I'm really surprised something about this wasn't posted here:
The Cheer Heard Around the World
Posted by David Postman at 11:20 AM
Comments from Times Executive Editor Dave Boardman about staffers cheering news of Karl Rove's departure has become a major topic of discussion among journalists and political commentators from the left and right.
I initially wrote that it was only two people who cheered. But now it sounds like it was likely a few more than that, though not many. One of those people was an opinion writer who I suppose can cheer in the paper so maybe no one should be
RUSH: I would like to introduce you all to Karl Rove. Karl, welcome to the EIB Network. I cannot tell you how great it is finally to have you here with us.
KARL ROVE: Well, thanks, Rush. I'm honored you'd ask me and delighted to be with you.
RUSH: You haven't probably heard about this, although it won't surprise you, but I've gotta tell you something. It's a hilarious story. The editor of The Seattle Times was conducting a staff meeting when they learned of your resignation announcement, and everybody stood up and started cheering, and
KARL ROVE: Ha-ha-ha-ha! Was my wife there?
RUSH: (Laughing.)
KARL ROVE: Was my wife in that crowd?
RUSH: (Laughing.) And the editor said — this is what's funny. The editor said no politics in the newsroom. You've gotta keep this stuff to yourself. We've gotta remember there's a political year coming up. No politics in the newsroom!
At MSNBC, Joe Scarborough used The Times brouhaha to talk about booing he heard in the MSNBC newsroom during a State of the Union Address by President Bush.
And at the Stranger, news editor Josh Feit continues to show his opinions far outpace his reporting. Feit wrote yesterday about a follow-up note from Boardman. Feit wrote:
You can read the whole thing at Editor & Publisher, but there's one line in particular I found curious — especially given The Seattle Times claim on objectivity.
There's no claim on objectivity. And if Feit had read the Boardman note he quotes from he would have found this:
It's not about "balance," which is a false construct. It isn't even about "objectivity," which is a laudable but probably unattainable goal. It is about independent thinking and sound, facts-based journalism — the difference between what we do and the myopic screed that is passed off as "advocacy" journalism these days.
Feit calls the Stranger a partisan paper and says it is all but impossible for him to talk to Republicans. He does his reporting by only talking to Democrats. That's fine, but he should quit propping up this straw man of objectivity. He also should do some reporting before he gets up on his high horse. Boardman wrote this:
If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections.
Feit says:
Boardman is relying on some pretty out-of-date stereotypes.
He is actually relying on the most recent data. Studies after the 2004 presidential election showed what previous studies have as well: Reporters tend to vote Democratic.
Among all American adults, 33% say they are Democrats, 32% claim to be Republicans, and 22% say they are politically independent. 33% of journalists also claim to be Democrats; however, only 10% say they are Republicans and half say they are independent. Interestingly, 18% of Americans describe themselves as liberal and 18% of journalists say they are politically liberal. But while only 10% of journalists say they are conservative, 34% of Americans say they are conservative. 53% of journalists say they are politically moderate, while 40% of Americans describe themselves that way.
Finally, 68% of journalists say they voted for John Kerry in 2004, while only 25% voted for George W. Bush. Only 1% say they voted for Nader, and 5% say they did not vote.
A New York Times reporter did an informal survey of colleagues at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic.
Here's what I like best from all the words written about those who cheered the Rove news. It's from CBS's PublicEye blog.
Face it: News reporters are not shruggers. They are committed, interested and invested in the events that surround them. They're not cyborgs, they're human — with sympathies lying in different directions. I'm uncomfortable with the political donations — regardless of where it goes — and with the applause in the Seattle Times newsroom. But what I'm more uncomfortable with is the fact that we're losing sight of the fact that reporters are people, imbued with the same angels and devils that we all are. And it's worth remembering that every once in awhile.
Share: Digg Newsvine
Post/read Comments (25) »
August 15, 2007
Why reporters shouldn't cheer
Posted by David Postman at 08:03 AM
I wrote yesterday about a couple of Times staffers who cheered in the news meeting when it was announced that Karl Rove was resigning. Times editor Dave Boardman was unhappy with the outburst and wrote a note to the staff reminding them to keep their political views to themselves.
At The Stranger, editor Dan Savage says Boardman has it all wrong.
Well, gee. Maybe the reporters cheered because they, of all people, are in the best position to recognize Rove's departure as a positive development for the nation — and for the ideal that all journalists everywhere honor the most: the truth.
In fact, Savage writes:
Any reporter that didn't cheer Rove's departure shouldn't be a reporter.
Savage has it wrong on several fronts. First, does he really think that Rove leaving in the final throes of the Bush administration is really some "positive development for the nation"? He's not that naive.
But more importantly, reporters should not be cheering. I have zero doubt about that. When you become cheerleaders for the Democrats, as an example, you will soon find yourself only talking to people who agree with you. That's something The Stranger knows well.
Last month I talked to the Republicans in the congressional delegation about where they stood on the Iraq war. That prompted this from Stranger news editor Josh Feit:
p.s. Good on Postman. I know you're all gonna holler about how the GOP frames the debate, but seriously, I don't think reporters talk to Republicans enough. I try to as often as I can, which is difficult at a partisan paper like The Stranger.
Also: There is some interest in who the guest was in the news meeting where the cheering took place. A Republican operative maybe, sent to give us our marching orders and to make sure no one smiled at the news of Rove's departure? No, it was a job candidate.
Share: Digg Newsvine
Post/read Comments (28) »
August 14, 2007
A newsroom reprimand at The Times
Posted by David Postman at 03:26 PM
Seattle Times Executive Editor Dave Boardman wrote today in one of his morning notes to staff that there had been "an awkward moment at yesterday's news meeting." That's the meeting where editors and other staff from throughout the newsroom talk about the stories planned for the next day's paper. Boardman wrote in "Dave's Raves (and the occasional rant)"
When word came in of Karl Rove's resignation, several people in the meeting started cheering. That sort of expression is simply not appropriate for a newsroom.
It sounds like a conservative's parody of how a news meeting would be run. I wasn't there, but I've talked to several people who were. It was only a couple of people who cheered and they, thankfully, are not among the people who get a say in news play. But obviously news staff shouldn't be cheering or jeering the day's news, particularly as Boardman points out, "when we have an outside guest in the room."
Jokes get made in newsrooms, of course — even what you would call gallows humor. And Boardman wrote that he was "all for equal-opportunity joking at both parties' expense." But he was clearly ticked off by yesterday's display.
As we head into a major political year, now's a good time to remember: Please keep your personal politics to yourself.
Share: Digg Newsvine
Post/read Comments (105) »
blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com
blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lessons in newsroom decorum
By Nicole Brodeur
Seattle Times staff columnist
Related
* David Postman's blog
* Nicole Brodeur's columns via RSS
That was me.
I was one of the people who cheered in The Seattle Times news meeting Monday when it was announced that presidential adviser Karl Rove had resigned.
The reaction to this bit of national news made national news, kicking off a Web-based debate about whether journalists should bring their personal views to the office. In the beginning, the Times' own David Postman and The Stranger's blog weighed in. By Thursday, The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz was calling the episode an "embarrassment." Rove himself laughed about it on Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
Times Executive Editor David Boardman was dismayed at our outburst.
In an internal memo to the newsroom, he wrote, "A good newsroom is a sacred and magical place in which we can and should test every assumption, challenge each other's thinking, ask the fundamental questions those in power hope we will overlook.
"... It is about independent thinking and sound, facts-based journalism," he continued, "the difference between what we do and the myopic screed that is passed off as 'advocacy journalism' these days."
Not buying that? I can't blame you. The hallowed halls of journalism that I was privileged to enter more than 20 years ago are looking more and more like the New York subway. The walls covered in bloggers' scrawl, the platform crowded with any yahoo with a camera and an open mike. All are headed to your computer screen or television for the 15 seconds you'll give them before moving on to the next hot spot.
That's not how we do things at this newspaper.
Here, every morning, some 20 smart, educated, well-read and diverse people gather around a table and talk. We offer opinions on how stories were approached, written and presented. We say what worked, what didn't, and how we can do it better next time.
In doing all that, we share a part of ourselves as taxpayers, parents, consumers and members of the community. I saw something. I know someone. I heard. I read. I remember.
In the course of 30 minutes, those ideas and plans are distilled into the news of the day.
I wasn't admonished on Monday; as a columnist, people expect me to have opinions.
advertising
I cheered in that meeting because I think Karl Rove is a dangerous man who has done enough whispering in President Bush's ear.
We are at war. Some $37 billion in federal funds have been spent just for the "reconstruction" of Iraq, even though a majority of Americans want their sons, daughters, spouses and tax dollars out. Bush's resolve proves we're screaming into the wind.
So you bet I cheered at that meeting. I cheered because I thought I could.
But I shouldn't have. It lacked consideration for other people in the room who may have other views about Karl Rove and George Bush, and held their tongues. It also flew in the face of the standard of objectivity that we as journalists try to uphold every day. Worse, it validates every fear people have about the media.
All these years, and I'm still learning.
And still passionate. I just need to choose my spots.
seattletimes.nwsource.com |
