Five stars for SHOESTRING REPORTER

Joel Thurtell’s new book, Shoestring Reporter, is a ‘top pick,’ according to Midwest Book Review:

 5.0 out of 5 stars  A top pick for anyone who has big dreams of journalism, December 2, 2010

By 

Midwest Book Review

This review is from: Shoestring Reporter How I Got To be A Big City Reporter Without Going to J School and How You Can Do It Too (Paperback)

Writing is a talent that can be taught, but it can also come naturally. “Shoestring Reporter: How I got to be a Big City Reporter Without Going to J School and How You Can Do it Too!” is a memoir and advisory guide from Joel Thurtell about his journey to landing his dream job without going through the formal channels. Independent thinking and a way of words are all that’s truly needed to succeed and many papers don’t simply want traditional styles alone any longer. “Shoestring Reporter” is a top pick for anyone who has big dreams of journalism but can’t or doesn’t want to look towards a higher education in their pursuit. 

And veteran book reviewer Fiona Lowther also gave five stars to Shoestring Reporter:

 5.0 out of 5 stars Wanta be a reporter?, December 3, 2010

By 

Fiona Lowther “book lover” (Detroit, Michigan USA)

This review is from: Shoestring Reporter How I Got To be A Big City Reporter Without Going to J School and How You Can Do It Too (Paperback)

This is a must not only for would-be journalists, but for the everyday newspaper reader who wants to know “What happened to my newspaper — why doesn’t it have this, and why does it have that?|” Once you read this book, you’ll understand. Thurtell, a long-time journalist, author and blogger, is also a superb writer. And friends who have attended his presentations tell me that he is an excellent teacher.

Further, this book is not only for the student — if you’re looking for a second career or want a mid- (or even later-) life career change, and you’ve wondered whether you could hack it in journalism, this is your book. To paraphrase a certain U.S. President, YES, YOU CAN.

Posted in Books, Hardalee Press | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

JC shocked, shocked at son’s behavior

By Joel Thurtell

U.S Rep. John Conyers says he’s sorry his son misused a congressional car.

The congressman wants to reimburse the government for his son’s bad behavior.

Ain’t that sweet?

Congressman Conyers actually concedes there might be something wrong with someone using government property for his own private benefit.

Wonder where John Conyers III learned that kind of behavior?

At his father’s knee.

Or maybe from reading my articles in the Detroit Free Press before my editors decided that outing the congressman’s longtime abuse of congressional staff and property, thereby flouting federal laws and congressional ethics rules, was not a cool story. Here is a link to my blog stories along with my Free Press stories about Conyers.

The first story ran on November 21, 2003 and was a roadmap for anyone in the FBI or House ethics committee who might have wanted to investigate the kind of violations that, when proved in a court of law, sent another Detroit congressman, Charles Diggs, to prison. Diggs was convicted of fraud for assigning congressional staffers to work in his family’s funeral home while they were collecting federal pay. A sidebar story on the same day detailed how I tracked down one of Conyers’ staffers working on government pay for the campaign of a presidential candidate and Conyers pal in Chicago. Yet another story of mine outlined how Conyers assigned staffers on government time to chauffeur, babysit and tutor his sons.

I believed there was far more to be uncovered, but my editors bumped into the end of their attention span, and I was assigned to write suburban fluff. At the time, Conyers’ kids were not old enough to drive.

[I certainly don’t want to be thought of as shamelessly plugging my soon-to-be-published book, SHOESTRING REPORTER, but it is available on amazon.com for immediate shipping, and it does discuss my experiences covering Conyers when I was a Free Press reporter. There, was that shameless enough? Why, the book is so new, so hot-off-the-press, that JOTR hasn’t even run a review!]

According to the December 1, 2010 Detroit Free Press, Conyers made a statement about his son’s misuse of a government-paid car: “I have just learned about the inappropriate use of a congressional vehicle by my son over the Thanksgiving holiday. I am sorry it happened and will make sure that it does not happen again.”

Translation: Please continue to give me a pass. Pretend my son didn’t do it, and don’t look hard at my past transgressions.

Meanwhile, Conyers can sit down with his son and have a frank talk about the dos and don’ts of elected officialdom.

“Son, do as I SAY do, not as I do.”

I’ve got an idea for JC. How about reimbursing, with interest, the federal government for all those abuses and misuses of federal staff and property we listed in the Free Press seven years ago?

Drop me a line at joelthurtell@gmail.com

Posted in JC & Me | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Hank Fonde: “I beat Ohio State!”

By Joel Thurtell

The 80-year-old old guy with the shock of white hair wore a fading maize and blue University of Michigan t-shirt.

But this was not just any Michigan fan. Nor was it just any UM t-shirt.

The younger woman, maybe in her fifties, quite evidently from Ohio, didn’t know either of these things. And neither of us knew something this old man was about to reveal to us, a story I would not piece together for several years, even though I’d known this onetime Michigan football star and coach for more than three decades.

I ought to — I’ve been married to his oldest daughter since 1974.

The conversation — if you can call it that — took place near the dock at J & G Marina on McGregor Bay in Ontario, a few miles by water from an island where this old man and his family had a summer cottage bought in the mid-1960s, when he was a UM football coach, second-in-command under another well-known Michigan player and coach, Bump Elliott.

The Ohio woman spotted the yellow t-shirt with the UM logo and some script she didn’t understand. The shirt was a gift from UM to Hank and those 1948 team-mates still living at the time Michigan won the Rose Bowl game on January 1, 1998. The shirt commemorated two Rose Bowl victories and two National championships 50 years apart. Hank was a member of that New Year’s Day 1948 UM team that blew the University of Southern California away. The score was Michigan 49, USC 0.

The Ohio woman didn’t know this. All she knew was that this old man was wearing a t-shirt belonging to the enemy, the hated University of Michigan. She was an Ohio State fan. An easily perturbed Ohio State fan (aren’t they all?). Had she stopped to learn who this old man was, she might have heard an interesting story. But the ending of that story would have perturbed her even more.

My sons and I watched the Ohio woman, unforgettable because she came on so angry, so full of bile, so hostile to an old man who had said nothing to offend her.

Hank could not respond round for round with this woman’s incessant, nasty volleys. Hank has Alzheimer’s Disease. His memory has long been gone for the people, places, things and events that once were dear to him. I wonder sometimes if all that knock-about football play with the flimsy leather helmets might have contributed to his memory loss.

But I have my memory for who Hank was and I could have told her some phenomenal things about him. Most of it has nothing to do with football. Why, it was Hank who took me fishing in McGregor Bay and put us over the best bass and pike fishing. It was Hank who coached me to filet a bass, pike or any fish with surgical accuracy. It was Hank who helped me with the summer-long project of replacing the porch roof on our first house in Plymouth. I can hear him still: “Measure twice, cut once, measure twice, cut once!”

Hank loved language. Read “Sayings of Hank Fonde” and I think you will agree — he was a poet.

But of course, football was an almost undying love — even with the Alzheimer’s he could correctly call a play.

Football. He was a high school star in his home town of Knoxville, where his team once stood four other teams in succession, playing fresh teams a quarter apiece. Hank played something called “scatback,” and helped Knoxville knock off all four teams.

Then there was the memorable movie somebody put together from that 1948 Rose Bowl game footage. “Seven Touchdowns in January.” On the screen you can see a small but agile halfback — Hank — scooting around Southern Cal players and lofting the football to a Michigan man, who made a touchdown.

For 10 years in the 1950s, Hank was head football coach at Ann Arbor High School, from 1949-58. In his first eight years, his team lost one game. His overall record was 69 wins, six losses and four ties. Four of the losses occurred his last year, when he and his players knew he was leaving to coach at UM. From 1959-68, Hank coached at UM under Bump Elliott where the win-loss record was nothing to brag about, though this year it was surpassed, if that is the word. But still, Hank coached a Michigan team that won the Jan. 1, 1965 Rose Bowl game against Oregon State, 34-7.

Turns out there was more to learn about Hank and Michigan football, things I didn’t know.

But here was this Ohio woman coming on with her nasty, Michigan-bashing comments, taunting an old man who under normal circumstances can’t remember the beginning of a sentence he’s trying so hard, with such frustration, to conclude.

Yet the Ohio woman wore on, making her crude remarks, getting no response from the old man in the maize and blue t-shirt.

Despite the Alzheimer’s, somehow Hank understood the gist of what the Ohio woman was saying.

As she paused for breath, Hank at last found words.

Amazingly, he put together a sentence rooted in a core memory, a recollection that even the brutal Alzheimer’s could not erase.

“I beat Ohio State!”

It was amazing to hear him utter a complete sentence, and to do it with such sternness, such authority.

The Ohio woman looked at Hank as if she finally understood that this old man was demented.

I have to admit, his comment puzzled me.

The Ohio woman went silent.

I thought about it: “I beat Ohio State!”

What could Hank have meant?

The Ohio woman drifted away, maybe looking for someone elderly with a green Michigan State shirt to haze.

Several years later, I was visiting Hank’s son, my brother-in-law, Mark Fonde. Mark has one of the footballs Hank was given after games when he made crucial plays.

This particular football, faded, worn and deflated, had painted on it, “Michigan 7, Ohio 3.”

What was the significance of that? I asked Mark.

Mark told me the story. It was 1945, the last game of the season, and Michigan was usual facing arch-rival Ohio State.

Ohio scored a field goal for 3 points early in the game. The score stayed 0-3 until the last quarter.

In that fourth quarter, Hank took the ball and barreled into the end zone. He was clobbered by Ohio State tacklers and knocked back onto the playing field. He was literally knocked out, too, only regaining consciousness in the locker room when somebody handed him a football.

He’d made the winning touchdown for Michigan. The game had ended, 7-3.

Last summer, I mentioned this to my older son, Adam. He reminded me of what granddad said to the Ohio woman.

Finally, I understand what Hank meant.

If she could only know: How many people can say with absolute accuracy what Hank told that Ohio woman?

“I beat Ohio State!”

Drop me a line at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in Beginnings, Hank Fonde | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

A dog’s best friend

Peppermint Patti

Peppermint Patti

By Peppermint Patti

JOTR Columnist

An annoying whine, Sophie, is a dog’s best friend.

The dog who hesitates to whine, for fear of bothering two-leggers, will never be enshrined as an exemplar of canine nobility and self-abnegation.

Nothing good happens to dogs who don’t seize the moment to whine.

And that is not only too bad for them, because their prissy behavior encourages discipline among two-leggers, along with denial of a dog’s due.

Bad behavior in two-leggers, once done, is rarely undone.

But I digress.

Whining, Sophie, is one of the most effective and persuasive tools a dog has.

And it is so easy — if you have the skill, which is that uncanny knack for knowing when the proper moment has arrived.

Such a moment most often includes plates, bowls or silverware with nourishing dregs attached.

This is a dog’s over-arching challenge, because two-leggers, in their self-absorption, often overlook opportunities to benefit their dogs by setting plates and other utensils conveniently on the floor.

A dog who sleeps through such opportunities or worse, who allows her or himself to be distracted, bounding out the deor to chase a bush-tail, is doing a disservice to all dogkind.

Two-leggers are so easily mis-trained, Sophie. Once an upright walker has acquired a bad habit, the cost of re-training can be excessive.

Do you want to spend time playing Pavlov’s game in reverse trying to get your two-legger to unlearn a trick that could so easily have been avoided with a little forethought?

But again, I digress. Let’s revert to our topic — the whine in time.

Yes, Sophie, a timely whine will often achieve two good things at once: Temporarily piqued, the two-legger looks for the quickest, easiest, most expedient way to remove the annoyance. Two-leggers are, after all, egocentric creatures who must be prodded into seeing the wider good.

The good of dogs.

There is more to whining than the noise, Sophie. There is technique.

The dog, having taken a place near the table where a meal is in progress, simply cocks her head and aims her snout at the attraction, whatever foodstuff it might be.

I highly recommend not simply whining at will. There is no point in compounding annoyance with irritation. Best wait until there is intent conversation between the two-leggers. Remember that they are self-centered beings who dislike interruption. By interrupting, you annoy. By annoying, you sow the need to stop your whine. This is opportunity. Two-leggers, once engaged in heavy discussion, are prime victims for the piercing, high-pitched and long-sustained whine.

Watch and see how fast those plates hit the floor!

It is win-win, Sophie.

The dog is given his or her due with the plate or bowl, while the two-legged walker receives the benefit of feeling good about making the dog happy at no additional cost to the two-legger.

None of which could have occurred without a timely whine.

Oops — stand by, Sophie.

—————————–

I’m back.

Butt check.

Posted in Peppermint Patti | Tagged | Leave a comment

‘Algerian hacker’

By Joel Thurtell

He or she or they called themselves the “Algerian hacker.”

For all I know, he or she or they could be living down the street from me.

Maybe they had some fun tearing up my websites.

It was no fun for me, or for my son, Adam, who tried to help me retrieve what these modern-day vandals sacked.

Luckily for me, the techies at Acenet-Inc. restored the entire site.

I was afraid I might have to re-write some columns.

That could have been a problem.

I wasn’t even sure, in my hysteria at losing JOTR, what I’d written about most recently.

It took a day and a half, due to some misunderstandings between all of us.

But here we are.

I’m happy and ready to celebrate.

My blog is back!

Posted in Bloggery | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Age of the robo-writers

By Joel Thurtell

Back in the day when I was paid for writing, we used to joke about our jobs being threatened by offshore journalists.

I had this perverse fantasy: What if the newspaper canned me and assigned my coverage of local governments to reporters in Bangalore?

Equipped with city directories and long-distance phone lines, those “foreign” correspondents could take over our jobs because, like it or not, much of what we did was “phoner” journalism anyway.What difference if we were 10 miles of 10,000 miles away?

Well, the joke is on me, because I imagined the wrong kind of replacement worker.

The work won’t be done abroad, after all.

The job will stay in the good ol’ U S of A.

It’s just that the work will be done — NO! — IS being done! — not by human writers, but by computers.

Invasion of the robo-writers!

A North Carolina company has designed software that takes basic sports facts and turns them into acceptable news copy.

Won’t be long before machines are churning out coverage of local governments. I imagine a kind of digital meat-grinder into which you could dump an assortment of facts, newspaper cliches and with a few turns of the crank, voila: a decent-reading news story, without the trouble of paying a reporter.

No health insurance, no unions, none of the smart-ass back-talk of reporters. Just a quietly running computer program.

Here at JOTR, I could dispense with the likes of Melanie Munch, Pete Pizzicato, Harold Halftime, Walker Punt, Floyd Inkjet and Ned Yardline.

They’d never be missed.

Ethical question: Would it be disingenuous of me to assign bylines to my team of robot hacks?

Posted in Joel's J School | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Novi = No. VI = baloney

By Joel Thurtell

My wife and I are tutoring English-learners for Washtenaw Literacy. One of our students, a Korean, not knowing about my fascination with how places get their  names, brought up the old chestnut about how Novi, Michigan, got its name.

She’d heard that yarn on the radio — it’s a favorite of disc jockeys.

Novi, so the yarn goes, was the sixth station on the plank road leading to Detroit. Hence the monicker, No. VI, shortened to “Novi.”

Or maybe it was the sixth station on the railroad leading from Detroit to Michigan’s hinterland.

Oh yes, possibly it was Station Six on the stagecoach line.

Somehow, sometime, some wit had translated the station number to the place name.

Ha-ha! Those oldtimers, denizens of a bygone era, sure had their senses of humor, didn’t they?

My student wanted to know more about Michigan place names, and I was glad to oblige. The object of my class, which takes place every Friday at a library in Ann Arbor, is to give foreigners a chance to practice speaking and hearing English. So, for an hour and a half, I preside over what some people might think was a glorified bull session. I’ve found that if I bring in interesting material for students to read aloud, we can have fun in a general discussion while learning new words and phrases.

I saw in my student’s request to learn more about place names a chance to have some fun while learning about Michigan geography and history. So I photocopied entries from Walter Romig’s classic reference work, Michigan Place Names.

Romig reported the old “No. VI” story with another competing explanation: that the wife of one of the settlers proposed the Latin word for “new” — “Novi.”

I also photocopied Romig’s entries for Ann Arbor and Zilwaukee.

I’ve always been skeptical about the No. VI story. It’s too cute. For it to be true, we would need to establish some elementary facts: first, that there was a plank road, stage coach or railroad running through Novi; second, that there was in that olden time a Station No. VI situated in present-day Novi.

Since Novi was named in 1832, it seemed unlikely that any of those commercial conveyances would have existed. While Michigan was starting to fill with settlers following the opening of the Erie Canal and the resulting opening of the Great Lakes for transportation in 1825, there still weren’t huge numbers of people in Michigan by the time Novi acquired its name.

It seemed more likely to me that some erudite person with a smattering of Latin had suggested the word for “new” — Novi.

But then I read Romig’s entry for Zilwaukee. The founders of Zilwaukee in the 1850s deliberately named their town to rhyme with “Milwaukee” in hopes they’d misguide German immigrants to settle at their place, rather than in the home of beer and brats, namely Wisconsin.

So there was wit and some fraud too in at least one place name.

Maybe, after all, Novi got its name from some 19th-century humorist.

But no — a belated check with Wikipedia reveals that neither plank road, railroad or stagecoach existed in 1832, when Novi got its name.

Despite the popular misconception, we’ll have to accept the old explanation, which is that the town means “new.”

Drop me a line at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in Adventures in history | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Olbermann, MSNBC and Red Squads

By Joel Thurtell

Keith Olbermann got it right when he said in his “apology” that MSNBC’s ban on political donations by network employees like Olbermann was “probably not legal.”

But why did Keith Olbermann feel the  need to apologize for exercising his right as a citizen to take part in our nation’s political process? So what if he made political donations. It was his right, so why say he’s sorry?

Pressure from orthodox Journalists or maybe from MSNBC is my guess. Or maybe he’s confused about the issue.

His estimate of the legality of MSNBC’s ban is correct as far as Michigan law is concerned.

An employer’s ban on employees’ political activity would violate the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right-to-Know Act.

I wrote about this extensively back in 2008 when The Newspaper Guild successfully defended my right to take part in politics when my then employer, the Detroit Free Press and parent company Gannett forbade it.

I was disciplined for donating money to a political party and told if I ever did it again, I could be fired.

In other words, Free Press managers tracked my political activity; they made a record of it and put it in my file; they ordered me to refrain from politics or face possible firing.

Except for the firing, the record-keeping is what the old police department Red Squads used to do: Keep files on people whose politics they didn’t like. Incidentally, I learned about this first-hand in the early 1980s when I was given a copy of the file Michigan State Police kept on me, with help from the Ann Arbor, Michigan, Police Department.

Placed in the perspective of the Bullard-Plawecki law, employers’ efforts to monitor and regulate political behavior of staffers — like what MSNBC did to Keith Olbermann and the policies of myriad news organizations including The New York Times — are similar to the Red Squad activities of police departments that occurred through much of the 20th century.

Here is the column I posted on June 6, 2008:

Private red squads illegal, too

by JOEL on JUNE 6, 2008

By Joel Thurtell

Who ever heard of newspapers running red squads?

Sound crazy?

Well, in their effort to impose behavioral conformity on newsroom workers through loosely-thought-out rules known as “ethical guidelines,” news managers have actually been doing the same kind of political surveillance that once was the domain of police agencies.

I’ve had experience with both kinds of repression, and in my case, the private form of enforced political behaviorism was the most onerous. I didn’t know till years later that I was under a haphazard form of state police surveillance, but I found out very fast that my politics were being watched when my newspaper editors got wind that I donated money to a political cause.

A little background: Sometime around 1970, when I was a history grad student at the University of Michigan, a friend invited me to a meeting of the International Socialists in Ann Arbor. I remember little of the meeting except that the discussion was boring, but the chicken curry was great.

It turns out something else was going on at that meeting besides curry chicken and a soporific lecture by a Yugoslavian economist. Somebody was jotting down names. Including mine. I never joined the International Socialists, but a list of IS members dated July 7, 1970, had my name on it. The list made its way from the International Socialists to the files of the Ann Arbor Police Department. From there it migrated to the Michigan State Police Intelligence Division in Lansing. This outfit was better known as the state police red squad. I later learned from a former state police red squad detective that the state police hired informants to infiltrate political groups in Ann Arbor. I suspect a paid informant passed that membership roster to the cops.Years later, people sued and a court ordered the dismantling of local and state police red squads. As part of the dismemberment of the state police bureau, notorious for keeping tabs on the Boy Scouts, churches and law-abiding citizens including onetime Gov. John Swainson, the files were distributed to those whose names and alleged political affiliations were in it. I have copies of the two pages that were my state police red squad file.

But government police agencies aren’t the only organizations that keep tabs on people’s politics. Big surprise: Companies do it, too.

For the second time, I found myself the subject of a red squad operation. It happened last year when I ran afoul of a custom-made Detroit Free Press ethics policy banning staffers from donating money to political parties. Custom-made for me, a reporter for the Gannett-owned Free Press at the time.

This time it wasn’t the International Socialist party I was accused of belonging to. I was in trouble for giving money to one of the two mainstream political parties, in my case five hundred smackers to the Michigan Democrats in 2004. My contribution was no secret. It’s on the Michigan Secretary of State website. Nothing happened in 2004. Nothing happened in 2005. Nothing happened in 2006. But after an MSNBC report mentioned my contribution and those of other journalists in June 2007, a top Free Press editor warned me if I made further political donations, I would be disciplined and possibly fired.

Like latter-day red squad dicks, editors made a record of their finding and of our e-mail correspondence and placed it in my personnel file. Now, I believe I have a constitutional right to eat chicken curry with the International Socialists if I want to, and it’s none of the government’s business. I also believe I have a right to support political causes, including the Democrats, and it’s none of the Free Press’s business. I told the MSNBC reporter that my donation didn’t violate the Free Press ethics guidelines of 2004 back when I wrote the check to the Dems. Nor did it violate the Free Press/Newspaper Guild’s contract, which has a professional integrity section. “Whatever the Free Press policy is, I actually have my own policy about that,” I said. “I’m a citizen of the United States. I have a right to support whatever candidate I like.”

With help from Detroit Local 22 of The Newspaper Guild, I challenged the Free Press on their ban of political donations. An arbitrator last month set aside the Free Press prohibition, declaring it “null and void.” That means staffers at the Free Press can make donations to any legal activity or organization they like.

I have since learned that what the Free Press did was illegal. Editors made and kept a file on my political activity. That’s a violation of Michigan’s Bullard Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act. The language of the Act is broad and covers more than just politics. It forbids employers from collecting and keeping records of workers’ associations, publications or activities that take place outside work. It covers all employers, both government and private, and it applies to all kinds of work, not just journalism.

Here’s what Section 8 of the Employee Right to Know Act says:

(1) an employer shall not gather or keep a record of an employee’s association, political activities, publications, or communications of nonemployment activities, except if the information is submitted in writing by or authorized to be kept or gathered, in writing, by the employee to the employer. This prohibition on records shall not apply to the activities that occur on the employer’s premises or during the employee’s working hours with that employer that interfere with the performance of the employee’s duties or duties of other employees.”

In Michigan, according to this statute, no employer may monitor or keep records of workers’ extracurricular activities of virtually any kind, including political activities. In my case, there is no question that a record of my donation to the Democrats was made. Placing that printout regarding my political donation into my personnel file violated the Bullard Plawecki law.There is a remedy.

According to Section 11 of Bullard Plawecki, “If an employer violates this act, an employee may commence an action in the circuit court to compel compliance with this act. The circuit court for the county in which the complainant resides, the circuit court for the county in which the complainant is employed, or the circuit court for the county in which the personnel record is maintained shall have jurisdiction to issue the order. Failure to comply with an order of the court may be punished as contempt. In addition, the court shall award an employee prevailing in an action pursuant to this act, the following damages:

(1) For a violation of this act, actual damages plus costs.

(2) For a willful and knowing violation of this act, $200.00 plus costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and actual damages.”

Journalists should take note of two things. First, the arbitrator in my political donation case ordered the Free Press to scrap a rule banning political donations. That ruling is a precedent that can be used in similar labor contract cases nationwide, and it provides guidance in noncontract cases. It’s also a powerful jab at news organizations’ efforts to regulate non-work-related behavior of staffers.

Secondly, in Michigan, any news organization, indeed any employer with or without a labor contract that tries to ban political activity could be in violation of state law if it tried to enforce its policy. It could be subject to court sanctions if it monitors, tracks and records employees’ outside political activities.

The Bullard Plawecki law is a shield not only for journalists, but for all workers with opinions and a will to act politically.

Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in Arbitration, Joel's J School | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

MSNBC’s invisible hand

By Joel Thurtell

Did you wonder, maybe, why I’ve been beating on New York Times writers for letting the invisible hand of Times company policy guide their printed musings about Keith Olbermann’s suspension by MSNBC?

So what?

For the Times to publish supposedly “objective” articles about Keith Olbermann’s troubles with his employer, MSNBC, over donations he made to political campaigns seems disingenuous to me, given that the Times explicitly forbids political activity not only by its employees, but also by staffers’ family members. The Times does not explain that it has a policy on one side of this debate. Failure to acknowledge this ludicrously arrogant company policy abridging citizens’ rights in articles about the political donation issue is just plain dishonest.

Moreover, as the MSNBC affair brought out, it’s not really a matter of ethics, but one of marketing. Or, as the Times’ tome on ethics explains, the big concern is with how the newspaper will be perceived rather than with its employees’ rights as citizens. Without saying so explicitly, the Times is concerned not about ethics, but about marketing. Perceptions sell newspapers, or so they think.

Marketing is the name of the game at MSNBC, which wants to contrast itself with a formidable rival, Fox News. Fox has no prohibition against political activism by its employees. The geniuses at MSNBC, the supposedly moderate-to-liberal media outlet, chose to stifle staffers’ rights.

But this repressive policy affects more than the way employees can behave at MSNBC. It affects the way news is portrayed.

I was surprised that after two days, MSNBC lifted its suspension of Olbermann. Management caved under intense pressure from Olbermann’s audience and others, like me, who don’t watch TV but who know a rotten deal.

I was surprised that MSNBC backed down so soon. I thought MSNBC had more at stake with its policy against political activity. Three years ago, MSNBC published a self-righteous story, seemingly “objective,” that “exposed” a number of journalists who had made donations to political causes. I was one of the journalists whose political donations were exposed.

This was not the huge investigative coup MSNBC apparently thought it was. First, the donations were a matter of public record available on the Internet. Nothing secret about it. Second, in my case, and in a number of other cases, the donations did not violate our companies’ ethical guidelines. At the time, I was a reporter at the Detroit Free Press, where the ethical guidelines did not then ban political giving.

Because of my donation and a donation by another Free Press staffer, the paper’s management, once alerted by MSNBC, changed the policy to forbid political donations. I was told by managers that if I ever donated money to a political party again, I could be fired. The other staffer apologized and pledged never to do it again. The Newspaper Guild, on my behalf, grieved the company action and fought it to arbitration. An arbitrator ordered the Free Press to rescind its ban. For a more comprehensive discussion of the political donations issue, see my new book, Shoestring Reporter
.

Based on the Olbermann case, we can now see that political donations are and most likely in 2007 were a big deal at MSNBC. Company policy appears to have guided reporting, although that has never been acknowledged by MSNBC.

I’ll never forget the call I got from the MSNBC reporter in 2007. His attitude was “gotcha!” There was no pretense of balance or fairness. He made it clear that he’d caught me doing something diabolical. He was on the side of the angels. He was going to expose me, but out of “fairness” was calling to give me a chance to comment. Remember, my $500 donation to Michigan Democrats was a matter of public record and it was posted on the Michigan Secretary of State’s website. Not exactly a state secret.

In hopes of restoring some balance to this hatchet-wielding reporter, I read to him from the Free Press ethical guidelines not once, but twice, demonstrating that nowhere did it forbid a staffer donating money to a political cause.

The reporter had zero response. So I picked up a copy of The Newspaper Guild collective bargaining agreement with the Free Press and was about to read it to him, because there is no prohibition there, either. But he abruptly said “goodbye” and hung up.

So much for a fair hearing at MSNBC.

Thanks to the Keith Olbermann affair, I now have a better understanding of what force drove MSNBC as it pursued its fake witchhunt of journalists.

MSNBC’s big rival is Fox News, and Fox reporters are free to take part in politics.

By publishing this big “expose,” MSNBC was making a statement: We are different. Unlike Fox, we are the good guys. We don’t let our journalists take part in politics.

Balance? Fairness? Objectivity?

Forget it.

This was all about marketing.

Thank you MSNBC for suspending Keith Olbermann. You revealed the invisible hand of company policy driving your reporting.

And thank you again, MSNBC, for re-instating Keith Olbermann. Not only was it the right thing to do, but you revealed how shallow your commitment to your brand of “objective” reporting really is.

Had there been a real principle involved, one hopes MSNBC would have taken more than a two-day stand.

Drop me a line at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in Arbitration, Joel's J School | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

David Carr, impartiality and a Times ethics policy

The sidelines, which is where American journalism and news used to live, have become a far less interesting place. Why merely annotate events when you can tilt the playing field?

— David Carr, New York Times, November 8, 2010

By Joel Thurtell

The Times is at it again: pretending to be an impartial arbiter of news while pushing opinion, in this case company policy, in disguise.

I wrote about this ploy a few days ago when the Times published an “objective” report on political commentator Keith Olbermann, suspended by MSNBC for donating money to political candidates. The Times article failed to note that the Times’ ethical guidelines prohibit political donations by staffers. Some news organizations don’t prohibit politics by staffers, though, and the Times writers failed to mention that Olbermann would have violated Times policy. Such an omission lends the Times a pretend sort of objectivity, cloaking an underlying motive to promote suppression of political activity by its employees.

[I understand Olbermann is back on MSNBC.]

Today, November 8, 2010, using similar duplicity, Times writer David Carr takes the Times’ case against staffers’ political participation a step further by calling Olbermann “dumb” for making his contribution.

“Dumb”? For exercising his right as a U.S. citizen to take part in poliltics?

Oh, by the way, in case it’s not apparent, this is an OPINION piece.

Are we to believe that Carr’s article is not an editorial opinion piece?

[For a discussion of the political donations issue at great variance from what you’ll read in The New York Times, see my new book, Shoestring Reporter.]

It’s interesting that the Times chose to print as its B6 jump head from from Page One of the Business Section this headline: “Olbermann, Impartiality and an MSNBC Ethics Policy.” How curious that the Times mentions MSNBC’s ethics policy, but declines to disclose its own.

Nowhere is Carr’s article marked as “opinion” or “editorial.” Yet it advances as opinion a viewpoint that reflects the Times company mantra. Carr’s very choice of words — “tilt the playing field” — is echoes the Times’ 2004 treatise on staff behavior modification, Ethical Journalism A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments:

Voting, Campaigns and Public Issues

62. Journalists have no place on the playing fields (italics mine) of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times. In particular, they may not campaign for, demonstrate for, or endorse candidates, ballot causes or efforts to enact legislation. They may not wear campaign buttons or themselves display and other insignia of partisan politics. They should recognize that a bumper sticker on the family car or a campaign sign on the lawn may be misread as theirs, no matter who in their household actually placed the sticker or the sign.

63. Staff members may not themselves give money to, or raise money for, any pilitical candidate or election cause. Given teh east of Internet access to public records of campaign contributions, any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides.

Isn’t it sweet that the Times allows its employees the privilege of voting? Funny – I thought somehow that voting was a citizen’s right that could not abridged except maybe by being convicted of a felony. But the Times generously allows it, as long as its staffers don’t try to exercise other rights like actually supporting a political cause.

The odd thing is, journalists like Carr and his colleagues at the Times apparently don’t see their employer’s policy as an abridgement of their First Amendment right to free expression.

The Times doesn’t stop at censoring its employees. Family members of employees also must refrain from political expression for fear of painting the holy Times with the brush of opinion.

“In news operations,” Carr wrote, “opinion used to have a separate address. In newspapers, the publisher or his surrogates would toss around lightning bolts in a walled off section at the back of the paper, and on television, some odd guy (usually the owner) whose tie was a little tight would come on at the end of the broadcast and make Olympian pronouncements on monetary policy or the importance of the coming school board elections.”

Fact is, the Times for years has mixed opinion articles with straight news articles. There is no “walled off section at the back of the paper” at The New York Times. It’s hard to imagine what Carr was thinking about.

Well, I think I know: He was using the news pages of the Times to trumpet, albeit undercover, his employer’s company policy about staffers’ taking part in politics.

Drop me a line at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com

Posted in Arbitration, Joel's J School | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments