsorship, and the stated reasons for posting it. This billboard is basically a bumper sticker writ large. A good article could have answered such questions as: What does it mean to use a billboard this way? Who else is doing it? Who are the others involved in this billboard? What do other participants have to say? Is there a history of citizens using billboards this way or is this something new? What have the public reactions been? Any reaction from city officials and political candidates? How cost effective is a billboard for civic messages? Do experts believe such messages are productive? How might opposing people respond? What's Lamar's policy on political billboards? Any ironic reactions, i.e. agreeing Democrats or disagreeing Republicans?

Hanson, however, mostly gives Stephen Critchfield a generous opportunity to state opinions as facts. So much of the article is merely Critchfield complaining about Obama that it detracts from what the news really is -- the use of the billboard by private citizens for civic commentary. Such ham-handed reporting/writing heightens the importance of Critchfield's assertions so that they become the point of the article, not the billboard. And since Hanson does nothing to check Critchfield's assertions, the article has the feel of a rant dutifully recorded by a stenographer.

If you're going to quote then you've got to check. It's called the discipline of verification, and it is the very foundation of good journalism.

It doesn't take more than one, maybe two short quotes to demonstrate that Critchfield is unhappy with the Obama administration, thus establishing the reason for posting the billboard. Hanson would then have been able to more fully explore the real issue with the remaining column inches, including adding more voices pro, con, and complicated. That would have been interesting.

Bob Mace's reaction column demonstrates a fuzzy understanding of the craft/ethics of journalism. Contrary to Mace's opinion, Hanson should have offered an opposing voice the opportunity to react given how much of the article is about Critchfield's complaints. Mace asserts that the "story is the sign." Clearly not. Count the column inches. Fully half the story is about Critchfield's unchecked and unchallenged complaints about Obama.

This issue of using billboards for public commentary deserved better reporting. Hanson's effort would have earned a poor grade in my Introduction to Journalism class.

I don't to want to beat up on James, but in my opinion, his article stinks. Mace's defense of the stinky article only serves to support the alienation of fair-minded readers and make Mace look ignorant.

Knowing how smart Bob is, and knowing he had said he was an old poker buddy of Billy Long, I can't help but wonder if Mace is himself so "Fed Up" with the current administration that his own judgment is clouded on this issue.

I hope and pray that something Cline has said will encourage my former employer and co-workers to be more mindful of other points of view.