Know What I Mean.

I just wanted to take this opportunity to relay something that was passed on to me. Michael Eric Dyson is visiting XU on Nov 14. I would really be interested in attending that event - it sounds pretty interesting.

I have to admit that I haven't sat down and read the entirety of any of Dyson's books (I've seen them and thumbed through them a little). But I'm confident it will be interesting based on various articles and TV appearances I've seen him in. He's known for approaching Hip Hop culture with a very thoughtful and academic approach that I know I've rarely seen among other intellectuals.

Ok Geoff... try to say something deep...

On Dyson's website there's an opportunity to post your response to a question someone, I presume Dyson, is asking visitors. The question: "Is Hip Hop good or bad for the culture at large?"

I'm trying to come up with an appropriate way to respond. My first thought is that the question itself trivializes the scope and variety of Hip Hop. How often do we hear people asking if radio is "good or bad for the culture" or if television is "good or bad for the culture." People would obviously say "Some of it is and some of it isn't." Perhaps we're being overly simplistic in trying to reduce Hip Hop into narrow terms like this. It's far more useful to discuss what trends in Hip Hop are positive and what trends are negative. The way it reveals the dark, underexposed corners of the most prosperous nation to ever exist on the planet - America - seems to me to be a good thing. While not all of Hip Hop expresses it, there is definitely a trend toward misogyny and homophobia in a lot of Hip Hop culture. That's definitely a bad thing.

It's kind of like when people try to ask questions about "the media" as if it's a single entity, as if The Wall Street Jorunal and The Devil Wears Prada and Ken Burns documentaries and Maxim Magazine and Heroes could all be painted with the same brush. The question itself implies a lack of depth. But of course it's easy to poke holes in what other people say rather than say something yourself.

~Geoffrey Dobbins
Vice President, UCABJ

From Russia With Love

Something is definitely rotten in the state of Russia. I've heard bits and pieces in various news stories about how some where saying President Vladimir Putin is subverting the Russian constitution and making moves to stay in power despite the fact that his term as president is soon coming to an end.

This is obviously important because it might mean the decay of democracy in a major world power that still possesses nuclear weapons. But what really grabbed my attention on an emotional level was the murder of Anna Politikovskaya. She and a number of other journalists that dared to report on things that cast the Kremlin or Putin in a negative light have "mysteriously" been murdered or come up missing. A lot of people (including me) think the Kremlin is behind most of these "unsolved" deaths and disappearances.

The whole thing has made me think about what I would be willing to sacrifice to be the sort of journalist that really serves the democratic purpose journalists are supposed to serve.

I'm thinking about this right now because of what I heard on NPR's "Fresh Air" earlier today (yes, I do know that makes me a huge nerd). Garry Kasparov, former Chess Champion and leader of an opposition coalition called "Other Russia," was the guest. I realize that he is running for president against Putin, so much of what he said couldn't exactly be seen as coming from a neutral source, but I really started to feel a sense of urgency about the situation in Russia after hearing his comments. Protests are being broken up by enormous police deployments, it's becoming increasingly difficult for opposition parties to get candidates on ballots, and the coverage of opposition parties by journalists in newspapers and television is severely limited. Free speech is essential for democracy to work, and it seems to be breaking down in Russia. Kasparov perseveres despite all of this, and I admit I was impressed with his resolve.

It all reminded me of a brief conversation I had a few months ago with an acquaintance from Russia. She had told me that she studied journalism in Russia before coming to the U.S., so I asked her about the accusations being leveled at Putin. She gave me a very odd, stiff response before hastily changing the subject. I think she said something like "I actually think the problem in Russia right now is that there is too much freedom." I'm unsure to this day whether her response represented her genuine opinion, something that was lost in translation, or her continuing fear of reprisals, even here in America.

I guess I'm just rambling now, so I better wrap this up. Don't take your responsibility as journalists for granted, and appreciate your ability to speak truth to power through the press. We've all met up with people that are hostile to what we're trying to do as journalists, but I'd wager none of us have had to worry too much about being gunned down by former KGB or detained while covering a civil street protest. When you hear about this stuff, remember that these are real people they're talking about - maybe even our friends and coworkers. I, for one, hope we remain committed to making sure it never gets that way for us.

~Geoffrey Dobbins
Vice President, UCABJ

The Wisdom of Jay Stowe, part 1

As a Cincinnati Magazine intern, I occasionally have the pleasure of having lunch or coffee with one of the more experienced journalists there. I try to take notes and learn as much as I can during these brief advisory sessions, and I usually emerge with some interesting things to think about. My most recent meeting was with Jay Stowe, the editor of the magazine.

We talked for a while about whole lot of things, but there was one particular insight he shared with me that I thought might be of interest to the rest of you.

After having talked about his many past experiences in journalism, which include working at Spin, Esquire, and The New York Observer, I asked him something that had long been on my mind. If I remember correctly, I said something like:

"Do you ever get to the point where you generally feel like 'Yeah, I'm pretty good at this?' I mean, most of the time when I finish writing something, I find myself thinking 'Does this suck? Do I suck?' Do you ever get to the point where you know for sure that you're consistently good at writing?"

Stowe responded by saying that the sense of self doubt I was talking about was actually a good thing. He said the anxiety pushes writers to get better and continue to challenge themselves. Having worked at big New York periodicals with journalists that thought of themselves as "great writers," Stowe had seen what happens when writers get so full of themselves they assume they can just phone it in without pouring the hard work into it that a less confident writer would. The result would often be really crappy writing from people with huge reputations and even bigger egos.

Feeling that anxiety, he explained, meant that the writer still cares about his work. When you think your Superman and don't care, it comes through in your writing - readers can sense the apathy radiating off of the page.

Maybe in some ways, suspecting you're a failure can actually be a good thing. Something to think about.

~Geoffrey Dobbins
Vice President, UCABJ

Life Is Always a Matter of Choice

“You've thrown the worst fear

That can ever be hurled

Fear to bring children

Into the world

For threatening my baby

Unborn and unnamed

You ain't worth the blood

That runs in your veins”

-Bob Dyaln, “Masters of War”

The anti-abortion display The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) presented the other day on the green in front of McMicken was pretty disturbing. The worst part wasn’t the blood and guts of dismembered fetuses. I recently read something about the current situation in Palestine with similarly grisly images. Sadly, I see images of violence way too often for that to be the worst part.

No, this time what really made my heart sink was how willing both sides of the abortion debate are to believe the worst about each other. As a churchgoer with left-wing political leanings, I’ve gotten to know plenty of Pro-Choice people. None of them are anti-life. I also know a lot of Pro-Life people. None of them are anti-choice.

Despite our vast resources, we live in a society in which large numbers of pregnant women feel so alone and uncared for that they feel abortion is the lesser of two evils. In my mind, that reveals a very deep and widespread injustice. And it isn’t like the people screaming at each other over photos of fetuses would have you believe. This is something the vast majority of Americans have a huge problem with. All of us, on both sides, are more than capable of compassion.

American politicians are playing some scandalous political games with the issue of abortion, and a lot of us are taking the bait. Sure, if you ask a random sampling of people “Are you ‘pro-life,’ ‘pro-choice’ or something in between,” you might (seemingly) get a pretty divided group. But what if you ask that same random sampling “Would you favor constructing a coherent social safety net that bolsters programs that help vulnerable pregnant women and have been proven to reduce abortion rates?"

This safety net would include helping young and/or poor pregnant women and mothers get good child care and good jobs, eliminating violence against pregnant women, reliably providing every vulnerable mother and child with health care, empowering every woman to make healthy sexual choices for themselves, and lessening the stigma of being a single mother. I think you’d get almost universal support for an effort like that. When you ask those that are in the trenches with pregnant women, from Planned Parenthood to pregnancy ministries, this is where the real work gets done.

I know there are private organizations all over the country, some faith-based and some secular, attempting to do things like this on a woman by woman basis. But these well-meaning groups simply don’t have the resources to deal with the millions of people these issues effect.

Interesting fact. The abortion rate has been falling for years. But the abortion rate actually fell more quickly under Clinton (the “pro-choice” president”) than it did under Bush (the “pro-life” president). Effectively reducing abortion is about creating an atmosphere in which women and children in vulnerable positions know that they are surrounded by people who will catch them when they fall. I’m not saying Clinton was good at doing that. But I have to concede that he didn’t try to limit health care for poor children the way Bush does. Apparently a few billion for SCHIP is too much for an administration that’s spent hundreds of billions on war.

The supposed tug of war over Roe v. Wade has made relatively little serious progress in either direction for decades. But it does provide the political theater Democrats and Republicans thrive on. Addressing real problems is scary for those that prefer empty posturing. You see, facing facts might require demanding something from the rich and making social security as much of a priority as national security.

If we really mobilized our resources to care for the weak and marginalized in our society (even if that means forcing the hand of the rich and powerful), the specific legalities of what doctors do in individual women’s wombs would seem like relatively minor details. This is particularly true when one considers the fact that making abortion illegal is a far cry from eliminating abortion (some have credibly argued it could even increase the number of abortions). These issues would be dwarfed by a whole social movement that fights against the sexual exploitation of women, tries to provide adequate health care for all, and strives to truly become a society where it’s safe to be a child.

Caring for the weak is a way for all of us to collectively choose life. Do we have the moral and spiritual strength to do it?

~Geoffrey Dobbins

Vice President, UCABJ

THANK YOU!

HAPPY FRIDAY!

UCABJ would like to send a very special thank you to each and every student, staff member and professional journalist that came out to support and participate in the UCABJ Career Panel Discussion on last night. For all of the journalism students that were present, we hope you've learned something and can take the advice and knowledge you gained yesterday evening with you wherever you go. Keep shining! To each professional journalist, thank you for reaching out to us and helping us continue to be successful. We need you! Thank you and we look forward to working with you in the future. To all journalism and English department staff members, thank you so much! We need you, too, and we hope we're making you all proud of us!

Now for everyone that missed it, shame on you! Just kidding...(no, truthfully, you should have been there!) Stay tuned for the official Career Panel Discussion recap complete with pictures and responses from some of our special guests from last night! Post your comments and responses. And keep listening out for THE SIREN.

UCABJ Executive Board
Make your voice heard!

Opinion and Analysis: The Ethics of Ashanti’s Question

“Senator Clinton, at a time when the world's two biggest examples of socialized medicine, Britain and Canada, are moving away from the system and the people who are in those countries on the lower economic rung, those systems hurt them most, why are you still insisting upon moving that system in here, particularly when it will hurt African American communities more than anybody else?”

Hillary Clinton’s remarks at the NABJ conference this August have been described by many as “evasive” and “defensive.” But, apart from whatever one's political feelings about Clinton are and even her attitude at the convention in general, was Kiara Ashanti’s question (quoted above) ethical and valid from a journalistic perspective?

The most important ethical responsibility for journalists is to honestly convey the truth to the our audience. To do this, reporters must distinguish between advocacy and reporting. We have to clearly label analysis and commentary and not misrepresent facts or context.

Kiara Ashanti failed to be honest with the audience and ended up imposing his values on others. How did he fail to meet the ethical standard?

For starters, Ashanti used unnecessarily inflammatory language. He referred to Clinton’s health care proposals as “socialized medicine,” knowing that more neutral terms could have easily been used.

A far more serious ethical breech was in the way Ashanti stated his own opinions as facts in the phrasing of the question. Whether or not Britain and Canada are “moving away” from their health care system is highly debatable and can’t ethically be treated as a forgone conclusion.

The assertion that Clinton’s health care proposals will hurt African American communities the most is even more heavily based in opinion. The proposals have not been put in place. One can predict what they believe will happen if they are implemented and who they might “hurt” in the future, but no one really knows for sure right now. And yet, Ashanti unethically stated his own predictions and conclusions about this as facts. This creates the false impression that Clinton is being defensive about the realities of the situation. This isn't true. It isn't a confrontation between Clinton and the truth, it's just a confrontation between Clinton and Ashanti's opinions.

Ashanti approached someone in a room full of African Americans and effectively asked her “Why do you want to hurt African Americans?” Who wouldn't be defensive? However one might feel about Clinton and her performance that day, we all have to admit it was accurate to call the question “rhetorical.” It wasn’t meant to be answered in the first place. It was really an attack on Clinton that was deceptively phrased as an interrogative.

Ashanti’s question could have easily been much more appropriate if he said something like “How do you answer critics who call your health care proposals ‘socialized medicine’ and predict that they will hurt African Americans more than other populations in this country?” Then, the question would properly be framing the opinions as the comments of “critics,” rather than as facts.

The audience would also have been better served by a question like this because it invites a clearer response from the subject. An attack forces her to defend herself; an honest question can elicit a response that provides information for the public. She could respond to a properly framed question by saying “They are wrong about my health care plan because it would… (fill in the blank).” Clinton could still have chosen to be evasive, but at least the journalist would have done his or her job to get honest information for the audience.

Ashanti's question reminded me of the sort of thing that is often asked on Comedy Central’s show, “The Colbert Report.” Colbert’s character prides himself on “nailing” guests by asking questions that others have difficultly answering and might make the guest look bad. The routine is funny because reporters shouldn't try to “nail” people and “beat” their subjects in a battle of wits so the reporter’s ideas look better. We should strive to draw meaningful information from subjects to better inform the public. Reporting really should be more interested in educating the public than in trying to be rhetorical.

~ Geoffrey Dobbins

You can view the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics at http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.

Geoffrey Dobbins is the Vice President of the UC Association of Black Journalists.