This is an archive, please visit for current posts.
PressThink: Ghost of Democracy in the Media Machine
Recent Entries
Like PressThink? More from the same pen:

Read about Jay Rosen's book, What Are Journalists For?

Excerpt from Chapter One of What Are Journalists For? "As Democracy Goes, So Goes the Press."

Essay in Columbia Journalism Review on the changing terms of authority in the press, brought on in part by the blog's individual--and interactive--style of journalism. It argues that, after Jayson Blair, authority is not the same at the New York Times, either.

"Web Users Open the Gates." My take on ten years of Internet journalism, at

Read: Q & As

Jay Rosen, interviewed about his work and ideas by journalist Richard Poynder

Achtung! Interview in German with a leading German newspaper about the future of newspapers and the Net.

Audio: Have a Listen

Listen to an audio interview with Jay Rosen conducted by journalist Christopher Lydon, October 2003. It's about the transformation of the journalism world by the Web.

Five years later, Chris Lydon interviews Jay Rosen again on "the transformation." (March 2008, 71 minutes.)

Interview with host Brooke Gladstone on NPR's "On the Media." (Dec. 2003) Listen here.

Presentation to the Berkman Center at Harvard University on open source journalism and NewAssignment.Net. Downloadable mp3, 70 minutes, with Q and A. Nov. 2006.

Video: Have A Look

Half hour video interview with Robert Mills of the American Microphone series. On blogging, journalism, NewAssignment.Net and distributed reporting.

Jay Rosen explains the Web's "ethic of the link" in this four-minute YouTube clip.

"The Web is people." Jay Rosen speaking on the origins of the World Wide Web. (2:38)

One hour video Q & A on why the press is "between business models" (June 2008)

Recommended by PressThink:

Town square for press critics, industry observers, and participants in the news machine: Romenesko, published by the Poynter Institute.

Town square for weblogs: InstaPundit from Glenn Reynolds, who is an original. Very busy. Very good. To the Right, but not in all things. A good place to find voices in diaolgue with each other and the news.

Town square for the online Left. The Daily Kos. Huge traffic. The comments section can be highly informative. One of the most successful communities on the Net.

Rants, links, blog news, and breaking wisdom from Jeff Jarvis, former editor, magazine launcher, TV critic, now a J-professor at CUNY. Always on top of new media things. Prolific, fast, frequently dead on, and a pal of mine.

Eschaton by Atrios (pen name of Duncan B;ack) is one of the most well established political weblogs, with big traffic and very active comment threads. Left-liberal.

Terry Teachout is a cultural critic coming from the Right at his weblog, About Last Night. Elegantly written and designed. Plus he has lots to say about art and culture today.

Dave Winer is the software wiz who wrote the program that created the modern weblog. He's also one of the best practicioners of the form. Scripting News is said to be the oldest living weblog. Read it over time and find out why it's one of the best.

If someone were to ask me, "what's the right way to do a weblog?" I would point them to Doc Searls, a tech writer and sage who has been doing it right for a long time.

Ed Cone writes one of the most useful weblogs by a journalist. He keeps track of the Internet's influence on politics, as well developments in his native North Carolina. Always on top of things.

Rebecca's Pocket by Rebecca Blood is a weblog by an exemplary practitioner of the form, who has also written some critically important essays on its history and development, and a handbook on how to blog.

Dan Gillmor used to be the tech columnist and blogger for the San Jose Mercury News. He now heads a center for citizen media. This is his blog about it.

A former senior editor at Pantheon, Tom Englehardt solicits and edits commentary pieces that he publishes in blog form at TomDispatches. High-quality political writing and cultural analysis.

Chris Nolan's Spot On is political writing at a high level from Nolan and her band of left-to-right contributors. Her notion of blogger as a "stand alone journalist" is a key concept; and Nolan is an exemplar of it.

Barista of Bloomfield Avenue is journalist Debbie Galant's nifty experiment in hyper-local blogging in several New Jersey towns. Hers is one to watch if there's to be a future for the weblog as news medium.

The Editor's Log, by John Robinson, is the only real life honest-to-goodness weblog by a newspaper's top editor. Robinson is the blogging boss of the Greensboro News-Record and he knows what he's doing.

Fishbowl DC is about the world of Washington journalism. Gossip, controversies, rituals, personalities-- and criticism. Good way to keep track of the press tribe in DC

PJ Net Today is written by Leonard Witt and colleagues. It's the weblog of the Public Journalisn Network (I am a founding member of that group) and it follows developments in citizen-centered journalism.

Here's Simon Waldman's blog. He's the Director of Digital Publishing for The Guardian in the UK, the world's most Web-savvy newspaper. What he says counts.

Novelist, columnist, NPR commentator, Iraq War vet, Colonel in the Army Reserve, with a PhD in literature. How many bloggers are there like that? One: Austin Bay.

Betsy Newmark's weblog she describes as "comments and Links from a history and civics teacher in Raleigh, NC." An intelligent and newsy guide to blogs on the Right side of the sphere. I go there to get links and comment, like the teacher said.

Rhetoric is language working to persuade. Professor Andrew Cline's Rhetorica shows what a good lens this is on politics and the press.

Davos Newbies is a "year-round Davos of the mind," written from London by Lance Knobel. He has a cosmopolitan sensibility and a sharp eye for things on the Web that are just... interesting. This is the hardest kind of weblog to do well. Knobel does it well.

Susan Crawford, a law professor, writes about democracy, technology, intellectual property and the law. She has an elegant weblog about those themes.

Kevin Roderick's LA Observed is everything a weblog about the local scene should be. And there's a lot to observe in Los Angeles.

Joe Gandelman's The Moderate Voice is by a political independent with an irrevant style and great journalistic instincts. A link-filled and consistently interesting group blog.

Ryan Sholin's Invisible Inkling is about the future of newspapers, online news and journalism education. He's the founder of and a self-taught Web developer and designer.

H20town by Lisa Williams is about the life and times of Watertown, Massachusetts, and it covers that town better than any local newspaper. Williams is funny, she has style, and she loves her town.

Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing at is a daily review of the best reporting and commentary on the presidency. Read it daily and you'll be extremely well informed.

Rebecca MacKinnon, former correspondent for CNN, has immersed herself in the world of new media and she's seen the light (great linker too.)

Micro Persuasion is Steve Rubel's weblog. It's about how blogs and participatory journalism are changing the business of persuasion. Rubel always has the latest study or article.

Susan Mernit's blog is "writing and news about digital media, ecommerce, social networks, blogs, search, online classifieds, publishing and pop culture from a consultant, writer, and sometime entrepeneur." Connected.

Group Blogs

CJR Daily is Columbia Journalism Review's weblog about the press and its problems, edited by Steve Lovelady, formerly of the Philadelpia Inquirer.

Lost Remote is a very newsy weblog about television and its future, founded by Cory Bergman, executive producer at KING-TV in Seattle. Truly on top of things, with many short posts a day that take an inside look at the industry.

Editors Weblog is from the World Editors Fourm, an international group of newspaper editors. It's about trends and challenges facing editors worldwide. keeps track of developments from the British side of the Atlantic. Very strong on online journalism.

Digests & Round-ups:

Memeorandum: Single best way I know of to keep track of both the news and the political blogosphere. Top news stories and posts that people are blogging about, automatically updated.

Daily Briefing: A categorized digest of press news from the Project on Excellence in Journalism.

Press Notes is a round-up of today's top press stories from the Society of Professional Journalists.

Richard Prince does a link-rich thrice-weekly digest called "Journalisms" (plural), sponsored by the Maynard Institute, which believes in pluralism in the press.

Newsblog is a daily digest from Online Journalism Review.

E-Media Tidbits from the Poynter Institute is group blog by some of the sharper writers about online journalism and publishing. A good way to keep up

Syndicate this site:

XML Summaries

XML Full Posts

August 12, 2004

Guest Critic Juan Gonzalez, Unity Board Member: Our 2008 Convention Must Go Beyond Journalists of Color

The New York Daily News Columnist, Unity principal, and former head of the NAHJ: "As our alliance has moved from the fringes to the center stage of American journalism, I believe we have a responsibility not only to advocate for more hiring and promotion of journalists of color but to press for raising the general standards of our industry and profession." His agenda for Unity: "head in a more inclusive direction."

Special to PressThink

By Juan Gonzalez
New York Daily News

August 12, 2004

Terry Heaton’s recent remarks and the various critical commentaries that have surfaced about last week’s UNITY convention have prompted me to offer some thoughts to my white colleagues in the industry.

No doubt, creating a diverse newsroom is easier said than done. Many well-intentioned efforts have foundered over the years. Real diversity is not, as Heaton notes, simply a matter of reaching some numerical goal for different color faces in a newsroom. Genuine diversity involves changing the culture of newsrooms, of all who populate them – whether they are men or women, straight or gay, white, black, Asian, Hispanic or Native American.

It is no accident that the most frequently failed standards in accreditation reviews of journalism education programs at universities have been for years those standards for diversity in faculty and curriculum. Our journalism schools are routinely producing graduates, white and non-white, who are poorly trained in the importance of ethnic, racial and gender diversity (Read the excellent study by University of Texas journalism professor Mercedes Lynn de Uriarte, “Diversity Disconnect.”). Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of white journalism graduates enter the industry and get promoted through management ranks, and then end up unconsciously implementing the abysmal diversity training they received in college.

That is precisely why the individual organizations of minority journalists like NABJ, NAHJ, AAJA and NAJA have arisen and grown during the past few decades. And that is why UNITY has developed into such a huge and powerful alliance within the industry. All of our organizations are a reaction to the industry’s past failures.

Sure, media executives and journalism foundations have expended lots of money, energy and effort toward integrating newsrooms. But much of that effort has been haphazard, poorly thought-out and misdirected. Moreover, the strategies were created and implemented by the very executives and managers who formerly presided over segregated newsrooms. That’s like asking a group of wife beaters to fashion a program to curb domestic violence. Maybe the analogy is a little extreme but the basic point is not. Any program aimed at eliminating the vestiges of racial and ethnic exclusion in American newsrooms will have a greater chance of success if it includes from its inception the ideas and thoughts of those who have been historically excluded.

The UNITY convention with its 8,200 registrants (and that is the final number) was the largest convention of journalists in U.S. history. It is no accident that such a large and historic gathering was organized by journalists of color instead of by the traditional organizations that have long dominated the industry – ASNE, NAA, RTNDA, SPJ, etc. Anyone who bothers to study the demographics of our nation will understand the enormous cultural and ethnic changes that are occurring. Already, nearly one-third of U.S. residents trace their ethnic origins to Africa, Asia and Latin America. By 2050, more than 50% of U.S. residents will be of non-European origin. Thus, the news media are merely reflecting broader social changes in our society.

That is not to say that UNITY is some exclusive club. It has always been open to participation by white journalists and executives, though I will be the first to admit there are significant numbers of members within each of the minority organizations who are not comfortable with inviting more white journalists, straight and gay, to attend our conventions. Those members, in my opinion, are wrong, and I have always told them.

As one of those who helped to found the UNITY concept, and as a board member of the alliance for the past two years, I have argued consistently for UNITY to head in a more inclusive direction. In other words, as our alliance has moved from the fringes to the center stage of American journalism, I believe we have a responsibility not only to advocate for more hiring and promotion of journalists of color but to press for raising the general standards of our industry and profession.

Many white journalists resent the fact that their non-white colleagues get to attend these conventions every year, often with the support of company management. All journalists deserve to get a few days out of every year for professional development and training, for exchanging viewpoints about best practices and ethical issues. But the failure of the industry to provide proper professional training to white journalists then turns into a source of friction and division within newsrooms.

More importantly, if white and non-white journalists have no opportunity to sit down together to discuss their views on coverage of race and ethnicity, we will never achieve a lasting change in newsroom culture. That’s why I believe the next UNITY, which is scheduled for 2008, must be far broader in its reach than just to journalists of color. That doesn’t mean, however, that minority journalists should suddenly discard a successful structure we have spent years building.

Rather, we should urge all the major professional associations in our industry ASNE, NAB, RTNDA, SPJ, IRE, etc. to schedule their 2008 conventions in the same city that UNITY designates for its next convention. That way all the journalists of our nation will have a chance to come together, exchange views and share some training. But to accomplish such a grandiose project, the traditional organizations in our industry will have to come to grips with demographic reality. They will have to accept that America is changing, and not just from a market standpoint. The news media are changing as well. And UNITY is a huge and growing part of our industry’s future.

After Matter: Notes, reaction and links…

Juan Gonzalez writes a column for the Daily News. He is Past President of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and a Member of the Board of Directors of UNITY 2004.

Gonzalez refers to this study by Mercedes Lynn de Uriarte with Cristina Bodinger-de Uriarte and José Luis Benavides, Diversity Disconnects: From Class Room to News Room (2003). Here is the key passage in that report:

For more than thirty years, U.S. newsrooms have grappled with these issues. Basically,there are two paths toward a diverse newsroom: one is that of integration—a conscious effort to include individuals drawn from different racial and ethnic populations regardless of their intellectual preparation and perspectives.The other is to draw across demographic population groups with a conscious effort to include diverse intellectual world views. It is the contention of this report that one cannot be achieved without the other. Populations long excluded from educational equity and full participation in social-economic institutions may see a different nation. But the nation reported in mainstream media remains virtually unchanged. Much of this results from the way in which familiar mainstream perspectives are credentialed as accurate—so that different minority perspectives,often labeled as “opinion,” become suspect. Thus, integration does not insure intellectual diversity because prevailing consensus determines newsworthiness.

Emphasis added.

Gonzalez vs. ASNE: Gonzalez writes: “Our journalism schools are routinely producing graduates, white and non-white, who are poorly trained in the importance of ethnic, racial and gender diversity.” The American Society of Newspaper Editors recently released a study of editors conducted by its Education for Journalism Committee, “An Editors’ Agenda for Journalism Education.” (Inexplicably, it’s not online.) One of the few bright spots in the report was this:

Today’s journalism education graduates understand the importance of diversity more than graduates did five-years ago.

Strongly Disagree: 1%
Mostly Disagree: 13%
Stongly Agree: 20%
Mostly Agree: 65%

PressThink (Aug. 8): “The Crowd’s Reaction Made Some Unity Delegates Uncomfortable.”

Last week’s convention of minority journalists was the largest ever— 7,000 strong. Kerry spoke: standing ovation. Bush spoke: no ovation. Traditionalists in the press said: unprofessional! Critics on the right cried foul. Unity, coalition of minority voices, didn’t know what to say. And group think appealed to all. Here’s my critique of that. Plus (scroll down) reactions from the press and the blogs.

PressThink (Aug. 9): Unity and the Ovation for John Kerry: Letters to the Debate, 1-3. Includes mine to Romenesko and two from journalists Linda Picone and Jeff Shaw.

PressThink (Aug. 10): Ernest Sotomayor, President of UNITY writes a guest column: The President of Unity Says Don’t Blame Us for the “Liberal Media” Charge.

PressThink (Aug. 11): Guest Critic: Former TV News Director Terry Heaton Says Diversity Falls Apart in the Workplace

Contra Costa Times editorial (Aug. 11): Bush against legacies.

The President wasn’t really expecting a grilling. But then again, what should he expect when facing an auditorium full of journalists? It was in such a setting when President Bush renounced the use of legacies in college admissions. It was a stunning statement considering legacy was the avenue that allowed Bush to get admitted into an Ivy-League school, Yale, which gives preferential treatment to applicants whose parents and grandparents are alumni.

Keith Woods at Poynter: “Look through the schedule of Unity 2004, and for every investigative reporting session that might help Latino journalists reach a new reporting plane, there was a session on covering Latinos that could help white journalists take coverage to a new high. For every ‘What it Takes to be a Publisher’ session that lifted the aspirations of Asian or Native American journalists, there was a ‘Covering Changing Communities’ workshop that might have helped white journalists do the kind of work that these organizations so want to see done in their local newspapers and television stations.”

Chris Boese, blogger, writer and researcher for CNN, in comments here:

In newsroom cultures, this attitude is indoctrinated by the traditional “old salts,” by a hard news bias that focuses on concentric circles around centers of power (rich white men in suits) and blindly fails to see that which does not occur in those centers of power (unless it involves a missing girl or woman, or someone bitten by a shark).

I am criticizing the indoctrinated methods with which the traditional news pegs are interpreted— literally how we define what is news.

People in different minority groups in newsrooms, in order to move up the ranks, in order to write in the monolithic depersonalized “newsroom voice,” basically must learn to “write white.”

Regardless of how diverse the newsroom may be, the value judgments made in traditional newsroom fashion (often dictated by copyeditors in authoritarian, right/wrong terms that deadlines often force people to adopt), lead newsrooms unconsciously to homogenize around news values that give white male suits more credibility and power and thus higher rank on the scale of news criteria…

“What’s really being asserted by some is that these journalists of color can’t cut it.”

Here is the text of a letter to USA Today (Aug. 13) from Bryan Monroe, Vice President of the National Association of Black Journalists:

The entire debate over whether or not the journalists and other attendees at last week’s UNITY convention appropriately expressed themselves during the Kerry and Bush speeches may be masking a deeper issue. Some have argued that the clapping or laughing was unprofessional and “beneath” the canons of ethical journalism.

But I submit that what’s really being asserted by some is that these journalists of color can’t cut it. “See, they don’t act like us, subscribe to our values, play by our rules, so they must not be qualified for full admission into our club.”

That assertion is flat wrong.

I don’t remember reading similar criticism when the crowd of mostly white editors and publishers gave the same president a standing ovation and a toast at the ASNE/NAA convention a few months ago in D.C. And did I miss the stories about mainly white audiences of journalists laughing and carousing during any number of White House correspondents’ dinners?

As a UNITY board member and vice president of NABJ, I was in the room for both speeches last week. I rose to my feet and applauded when both men entered the room and departed. I laughed at the funny lines, and rolled my eyes at the more ridiculous ones (“You can’t read a newspaper if you can’t read…” “Tribal sovereignty means that, it’s … sovereign.” Q: Do you support affirmative action? A: “I support colleges affirmatively taking action to get more minorities in their school.”)

I responded first as a citizen, then as a citizen employed as a journalist. I was not working as a journalist that day, so I felt no obligation to stoically sit there and simply take notes.

Some argue that, as journalists, we’re always on the clock and therefore need to check our thoughts at the door. I think that’s a bit of a stretch.

What do you say to the sports reporters in the room, who rarely cover politics? Should they sit on their hands and never crack a smile during a presidential speech? Or, better yet, what do you say to a city hall reporter who attends a baseball game with his family? Should he not cheer when the home team scores a run or boo when the opposing pitcher throws a beanball at the batter?


Journalists are also human beings, mothers and fathers, Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Should we maintain an appearance of impartiality when working? Absolutely. Do we need to impose that on the rest of our lives? Perhaps not.

I think it’s been that extreme philosophy of detachment from the real world that has made our journalism so irrelevant to most “regular” people and branded us as disconnected, clueless elites.


Bryan Monroe
Vice President-Print, National Association of Black Journalists
Board member, UNITY: Journalists of Color Inc.

Posted by Jay Rosen at August 12, 2004 12:34 PM   Print


Jay ...

Keith Woods of Poynter has a column written in a similar vein that calls a broadening of Unity to include the gay and lesbian journalist association, thus far officially excluded as a Unity partner, as well as predominantly white journalism organizations.

Writes Woods:

"The challenge now is to take the great risk of leading American journalism into the full realization of diversity. Open the doors. Let everyone in. Show this country what it really means to call something unity."

He offers one reason, albeit unsubstantiated, why Unity's reluctance to include more organizations as partners might involve more than simply principle -- money.

He writes:

"here's more to this, I know. The annual convention fills the coffers of the four Unity organizations and makes other things possible, so opening Unity up to even more groups could make it less profitable for some."


Posted by: Tim Porter at August 12, 2004 1:47 PM | Permalink

Money's an issue from another angle as well: Given how poorly newspapers generally pay, only the wealthy, or those who come from wealth, will be able to afford to pursue newspapers as a career. That's a diversity issue as well.

Posted by: Lex at August 12, 2004 2:41 PM | Permalink

The race card has been played in spades. Hold 'em or fold 'em.

Posted by: paladin at August 12, 2004 3:09 PM | Permalink

Can somebody point me to examples of Gays and Lesbians NOT GETTING EXTREMELY skewed-towards-favorable coverage?? I've been studying this for some time, and I haven't found any.

Or is this facetious?

I'm REAL curious about this, and noticed the hypocricy in one-a Jay Rosen's earlier posts. Because it's starting to smell like Argentinian Ants in Australia around here.

Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 12, 2004 6:48 PM | Permalink

Btw, Dr. Rosen.. (or Jay.. WHATEVER YOU wanna be called...;-)

"Today's journalism education graduates understand the importance of diversity more than graduates did five-years ago."

It would appear that working reporters have some pretty funny meme's about what the actual definition of 'diversity' even is.

You'd think more lessons in English would be the remedy, as well as a few in ETHICS.

Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 12, 2004 6:53 PM | Permalink

Perhaps I was un-clear, (or perhaps the meme that a blog is a place to get answers to questions is just blogging facetious...;-)...?

That's a wind-bag way of saying I'd think this would be pretty easy to drum up, but mebbe harder than I thought:

Can somebody point me to examples of Gays and Lesbians NOT GETTING EXTREMELY skewed-towards-favorable coverage?? I've been studying this for some time, and I haven't found any.

I'll settle for even one example, although I was meaning "any" literally, as in none.

Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 12, 2004 7:57 PM | Permalink

"Ain't.. This.. Sumpin"... (Story 'bout that one, but that's not for now.)

Well, you mother bloggers really are special.

But sometimes not...;-D

This wondrous The Net is supposed to be the way all questions will be answered SO exactly with SUCH immediacy. Well, call me Goober because I'm hearin' Gomer say Su-prise, su-prize, su-PRIZE...!". I'm sum-what surprised that more people haven't noticed.

There were two pieces of news-factoids on Gay Marriage yesterday, perhaps coincidently perhaps not, so you'd-a thunk fair press on the issue of Gay (cough) "Civil Rights" would be laying around to be picked up like wisdom on blogs.

Well, maybe it is.

I put "Civil Rights" in quotes, because imv the very PHRASEOLOGY is demeaning to all Blacks (all reasoning people, actually) who know even a little history of the struggle.

The thousands of lynchings, the burning of Churches (which, is my understanding, is still going on today), the back of the bus, the separate drinking fountains, keeping Blacks outta school.

I've not seen that, much a-TALL, in all this about Gay and Lesbian (and that's an oxymoron, a not-too-subtle-hypocricy, right there) "Civil Rights". Seen some, but not ANYTHING like the struggle the Blacks went through. And that'd be because there is, basically, NO similarity between the oppression of Gays and the oppression of Blacks.

I mean, other than Gays who smoke. In that respect, we've both been gettoized but that's PC "equality".

The sad fact in all this is that the Tech Press is so, So, SO, SO, SOOOOOO much WORSE than this here The Press. And my hypothesis is that these guys and gals have been on blogs for almost a decade now.

I hope some of you, inside The Press and outside The Press, give some thought to that sad fact. Let this one sink in a little bit, and consider how much Technology Press effects EVERYONE's life day-in-and-day-out... (And, I s'pose, bloggers could (in theory) give some thought to the subject(s) as well...)-;


To bring this full-circle, I "heard" on a blog (so it's just blogger, ie, rumor) that The Press applauded the phraseology of the NJ Govenor's speech, when he (cough) showed SUCH "courage" and said he was gay.

Corn-fusion abounds, watch bloggers confound.

Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 13, 2004 8:40 AM | Permalink

Do you talk to yourself incessantly at home, too? Or do you save that for the blogosphere?
And what would "appropriately" unfavorable coverage of gays and lesbians be? Perhaps "Stop sinners!" or "Let's go get'em!"? You seem to think bigots are underrepresented in mainstream media outlets. Why doesn't this newspaper have any bigots working for it? This diversity talk is hogwash. No bigots!

Tip to the wise: Listen to Rush Limbaugh, Neil Bortz, Michael Savage. Read Murdoch papers: they've got you covered.
If you don't know anything about anti-gay and lesbian prejudice than you should shut your mouth on the subject. Your ignorance does not make it so.

p.s. You're "liberal lobotomy" links are dead.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 13, 2004 9:56 AM | Permalink

I just read Juan Gonzalez' column and I applaud his idea for all the major jounralistic organizations to schedule their conventions to run concurrent with Unity. I was one of the 8,200 who attended last week's event. I haven't been so inspired in years.
In any case, I think our white, non-Hispanic colleagues (because there were white Hispanic journalist at Unity, you know) should make a point of attending an event sonsored by AAJA, NABJ, NAHJ or NAJA. They really need to experience journalism on someone else's terms.
I'm sure it would be educational, and it would enrich their reporting.

Posted by: Afi-Odelia Scruggs at August 13, 2004 10:51 AM | Permalink

Anybody posing as Ben Franklin identifies their intelligence, no matter what their IQ is.

Point is, to you memer's who still have (almost) no understanding of your (almost) craft:

If you start with a left-of-center pov and a out-in-left-field libber pov, and then reach 'the middle ground' and call it 'center' and 'moderate'..

..Well, you're pov will end up out in left field, no matter how centered you call it. (Or 'Libertarian' or whatever marketing-stupidity you wanna market this 'new Centrist pov' as.)

If you note, pseudo-friend-of-Americans-and-America, there was 12 hours in between my writings. If you call that talking incessently, you are as deluded as usual.

Ah yes, I see you are.


So a view that sex between a man and a woman is NOT the same as sex between 2 women (or 2 men, or any combination(s) thereof)..

..that would be, by fiat, a bigotted statement...?

Is that the crux of your argument, illogical-one...??

Well, as soon as you admit they are NOT the same, the one might be presumed to be better than the other. That'd be the rub. One is. Just not ALways, in each and every case, of course.

And the view that sex between a black man and a white woman, or a black woman and a white man, or any combination there of..

..the view that this is THE SAME as sex between 2 or more women (etc. etc.. okay?)....

Are you saying that is not prejudiced, right there, pseudo-Ben...??

The euphimism of 'same-sex marriage' carries this same baggage, btw. "IZ ALL ABOUT THE SAMENESS, DUDE!!!" Yeah, right... So I think you want me to shut my mouth because I'm right and you aren't. Just curious, how old are you, pseudo-Ben?? (not that I'd EXPECT an honest answer, but just thought I'd ask.. and your name??)...

There are no links. It's an article I could write except for 3 things:

1) "Sufficient" credentials
2) PC
3) I ain't doin a top-quality job for free


And I may not know a whole lot about prejudice against Gays, but I've seen some, on account of the fact that I don't practice that prejudice myself.

Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 13, 2004 11:12 AM | Permalink

"I applaud his idea for all the major jounralistic (sic) organizations to schedule their conventions to run concurrent with Unity."

Yeah, and I guess the Sun should start circling the Moon, and that'd be practical, right?

Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 13, 2004 11:14 AM | Permalink

It all just goes to show that there is still no critical shortage of asinine ideas.

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at August 13, 2004 11:32 AM | Permalink

Not entirely, but partially a question of unlimited supply and wholly insufficient demand for ideas that don't come from blogs.

Stay away from Tech Press, 'cause it's just piled higher and deeper, the inanities... Pigs literally fly and make (the few) billions, so gives appearance of "it's all good" (tm) (sheesh...;-).

If you let the glitter of Segway's blind ya, then a li'l goodness and a whole HEAP-a crap *EQ "it's all good".


Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 13, 2004 11:40 AM | Permalink

And, as I've written before (approx) it's pretty cruel and unusual punishment to use The Net, The Blog, and The Press and ESPECIALLY The Tech Press (to use all those terms loosely).. To show people around the globe, some of whom are shooting their work-animals to get food, all this glitz and glamour...

Bin Laden IS an 'American' in training and abilities and his crew sees all this crap, is my point.

Yeah, "it's all good" (tm) sure feels good.. it feels "right".. for a time.

So al Sadr isn't entirely wrong when he says:

"We got a letter from him saying 'Be steadfast and behave rationally, don't surrender to your emotions,'" Aws al-Khafaji, from al-Sadr's office in the southern town of Nasiriyah, told Al-Jazeera television.

But Muqtanda is yet corn-fused, still:

He called on Iraqis to rebel "because I will not allow another Saddam-like government again."

He appears to be confused about who it was that got rid of Saddam for.. not him.. but ALL of the Iraqi People. And he is as confused as the Press about the difference between a 'militant' and a terrorist and those who associate with terrorists.

But if al Sadr can catch even a whiff of wisdom, then why not the world Press, and especially the world's TECH pseudo-Press...?!? I ask this, non-rhetorically!!!

Come-ta think of it, I don't see any further need to define "Libertarian Lobotomy", and the effects on the Press and the Tech Press and THAT effect on the Tech sector of the economy.

Just did, if you observe with even a little scrutiny.

Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 13, 2004 11:55 AM | Permalink

Only the team on the field has a chance to win the game. SPJ is the only truly professional journalism society, concerned only with things journalism and not with matters ethnic or sexual. To make a difference, minority journalists should flock to SPJ and work from inside.

Posted by: Douglas Perret Starr at August 13, 2004 11:58 AM | Permalink

Ooops... Forgot m'self: And, written in blog-format, just a pile of factoids surrounding a headline and some content surrounding the headline:

This one is actually better than most Press-bloglike-articles I've been reading of late.

Outta here, for now.

Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 13, 2004 12:06 PM | Permalink

I "lied". My Dad, as I'm sure I've written, was active in OSU SPJ (as Professor Emeritus, right up until 3 months before he died at 81). Having said that, and not knowing much about it (Dad being a WWII-Dad), I tend to agree.

Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 13, 2004 12:10 PM | Permalink

Why did no one insist that Bush explain his comment "I support colleges affirmatively taking action to get more minorities in their school."? He should have been pinned down to explain whether he was supporting affirmative action in the legal sense as approved by the Supreme Court last year or merely suggesting that colleges should pursue policies to attract minorities.

Posted by: Patrick Mattimore at August 13, 2004 12:16 PM | Permalink

James Jay Pseudo-Limbaugh,
Let me spell it out for you: When you start out waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out on the right, then bitch about everything under the sun that contradicts right-wing dogma, you end up even more faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar right.

For some reason you think it important to argue that a menage a trois, interracial sex, and same-sex sex are different things and need to be rank-ordered. Why would anyone want to do that? Care to share?

I hate to have to break it to you, but comparative prejudice is not a logical consequence of the ability to distinguish these three things. Got it?

Your inclination to put inter-racial sex into the series is creepy.

I'm glad to hear you're not prejudiced against gays and lesbians. I believe you. So how exactly does that fit with your disappointment at what you perceive to be a lack of public censure of same-sex relations in the media?

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 13, 2004 1:15 PM | Permalink

By the way, I liked the article, too. What is so special about it in your mind? They even managed to quote Sadr correctly that "The occupation is making Iraq a living hell." That is good journalism.
During the Cold War, journalists were scrupulous enough to record Pravda propaganda accurately enough you could imagine what our enemies were actually thinking. It took the working press over two years to manage that with the Bush wars.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 13, 2004 1:21 PM | Permalink

"The occupation is making Iraq a living hell."

That would be as opposed to the dead hell of Iraq in years past, right?

Say what you will about the occupation, most people in Iraq have struck it rich in the lands of luck in the last year.

We could hire them out as lucky charms in Vegas.

Posted by: Van der Leun at August 13, 2004 2:20 PM | Permalink

Ben, really, Sadr carries that much credibility with you?

Isn't that a renewal of the Castro/'Che' Guevara worship from the Left?

It seems odd that the secular Left would now rally behind an avowed theocrat simply because their anti-Americanism is so strong under a Republican president.

But then, considering Clinton rallied to the KLA, maybe there's more to it.

Posted by: Tim at August 13, 2004 2:35 PM | Permalink

When we're done kicking the Unity horse ...

Judith Miller Of the NY Times Subpoenaed in Plame Investigation

The Novak Exception--III: "Isn't it amazing what a raft of federal subpoenas will do to concentrate the media mind?"

Posted by: Tim at August 13, 2004 3:03 PM | Permalink

I spoke too soon about al Sadr:

"If all multinational forces, Iraqi police and soldiers leave Najaf and the Marjayia agrees to take responsibility for the city, "the Mehdi Army would pull out from Najaf", Sumeisim said, while stressing they refused to disarm."

Yeah, now I see where the "allegedly" murderous scum is coming from, clearly. This entire "insurrection" began when there was an attempt to serve an arrest warrant.

He wants the Iraqi police outta there, which is why his forces have been targetting the police.

And I sort-a figured as much, but I was willing to sacrifice principle for practicality, if he had been willing to disarm his 'militants'. Looked like he might go in that direction, but instead has decided to just try to save his own neck, and sacrifice his troops at the altar of his own self.

And the press, scum that they are, don't even recognize the oxymoron, either:

"the holy Imam Ali shrine, a Mehdi Army bastion since its spring uprising..."

An 'uprising' is when somebody is oppressed, not when they are served a murder warrant, iirc. And if you check articles yesterday or the day before, you'll see a quote by an aide of al Sadr (approx) "accusing the U.S. of crimes against humanity". Now, I didn't check but I may be correct but it doesn't matter:

I believe, but icbw, this very same aide (or another) also announced that al Sadr was TAKING NO PRISONERS. ANY IRAQI's CAUGHT WOULD BE KILLED.

I do NOT recollect the Red Cross jumping in like they normally do, to cry foul, btw. Odd, that...

So I was wrong about al Sadr, just as some no small number of Iraqi.


Pseudo-Ben, do you want me to correct your errors, really??

Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 13, 2004 3:32 PM | Permalink

I'm going to do something different so far here - comment related to the thread.

This is one of the few cases where I see an argument for what might be considered racial discrimination. Specifically, a member of, for example, a poor black community may be the best person to report on that community, and it might thus be appropriate to hire a member of that community.

Note how this differs from ordinary diversity (or affirmative action or quotas which is what it always comes down to). The person is being hired for unique qualifications that make them appropriate for the job. This is similar to Hollywood asking for a Native American as a character in a western. It is discrimination based on qualifications.

The ordinary diversity approach would be to just hire a black person - who most likely grew up middle class in a suburb. The myth of the "black experience" somehow equates this person to someone from a poor black community. While there are some commonalities (experience with bigots, for example), there are more differences.

Sticking people on those beats just because of their color or ethnicity or whatever would be unfair. Beyond those minorities who are hired for a particular beat, and understand it as such, the rest should be treated as anybody else. All are humans with their own views and experiences, not tokens, not proof of diversity, not members of quotas (which is demeaning to them), but people who earned the job just like any non-minority (note: there are fewer non-minority individuals in the US than minority individuals, so maybe a better term is needed).

[not being a journalist, I have no idea if "a beat" is proper terminology... but you know what I mean]

Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools blog) at August 13, 2004 4:24 PM | Permalink

Sheesh on me...)-;

I wasn't trying to be UN-subtle, but goofed it. (I sometimes forget the /. And then don't preview, to boot.)-;

Posted by: JamesJayTrouble at August 13, 2004 5:27 PM | Permalink

You don't have to like Sadr to agree that invasion without a plan or allies or legitimacy has made Iraq a living hell. Yes, it was a dead hell before, and it's a living hell now. That's the whole point. Who wants to live in hell? This "plan" is not liberating anyone.
The Shiites hated Saddam. Since we have lobotomized away our first seventy reasons for invading and don't really care about terrorism there, if we're all about liberation in Iraq, shouldn't we at least be on the same side as the people Saddam persecuted? Show me the liberation!
To rephrase JJT more accurately, the current plan is like invading a Catholic country so we can liberate them into being puppet Protestants as long as the foreign army stays around on their fourteen brand new bases. Great plan. Hail freedom.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 14, 2004 2:01 AM | Permalink

I would love to see you try to "correct my errors." You would first have to find a fact that was on your side. Your posts to date don't suggest there's any imminent danger of that happening. The law and order argument in occupied Iraq is a sham. Hail the legitimacy and justice of the Iyyad Allawi regime and the US occupation force that backs him up!
Please find an argument that relates to forces outside the hermetically sealed mind of PNAC and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. It is not patriotic to back up the president when he throws our troops into a disaster. Patriotism screams for removal of the president and construction of an alliance that would require SHARING the colonial spoils. Victor's rights and war-profiteering are the only reason we've been given so far for why the US has to take on this madness alone.

The only other point you've managed to make in garbled fashion so far is that Bush's dangerously confused excuse for a "plan" has the smell of America about it.
I'm afraid pleading patriotism will not be sufficient to redeem Bush's disastrous failure of leadership and catastrophic policies in the blogosphere or more importantly IN THE REAL WORLD.
It is in fact the blogosphere where this psychosis is strongest. You should be pleased to be among your mislead compatriots on the net and stop complaining about them.
Make my day--go ahead and "correct my errors."

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 14, 2004 4:01 AM | Permalink

Dear Ben,

You don't have to like Sadr to agree that invasion without a plan or allies or legitimacy has made Iraq a living hell.

Sadr is making Iraq a living hell. The irony of your agreement with him is rather distasteful, and typical of the ABB-hate-lobotomized Left. The organized remnants of the Fayadeen and IIS are making Iraq a living hell. The remnants of Ansar al-Islam and other imported terrorists are making Iraq a living hell.

The UN was bombed in Baghdad due to their own negligence and fled. Was that the legitimacy you find missing? The same UN that has stepped aside and watched genocide in Europe and Africa?

No doubt that our "allies" France and Germany have been less than allies, adhering to their pro-Saddam policies they displayed in 1998. No doubt that Britain, Italy, Australia, Poland, ..., have been faithful allies. No doubt Spain and Phillipines have been fair weather allies.

Yes, it was a dead hell before, and it's a living hell now. That's the whole point. Who wants to live in hell? This "plan" is not liberating anyone.

One might argue it has liberated too many. It liberated the theocrats and Iran is engaging in a proxy war during the democratic transition. It liberated criminals and dissenters, with all the difficulties of a burgeoning government to detain the former and encourage/tolerate the latter. It has liberated the tribal leaders to renew tribal power struggles.

The graybeards before the war predicted a descent into chaos, anarchy, civil war, millions of refugees and 100,000s dead from war ravages of disease and destroyed infrastructure.

There was a plan, we have allies, and we have a great deal of legitimacy (of course, a Lefty might ask a Czech or Pole or Afghani about legitimate invasions).

The Shiites hated Saddam. Since we have lobotomized away our first seventy reasons for invading and don't really care about terrorism there, if we're all about liberation in Iraq, shouldn't we at least be on the same side as the people Saddam persecuted? Show me the liberation!

We are. We are not on Sadr's side. Which side are you on?

To rephrase JJT more accurately, the current plan is like invading a Catholic country so we can liberate them into being puppet Protestants as long as the foreign army stays around on their fourteen brand new bases. Great plan. Hail freedom.

Again, like we have where? Germany? Japan? Korea? Phillipines? ...?

You are demonstrating rather well the self-lobotimization of the Left that has blurred its vision to see total failure where success has been limited and rant in apocalyptic terms when thoughtful determination is required.

Posted by: Tim at August 16, 2004 1:03 PM | Permalink

If Russia invaded us and we fought them
here on our soil would that mean that you and I were making the U.S. a living hell? This is dumber than dumb, effectively a lobotomization of the right.
The doubts are right where you say they aren't.
The French wanted their oil contracts. Bush wanted to be able to give their contracts to his friends. Therefore we didn't have allies. It's that simple. Saddam had NOTHING to do with that.
You are right that our invasion has opened Iraqi borders to terrorists. It has also liberated 20,000 Iraqis from their souls. It case you hadn't noticed, that's not a positive and it is a failure of Bush's avowed purpose of REDUCING terrorism by invading them. What will it take for you to get a SIMPLE point like this into your badly addled brain?
You apparently have no idea what we are doing or where we are doing it or how we are doing it.
You answer your own question! We still have bases in Japan and Germany fifty years later!
Is that part of liberation and democracy?
You have ceased to make sense and have descended into Republican *&^%*&%

You Republicans are like battered wives that want their husband to keep lying because its more embarassing to admit the truth than to keep getting beaten.

Your grasp on the world and history is so fundamentally broken that it is impossible to even talk to you. You do not live in my world. You do not even live in your world. My condolences.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 16, 2004 2:35 PM | Permalink

You're right Ben. Anyone can see the linear reasoning and tempered logic in your above post. Tell me, were you pounding the keys?

Posted by: Tim at August 16, 2004 3:01 PM | Permalink

Yes I was. This country is rapidly approaching a state of civil war. If Jeb steals Florida again this year without a paper trail expect to see armed Democrats out in the streets. The one party state will be dodging pacifist Democratic bullets as we take back the country from the military dictatorship you worship.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at August 17, 2004 1:16 AM | Permalink

From the Intro