Buzz Trexler

In his book, “Losing the News,” (2009, Oxford University Press Inc., New York, NY) Pulitzer-prize winning writer and Greeneville native Alex Jones likens the daily aggregation of fact-based “accountability news,” or “news of verification,” to an iron-core sphere of fact-based information. “It is the form of news whose purpose is to hold government and those with power accountable,” Jones writes.

That is as opposed to “‘news of assertion,’ that is mostly on display these days in prime time on cable news channels and blogs.” Others who live in the land of ‘news of assertion’ include editorial writers, stand-up comics and “pseudo-journalists” (my words), whom will remain unnamed.

“Traditional journalists have long believed that this form of fact-based accountability news is the essential food supply of democracy and that without enough of this healthy nourishment, democracy will weaken, sicken, or even fail. … It is the nation’s newspapers that provide the vast majority of iron core news.”

Jones estimates “85 percent professionally reported accountability news comes from newspapers, but I have heard guesses from credible sources that go as high as 95 percent.”

So, it would seem that if newspapers were to cease to exist, as some pundits are fond of predicting, it would seem no one would have anything to assert. Thus, everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Jon Stewart would have nothing to say — well, nothing fact-based to say, anyway.

I’ve only scratched the surface of this book, but it’s already fascinating stuff.

When heading off to work, I sometimes jokingly say, “Well, I’m off to protect democracy.”

If Jones is correct, there’s more truth to that statement than I imagined.

I just read a story by The Associated Press concerning the Supreme Court of the United States hearing arguments in a case involving “Hillary: The Movie.”

Citizens United, a conservative group, wanted to air ads for the anti-Clinton movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable outlets during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign. However, the story explains that federal courts said the movie sounded like a long campaign ad and needed to be regulated as such.

According to The AP, the movie is filled with criticism about Hillary, including a statement from former Bill Clinton advisor Dick Morris saying she is “the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist.”

My first thought was this: What’s the difference between the anti-Clinton “Hillary: The Movie” and “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Michael Moore’s anti-Bush rant that was released in the middle of the 2004 presidential campaign? Well, the apparent difference is that campaign finance regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet. In those battlefields, the Red and Blue teams can spend away in the war for the minds of the voting public.

The conservative group was not allowed to broadcast TV ads for the movie, but it did get its message out by advertising on the Web, selling the DVD and showing the movie in a few theaters. Michael Moore gets his message out the same way.

I’ve never watched any of Moore’s movies and his garish Web site turns me off as soon as the page paints. The titles and related synopses leave me pleading, “Give me a break, Mikey.”

Sadly, the poor conservatives can’t get their own break. Truth is, they haven’t got a fighting chance when it comes to rolling out digital dollars and cash-cow celluloid pushers.

The Supreme Court of the United States could wipe away limits on spending by corporations and labor unions, but it’s way too late for a high court opinion to make any difference for the original intent of “Hillary: The Movie.”

Of course, Mrs. Clinton’s not the president, but she is the Secretary of State.

Donna and I have a habit of watching NBC’s “Today Show” with our morning coffee. Believe me, I’m well aware of its conservative talk show reputation as “The Obama Network.”

Is it deserved? Maybe, maybe not; however, recently I couldn’t help but watch Matt Lauer smirk following an interview with conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. (Did he roll his eyes? Check out the clip on YouTube.) Malkin’s got a new book out with the incredible title of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies.” Lauer does a good job of peppering her with questions, but Malkin pretty much held her own.

But this brings up the whole question of bias in the media. Anyone with a mustard seed of intellect can tell you Fox is on the Right; CNN has the reputation of being on the Left; and other network news programs can leave you wondering “Who’s on First, What’s on Second, and Where’s Third?”

Truth be told, most viewers/readers have their own inherent biases and filters that they use (either consciously or subconsciously) when consuming news and information. Subsequently, they will assign bias — most often against their own viewpoint — whether it is reality or mere perception.

All of this brings to mind a University of Tennessee roundtable on the media and health care that I was asked to participate in sometime during the early 1990s. To the best of my recollection, other media representatives included a reporter from a major metropolitan daily and a young man from a mid- to large-size Tennessee newspaper. The conversation went something like this:

Health care worker: “We need your help in getting certain messages out to the public.”

Tennessee reporter: “You’re asking us to make the news. It’s our job to report the news, not make it,” the context of which was that to do so would include an element of bias.

At this point, I chime in with something along these lines: “Listen, if you claim that there is absolutely no bias in reporting, then you’re not fooling the readers, you’re only kidding yourself. It is only because we have an element of bias that tells us something is a news story. The challenge is to eliminate that bias and prevent a fair and balanced report.”

I thought I was standing alone when the reporter from the major metropolitan daily stood up — he was the size of a linebacker — and said this: “We know that every policymaker in the nation reads our newspaper every day. And when I walk down the streets of New York and see children with bloated bellies like they’re in some Third World country, it makes me want to do something. And you don’t change policy with one story. You change policy with one story, then another, and then another, until somebody does something.”

There was this sense that Diogenes had just found an honest journalist, for here was a reporter who was unabashedly practicing advocacy journalism. He was letting his bias loose upon the readers in hopes of effecting change and made no apologies for doing so — and that’s the difference. Journalists who obviously come at a subject from a particular point of view, but maintain they are being unbiased in their approach, are not fooling readers or viewers.  They only add to a growing general distrust of journalists.

When it comes to media bias, professionally trained journalists know that we all have biases. And since bias is the enemy to true journalism, the task is to recognize that bias and struggle to present the balanced report.

All we can do is run the good race — and we do.

-30-

In watching the Michael Jackson memorial event today, I found myself torn between two vocations: There was the newsroom cynicism that looked at motives and celebrity production, and then there was the desire as a pastor to see family and friends make their way through what can be a difficult ritual — likely doubly so for a family caught in the midst of stardom.

The memorial event sometimes had the feel of a celebration of Michael’s life, sometimes it had the feel of just another pop variety show, but there were also some poignant moments that gave a sense of normalcy:

• Michael’s daughter, Paris Michael Katherine Jackson standing before the throng and proclaiming, “I just want to say ever since I was born, Daddy has been the best father you can ever imagine. And I just wanted to say I love him so much.” She then fell into the arms of her aunt, Janet Jackson. It’s a clip that is playing over and over on CNN in the background as I write this post.
• Brooke Shields sharing how she and Michael were friends who bonded through the common life of child stardom. “We had a bond and maybe it was because we both understood what it was like to be in the spotlight from a very, very young age. I used to tease him and say, ‘I started when I was 11 months old. You’re a slacker. You were like 5?’ Both of us needed to be adults very early, but when we were together, we were two little kids having fun.”
• Motown legend Smokey Robinson expressing the same sort of sentiment that an elder experiences when a younger friend or family member dies: “You don’t think you’ll live to see them gone.”

Those are the moments and memories that are common to humanity as we move through the rituals of a loved one’s passing: Grief, remembrances, and shock. Still, in the swarm of celebrity and pop culture hoopla, I continued to wait for one particular moment, growing more and cynical — and then it came, from Bernice King, daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:

“My prayer is that no one and nothing, public or private, fact or fiction, true or rumored, will separate you from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus,” King said. “Because ultimately at the end of the day it is only God’s love that will anchor you, sustain you, and move you to a higher ground, far above the noise of life. There you will find the peace, comfort and joy to move forward and advance Michael’s legacy.”

She later added, “Michael’s life and work was inspired by the love of God.”

Earlier, I believe, Stevie Wonder shared, “This is a moment that I wish that I didn’t live to see come. But as much as I can say that and mean it, I do know that God is good and I do know that as much as we may feel — and we do — that we need Michael here with us, God must have needed him far more.”

Not certain about the theology that God needs someone more than we do and thus decides to end their life here on earth, but it was good that God got a shout out, so to speak.

It was a long memorial event, and I may have missed other references to the Giver of Life and the Giver of Gifts, and thus the One who gave us the gift of Michael Jackson’s talent. But with an audience of millions, the pastor in me sought more in terms of comfort, assurance, and the love of God for the children and family.

I was still cynically stewing about this when we were in the News budget meeting discussing coverage for the next day’s print edition when I was reminded that the family had a private memorial service before the Staples Center spectacle. And then it hit me: That’s exactly where it belonged.

Michael’s mother, Katherine Jackson, has guardianship over his children. It is said that she is a woman of faith, and perhaps with that in mind, and knowing the entertainment spectacle that would follow, she placed the service of faith in the forefront.

Once again, I am humbled by the revelation that things are not always what they appear in this world, whether in the spiritual or the secular realm.

Whatever one thinks of the spectacle that is currently under way in Los Angeles, the media coverage of Michael Jackson’s funeral seems unprecedented in this digital age.

The Associated Press is providing a raw, live video feed that can be accessed by our readers using this short URL.

Interestingly enough, when there is no other voiceover, you can hear the cameraman’s comments. There is the occasional “Oh, God,” as well as various other mutterings.

They’ve now switched to the Staples Center in anticipation of the memorial service.

We can’t help but watch it unfold and pray it’s without incident.

The news that the Chattanooga Times Free Press is laying off 15 newsroom employees elicited a response from one of my younger colleagues: “We’re dropping like flies!”

It surely seems that way sometimes, but then you have to consider that on the same day there was the following headline and story on TheDailyTimes.com:

Johnson City snowplow plant to close

01:13 PM – A Wisconsin manufacturer will close a plant that makes snowplows in Johnson City next year, costing the region about 100 jobs.

The often overlooked truth is that we are not alone in this faltering economy. It’s just that when you are in the center of the storm, it always seems like the rain is only falling on you.

Over the nearly 30 years that I’ve been professionally employed in this business, there have been recessions, newsroom cutbacks and the slashing of newshole — and those are just the challenges that come quickly to mind. What makes this economic downturn different is the impact from cultural and technological shifts that are occurring at the same time. The tectonic — or maybe we should say “techtonic” — plates are shifting beneath us and many newspapers are trying to build an earthquake-proof house while the ground is still shaking.

It’s difficult, to be sure. Only a fool or a liar, or maybe even a lying fool, would say it’s not scary. But only the most naive among us entered this business believing that it was immune from economic influences. The only thing most of us can do is strap ourselves to the most stationary object we can find, and hang on for the ride.

I don’t often find myself quoting Friedrich Nietzsche, but this one seems relevant: “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.”

I first read “In His Steps,” by Charles M. Sheldon, in the late 1980s.

My Pa’s mother, Momma T., had it on her shelf, but the inscription indicates it actually belonged to his sister, Emily. Since I expressed an interest in reading it, it was placed in my hands.

In the Sheldon tradition, it has no copyright; however, the author’s introduction indicates it is a 1935 edition. Based upon a series of sermons by Sheldon, the book was originally penned in 1896 and the author notes that, “Owing to the fact that no one had an (sic) legal ownership in the book, sixteen different publishers in America and fifty in Europe and Australia put out the book in various editions from an English penny to eight shillings. “Mr. Bowden, the London publisher, sold over 3,000,000 copies of the penny edition on the streets of London.”

In the early 1990s, the once public domain book and the “WWJD?” acronym for “What Would Jesus Do?” became a Christian subculture pop craze. I always felt a little funny about that, and I’m fairly certain if he had seen some of the applications Sheldon would have rolled over in his grave.

Today, my somewhat inherited copy of “In His Steps” — with its brittle, yellowed pages — has a high place of honor in my bookcase. The reason: It greatly influenced how I attempt to practice journalism today. One of Sheldon’s central figures was a newspaper editor, who stopped to ask himself “What would Jesus do?” before printing any story or advertisement. While I confess to falling short of asking that question on every story, I do seek to use faith-based wisdom and compassion in conjunction with news judgment when plying my trade.

Christians struggle in every vocation, but journalism offers some unique struggles for people of faith — not the least of which is a feeling that we sometimes peddle gossip for a living. That feeling serves as a reminder to me that the calling is much higher, the responsibilities great, and the opportunity to impact your community in a positive way even greater. In the Christian vernacular, it can be “Kingdom work,” which is not to be confused with proselytizing for the faith.

Kingdom work is looking for places where the community — particularly, but not solely, the community of faith — is letting down its responsibility to care for the widow and orphan, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and to ensure that ‘justice rolls down like a mighty river.’ Once identified, it can spawn a news story that sometimes results in positive changes within the community.

Few people know that Sheldon was actually invited to edit The Topeka Daily Capital newspaper as he believed Jesus would for one week beginning March 13, 1900. Heather Hooper, writing for The (Topeka) Capitol-Journal in a Sheldon centennial section published in 2000, notes, “At that time, the Capital’s average weekly circulation rate was around 11,200, and 12,300 on Sundays. During Sheldon week, the number skyrocketed to an average daily circulation of 362,684, with more than 2.1 million copies printed all together, according to an article published March 25, 1900, in the Capital.”

The March 13, 1900, New York Times carried a story headlined, “The Rev. C.M. Sheldon’s Newspaper Experiment.” The lead paragraph, datelined Topeka, Kan., read, “The main purpose of the paper will be to influence its readers to seek first the Kingdom of God.”

Not sure how well I do that sometimes; however, like the Apostle Paul, I try to run the good race.

If you’re an old-time journalist, you know that “-30-” marks the end of the story, sometimes called the “end mark.” On Friday, The Rocky Mountain News in Denver, Colo., reached its end mark.

There are a few journalists still working in this area who remember what it felt like when the last edition The Knoxville Journal hit the streets on Dec. 31, 1991, particularly if you were a current or former staff member. There was a death in the family and you mourned — and some of us continue to mourn. Because of that kindred spirit, news of “Rocky’s” demise quickly spread among East Tennessee journalists.

Rocky’s story is a familiar one in the newspaper industry in that it existed under one of 28 joint operating agreements (JOA) that were formed after the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 was signed into law by President Richard Nixon. The law allowed two newspapers under different ownerships to serve the same city to combine business operations while maintaining separate news operations. The Rocky Mountain News, owned by E.W. Scripps Co., shared such an agreement with the Denver Post, owned by Media News Group.

Three such agreements were operational among Tennessee newspapers. In addition to the JOA between the Knoxville News-Sentinel, which was and continues to be owned by E.W. Scripps, and the Knoxville Journal, then owned by Persis Corp., there were JOAs in Tennessee between:

• Nashville Tennessean, owned by Gannett, and the Nashville Banner, owned by Irby C. Simpkins Jr. and Brownlee O. Currey. The Banner saw its -30- in 1998.
• Chattanooga News-Free Press was long owned by the Roy McDonald family. In 1998, then under the nameplate of Chattanooga Free Press, the newspaper was purchased by Walter Hussman Jr., who later purchased the Chattanooga Times. The two were merged, eventually becoming the Chattanooga Times Free Press in 2001. In journalists’ terms, you could say that the Chattanooga papers underwent a “writethru,” meaning the story was given new or changed content.

Today, with the closure of the Rocky Mountain News, there are eight cities being served by two newspapers under JOAs. Fortunately, all of the 28 communities who have been served by newspapers under JOAs continue to be served by at least one daily newspaper. Nonetheless, as Taylor Batten of the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer points out, “We’re not making widgets here.” When a newspaper writes -30-, a community loses more than just another business and employer of warm bodies. When the journalists stop writing, the community loses its voice.

When a newspaper closes its doors, there is no longer a public place for the celebration of births and marriages, nor for the chronicling of a life well lived within the community when each of us comes to our own -30-. In addition, professional journalists employed by newspapers move within the community when the average citizen is working, playing, or sleeping, ensuring that information is gathered, digested, analyzed and disseminated — often that information is critical to decisions we make in daily life. When checks are no longer written to journalists, reliable news coverage ceases.

To be sure, broadcast media can be counted on for a certain amount of coverage; however, the average citizen would be surprised at how much of that coverage originates with a review of the local daily newspaper’s coverage.

As for the Internet, non-media cyberspace is filled with blogs and news aggregators; however, that space is greatly supplied with links produced by local newspapers, or filled with more opinion than news. There is also the inherent danger of amateur journalists masquerading as professionals. Neal B. Freeman was quoted somewhat prophetically in 1995 as saying, “Cybermedia will make every man his own editor, which in turn makes every writer a fool. The Internet will transmit misinformation very efficiently. We will miss the gatekeepers.”

Indeed, we make more than widgets here.

THE TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION, Article 1, Section 19:
”That the printing press shall be free to every person to examine the proceedings of the legislature; or of any branch or officer of the government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions, is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”

Just got off of the phone with state Rep. Joe McCord, R-Maryville. He said his goal in filing the bills related to publishing gun permits was to “get the bills out front to focus on.” He noted he had not yet read today’s column.

The column was a personal attempt to show that you need not be anti-Second Amendment to believe this sort of legislation (specifically SB1126 and HB959) is poor sausage-making. Here are points to consider:

• Passage of this legislation with the criminal penalties would be a constitutional prior restraint on the press for publishing information in the public interest and which history has shown protects the public safety.
• The Tennessee Attorney General opined last year in OP 08-77 that the fine provision in similar legislation could run afoul of the Pentagon Papers prior restraint case – New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1991) per curiam.
• Last year, the press disclosed the fact that permits were being issued to convicted felons because the Safety Department lost its connection to the federal crime database and did not do full criminal background checks for a year or more.  The glitch was fixed after that news was reported.
• Later last year, the press reported that some jurisdictions were not reporting the issuance of orders of protection for alleged domestic violence which meant applicants could get permits by simply marking “No” on the carry permit application. Those reports would become illegal and subject to a fine under this legislation.  That means the press could not do its job.
• The Safety Department reported last month that 627 permits were revoked or suspended in 2008 because permit holders had felony convictions or were placed under court-imposed orders of protection.  It is not known how many of those got permits after their convictions or while under court order.
• The press could not report that someone with a history of mental disorders had received a gun carry permit if that information fell into their hands without the risk of going to jail.
• These problems are being created without any data to support arguments that having the information in the public domain represents any threat to permit holders.  Public safety has been better served having the information open as it was envisioned when the carry permit program was created.
• 218 Tennesseans have carry permits, according to the latest data from Safety.  The application form clearly states the information becomes public “upon submission,” so the threat of disclosure has not been a deterrent.
• All Tennesseans, including those with valid permits and those in law enforcement, are better served without the fear that permits are being given to the wrong people.
• The posting of the searchable database by the Memphis newspaper went unnoticed for two months until it was discovered that a motorist accused of shooting another man in a parking dispute had a permit.