Archive for September 2014
Sometimes, as media and journalists, we can get caught in our own rules of fairness.
I don’t have a good handle on why some media outlets focus solely on major party candidates during forums in advance of presidential, general and off year elections. Maybe it’s got to do with polling and how the issues of third party candidates aren’t always the same main issues as they are for the majors. Maybe it’s got to do with the influence of the majors who want the punch bowl all to themselves and more or less convince the media through ad buys that they deserve it. Maybe it’s got to do with the fact that the numbers of the minors don’t come close to those of two party candidates and so, the media – a numbers driven concern – makes an economic decision that the largest audience comes from those who capture the largest numbers. I don’t know.
But I do know the standards of Sigma Delta Chi, which is the organization for the Society of Professional Journalists. And its stated missions are (1) to promote and defend the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press; (2) encourage high standards and ethical behavior in the practice of journalism; and (3) promote and support diversity in journalism. So when Third Party candidate Jason Levin crashed a debate between only Democratic Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber and Republican challenger Dennis Richardson at the editorial offices of the Pamplin Media Group on September 23rd, it was kinda what the latter three deserved.
Political forums are not private love-ins. They should be more like racous holiday dinners where the whole family is at the table. Of course, maybe that’s just me. I happen to like the idea of the unpredictable and the un-anointed peeing in the sacred pool. That’s why although I think weather modeling and the Dow Jones Industrial 30-day average are cute, they show us every day that we have no idea what will or should happen next. I root not for the havoc, but the humbling.
Besides, if Oregon’s Ballot Measure 90 passes, getting a seat at that table may be even more difficult for third party candidates in the future. Congratulations to Mr. Levin for having the kahunas to pull out his own chair and forcing forum hosts to put their journalistic principles above whatever it was that made them initially not.
It’s 1:30 a.m. and I am just finishing up an edit of my interview with Herbie Hancock.
For the entire conversation, Mr. Hancock talked about music and kindness couched in Buddhism and Humanism (he’s a Buddhist and a Humanist) and the need for music to bring people together. Now, I’ve listened to Herbie Hancock my entire life. From Monster to Dis is da Drum; everything before and in-between. And there is nothing he’s done that I haven’t enjoyed. Today, I got the chance to ask him every question I could think of about who he is, not necessarily what he does. I mean, I’m not versed in the language of music. I don’t understand synthesizers or beats. But I know how his music makes me feel and I know how hard living is sometimes. And I wanted to know how much of what I feel does he feel? How much of what he feels does he wonder if other people feel?
It turns out, quite a lot on both counts. And when the conversation was over, I realized I had talked to him for 63 minutes when my time slot was for 15. He ignored the clock and kept talking. He said he was glad to get the chance to express some of the things he was thinking about the world and the way he sees his place in it. And when I hung up, all I could say was “Wow”!
OK, so I am looking for music to edit into the interview and I go to his most recent work, “The Imagine Project”. It seems to be a reinterpretation of John Lennon’s “Imagine”, only with guest voices Pink (who I love), Seal (who I love) and a bunch of other amazing musicians like Jeff Beck, India Arie and Oumou Sangare. And at the center of it all, there is Herbie Hancock, the man who just gave me an hour of his time to ask him the most personal questions I could think of, wearing headphones and jamming behind a studio piano.
And I’m thinking, how can I thank this man for the gift he’s given me? And I realize the answer is to produce the best interview I can, but not just his. I always thought my goal was to produce good interviews, but sometimes, good sounds like mediocre. I always knew I wouldn’t try to produce perfect interviews since that is a goal that would surely kill me. I’m hard enough on me as it is. But watching him, at 74, a virtuoso, doing what he so deeply loves and doing it with a mind that has probably forgotten more than many people will ever know, I see that my goal should always be to shoot for making excellent interviews.
Because he’s all about excellence and deep down, I love things excellently done too. I can’t talk to Herbie Hancock for an hour and not come away thinking I can certainly work to do what I do better. He reminded me that it’s OK to love what I do. I just need to make sure I do it well and that it helps bring people together.
Hear my interview with Herbie Hancock here.
See the video for The Imagine Project here.
This is a quickie.
Sometimes, I don’t understand how I get a particular interview. It’s not that I don’t consider myself a good interviewer. I am. And it’s not that I don’t work very hard to uphold standards of journalistic integrity. I do. But there is also a lot of alchemy involved in who decides to talk to you or not.
For instance, I know that many people I talk to don’t necessarily need to talk to me. I work at a small community radio station that has a reputation amoung some as being too far to the left and amoung others as not being to the left far enough. To that, I bring years of experience with the government and the military; not exactly the most liberal institutions ideologically. Politically, I kinda sorta end up somewhere around the center. I said all that to say the gun behind me is respectable but not huge. It’s not like we’re the Nation Station with numbers that dominate market share in the MSA or anything. But some of the people who’ve returned my calls and agreed to talk to me are amazing. Which leads me to the alchemy part. Namely, you don’t know who is talking about you to whom.
So, when somebody calls me back who seemed like a real long shot, I sometimes think, “OK, is this a vote of confidence that was cast for me by someone I’ll never discover, even if I might personally know them”?
And that is some humbling stuff.
As a reporter and a journalist, you want to have a decent name. You want to be seen as fair. What with so many people attacking us for bias at home, while overseas, journalists are attacked much more severely for so much less, you want to hold up the profession as best you can. I sincerely appreciate the callbacks I get and when they are truly amazing, after those first few seconds of surprise, I try to remember to close my mouth so I can get to work.
Sometimes, you never know who is working for … or against you. It’s probably for the best.
Sometimes, reporters want wheat. For example, they might want to see where something comes from; the raw version – the data – before other people have had the chance to put their interpretation on it. Other times, reporters want bread, meaning they want to hear the interpretation and compare it against the raw information. When a reporter asks for bread and gets wheat, it’s useless. And when a reporter asks for wheat and gets bread, again, it’s useless.
Another bread versus wheat example is when a radio reporter in particular asks a source for information via the medium of audio and they get text. If they specifically ask for an audio interview and get text, it’s not really helping. Why? Because one of the things that makes reporting credible is being able to attribute comments to a source. Yes, text can be quoted, but it’s a layer removed from the source. Sources know this, which is why sometimes, some of them refuse to respond with their voice to a question for comment. Or, during an interview, they will ask a reporter to turn off their recorder but allow written notes.
As a reporter, this has always struck me as a little cheesy, like the source is saying, “OK, you can have proof, but not very good proof”. If a source promises something and they don’t deliver, and then rationalizes it later, it can be frustrating. But it certainly tells you something about that source.
Kudos to Dave Miller, host of Oregon Public Broadcasting’s “Think Outloud” for the voicing fears and suspicions of KOPB staff. Mr. Miller was interviewing the new NPR President, Jarl Mohn. Mr. Mohn had spent much of the conversation talking about the importance of fundraising for the future of NPR, mentioning that the mammoth Ray Kroc (founder of McDonalds) endowment to NPR of a quarter billion dollars in the early 2000s may necessarily be considered “small” in the face of NPR’s future financial needs and fundraising asks.
At one point, Mr. Mohn said he looks forward to “helping” NPR affiliates with their fundraising, to which Mr. Miller, God Bless Him, said that he knows a lot of dedicated people doing fundraising at public radio stations around the country who are already working hard to fundraise, and how do they know that Mr. Mohn’s offer to “help” isn’t just an excuse for NPR HQ to skim more money off the operating budgets of already struggling stations?
NPR programs are not cheap. Consider what it costs for a local affiliate just to meet overhead; that’s lights, taxes, licenses, fees. Then, salaries and benefit packages, capital expenditures, lawyers. Then marketing and advertising, maintenance, insurance. And none of that includes the cost of the programs. I’ve heard pitchers on OPB say that flagship offerings like Morning Edition and All Things Considered can cost a million dollars or more each year. Then, there’s very popular programs like Science Friday, Here and Now and the relatively new TED Radio Hour. All of that has to be covered by whatever grants and endowments a station can scrounge. But the center tent pole for any station is fundraising. As a former federal employee, I’m well familiar with the phrase “Hi, I’m from the Government and I’m here to help”. Consider this piece from the Columbia School of Journalism in 2010 that looks how how much it costs to run NPR. It makes sense that affiliates who’ve got their own thing going don’t necessarily want HQ’s nose under their own tent flap.
And it also doesn’t help that NPR has cycled through five presidents since 1994. No doubt, local folks look at the turmoil at a place that is supposed to be rock solid and wonder if their own management is a little more stable and locally focused.
Mr. Mohn’s charm offensive had the overtones of a PR campaign. And although he said that if stations didn’t want the help, they didn’t have to take it, you could tell by the occasional edge in his voice that he had heard those concerns before. And now, good journalism or not, KOPB in general and Dave Miller in particular have Mr. Mohn’s attention, if for no other reason, because the station dared to give voice to the question that so many dedicated staffs around the country mutter to each other in hallways and breakrooms. And for folks who think HQs don’t ever seek recriminations against affiliates for personal slights, a review of Pacifica turmoil might give them more to consider.
George Orwell said journalism is telling something somebody doesn’t want you to tell and everything else is public relations.
OPB – Journalism Done Here. Good job … and buckle up.