Howard Kurtz interviews James O'Keefe

“I think it’s a form of investigative reporting that you use to seek and find the truth,” James O’Keefe said yesterday in an interview with Howard Kurtz on CNN’s Reliable Sources program. “People are not going to be honest with you when you have a notebook or you’re in front of a podium.”

Just in case the name doesn’t ring a bell, James O’Keefe is the self-proclaimed investigative reporter who set up the video sting of National Public Radio’s Ron Schiller, which ultimately led to the resignation of NPR CEO Vivian Schiller and lost Ron Schiller his upcoming work with the Aspen Institute, a position for which he had resigned from NPR. This is also the same James O’Keefe who set up a damning video of ACORN, a leading advocacy group for low- and moderate-income earners, as well as a phone call with Planned Parenthood in which a representative claimed they could direct his donation to the abortion of a black baby. During the course of the Kurtz interview, we’re also reminded of O’Keefe’s attempt to embarrass then-CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau by seducing her on a boat filled with sex toys.

O’Keefe is meddling in dangerous ground, and I say this with no intent of flattering him or the techniques he uses to coax scandalous stories. Aside from the fact that he seems to exclusively target non-profit organizations which are dedicated to helping generally marginalized populations and/or working to preserve our right to free and independent information, his cluelessness as to what constitutes investigative reporting poses a serious problem in a world of citizen journalism as enabled by new media. For example, when Kurtz asked O’Keefe to clarify his implication that deception is justified in the course of investigative reporting, O’Keefe responded with, “No, that’s not what I said. I said investigative reporting, you’re–it’s sometimes justified to go under cover to get the truth. You’re not–it’s a form of guerrilla theater.”

Actually, no. Guerrilla theater and investigative reporting happen to be two entirely different things. In the case of guerrilla theater, it usually refers to a staged event which takes place without the full knowledge of the audience or using makeshift set elements. Investigative reporting–at least, the type which we should expect–takes a full view of a story, tracing a complete narrative by continually asking even seemingly-basic questions, and either corroborating or contradicting the stated facts and assumptions of the story with various and multiple pieces of evidence. O’Keefe is confusing the two. If his NPR video really was an item of investigative reporting, there would have been full disclosure that the piece was edited in such a way as to effect a specific outcome. There would also have been some context, perhaps addressing things like, what led to the creation of this piece? What questions did O’Keefe hope to have answered, and why are they important? What basis does he have for believing that it is necessary to go under cover in this situation? And so on.

Ultimately, I don’t fear James O’Keefe or his “work.” My fear stems from media and media consumers who give credence to the notion that he is doing some public service which other journalists cannot or will not perform. There are a lot of reasons for the decrease of true investigative reporting in today’s media, none of which have anything to do with a lack of O’Keefian journalistic talent or ethics. When people are fired and organizations are crippled as a result of his output, it is an injustice not only to the individuals and causes which suffer the impact, but to all news consumers who deserve better. Really, now–the guy thought that having sex with a reporter and a dildo would be newsworthy. Let’s not give him too much respect.

–Emily Long
Follow me on Twitter: @emlong

Lara Logan

The basic story is that just after Thanksgiving, police in Cleveland, TX were alerted to a cell phone video which showed a girl being gang raped in a trailer home. 18 men and boys have been rounded up as suspected participants in the rape. The intro to the article is fairly objective, stating known facts, including that some of the suspects have criminal records. But when the article progresses to discussing the impact of the attack on the local community, the first quote comes from a hospital worker who knows some of the suspects, saying, “These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.”

It was at this point that I began to take issue. The boys have to live with this? What about the girl? I fully respect that the suspects have feelings, and frankly whether or not they are convicted, they will most likely move through Cleveland, TX with a scarlet letter just for being implicated in the rape. However, is it really appropriate that the first note of empathy here is for the accused?

The article continues, describing how the incident came to light and providing some other details from the affidavit, and goes on to state that residents in the area had seen the victim in the area (known as the Quarters) for months as she visited friends. The residents added that she dressed inappropriately for an 11-year-old, wore makeup and hung out with teenage boys at the playground. The same hospital worker quoted earlier is quoted again: “Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking? How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?”

And here we have another variation on blaming the victim, which is blaming the victim’s parents. For one thing, the girl’s mother did not grant permission for a child to be viciously assaulted. We have no background on what was going on in the victim’s private life (which is as it should be; she and her family deserve anonymity). For all we know, the girl was no more supervised at home than she was in the Quarters, and the reasons for that could be any number of possibilities. Within the article, that makes for two quotes working against the victim, and none against the accused beyond statements about how devastated the community is by the attack as a whole.

The article also states that there were not many residents of the Quarters who were willing to go on the record, which can certainly account for the paucity of balance in reporting. The only other person quoted in the article is a spokeswoman for the school district, whose quote does little to add to the story: “It’s devastating, and it’s really tearing out community apart. I really wish that this could end in a better light.” This does nothing more than confirm the title of the story, which is “Vicious Assault Shakes Texas Town.” (Never mind that in this entire town, only two people were willing to speak, which calls into question the validity of headlining the article as a piece about a community.)

As much as I may take issue with the hospital worker for her point of view, my real issue as far as this article is concerned has to do with the reporting, which in my opinion falls short of responsible. My intent here is not to accuse the Times or the journalists who wrote the story of misogyny, but instead I mean to point out subtle unbalances in reporting cases of violence against women. Media have a long history of covering sexual and domestic assault stories in this way. It is a habit which is unacceptable, but it is nonetheless a habit which must be broken. Whether the story is about a woman like Lara Logan who lives in the public eye, or whether it’s about an anonymous young girl, women–and all other media consumers–deserve better.

–Emily Long
Follow me on Twitter: @emlong

I am a big reader and I consider myself a critical person. Even so, with so much commotion in the world, I find myself skimming news items until I hit something simple. There are times, a lot of times in fact, when that just isn’t okay. If some of the media responses to this latest batch of Wikileaks are any indication, now is one of those times.

For example, Bill O’Reilly on his show, The O’Reilly Factor, calls the Wikileaks treason and espionage. He throws around a lot of threatening phrases like “military prison” and “execution.” He never says which leaks will endanger the American people, how, or why. If the assumption, then, is that the sanctity of information is a cause onto itself, without any foresight into possible consequences, then we may need to know more about why that is. The Wikileaks released in the summer regarding military practices in Afghanistan outlined failings and/or abuses by the US military which resulted in hundreds of unreported civilian deaths. Those things happened whether we know about them or not. O’Reilly, and the pundits and politicians of similar persuasion, have yet to make a convincing argument that knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance.

At the same time, it is easy to over glorify the Wikileaks project. I don’t really get why I need to know who is calling who “feckless and vain.” Nor do I understand why there are a whopping 250,000 of these correspondences being released. Are there things better kept secret, either because they are too sensitive or too inane? I would venture to say there are. At the same time, it isn’t hard to look back at the recent years in our government and governments around the world and come to the conclusion that we are not suffering from an overabundance of transparency.

I really would like to take a harder line on this issue. But I can’t. Implying that Julian Assange is a terrorist or that the State department is some sort of Orwellian sphere of dark, dark secrets misses the sort of beautiful thing that is underscoring this whole debate. As much as we proclaim (and sometimes complain) that we live in the age of information, we tend to take that title for granted. Here, we have a real opportunity to have a serious conversation about what having information really means and, more importantly, matters.

–Sarah Brown

Growing up in Anchorage, you did a lot of work with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. How did you move from your work there to an interest in journalism and publishing? Actually, Anchorage, U.S. Fish & Wildlife and journalism are all interconnected. I had moved up to AK just before high school–you know, that point where you’re supposed to decide what you want to do with your life. After discarding the idea of being a fashion designer I got involved with Anchorage’s very active youth journalism projects. One was Perfect World, a weekly section in the Anchorage Daily News written and edited by teens. The other was Alaska Teen Media Institute where teens report stories about what they care about in a monthly radio show. As a result of these two opportunities I decided to major in convergence journalism at the University of Missouri.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service was a chance to see the other side of the interview. I wanted to see how public relations and educational outreach worked. So on and off through college I volunteered with the External Affairs department, which was an amazing opportunity with great people. Actually that can be said for all of the programs I’ve worked with.

But of course in college I found my interests shifted from the immediate and constant reporting of news to publishing. In short I’m a book nerd who likes technology.

What are you working on right now? Right now I’m working in the eBooks and audiobooks. Most specifically enhanced eBooks, which takes the reading experience beyond just the text. We include extras such as in depth video interviews with the authors, text extras, and photos not included in the print book to name just a few of the possibilities.

In your experience as a journalist, what have been some of your greatest challenges working in an increasingly digital landscape? I love the digital landscape in both journalism and publishing. For me it was never a challenge so much as an opportunity. Well, other than the hours I spent cursing at the computer/video camera/camera/recorder/pen when it didn’t work how I thought it should. However, one challenge I did see while working in newsrooms as a student was training reporters at an outlet to gain the skills they need to branch out of their traditional form of story telling. The other was digitally reaching rural communities who didn’t have broadband. There are a lot of cool things you can do digitally, but on a dial up connection they simply don’t work.

Ten years from now, what do you think the publishing industry will look like? I have no idea, and that’s exciting.

Do you have a preferred mode of reading–paper book, Kindle/iPad, audiobook? Why? That’s really dependent upon what I’m doing as I’m reading. If I’m traveling or cooking, I love audiobooks. If I’m commuting, I love reading on my iPod Touch- I just can’t afford a dedicated device. Meanwhile when I’m curled up at home I’m typically reading a traditional book.

How do you decide what you want to read in your spare time? I’m a genre junkie. If it’s YA, science fiction, fantasy or a comic book/graphic novel I will most likely jump on it. Especially if the narrator is a strong, sarcastic female character. Typically what I’m actually reading is dependent on what I can swap with my friends, so a lot of it is due to word of mouth. Oh, and the cover, I’m a sucker for a good cover.

What got you interested in volunteering with The LAMP?
Honestly, by its mission and its goal to work on a grassroots level with kids to teach them about all forms of media. I was in a similar program in high school and I can honestly say it had a huge impact on what I studied in college and even what I do now. I wanted the chance to give that back to someone else.

What were some of your favorite LAMP workshop experiences? So far I love working with so many enthusiastic members and volunteers. Everyone I’ve met has been incredibly passionate about The LAMP and its ideas and goals. They all seem to be constantly looking for new ways to expand and new ways to reach more people. It’s so easy to just get swept up in all that positive energy and think, “Oh yeah, I want to be part of this. This is going somewhere!”

Want some of that positive energy? Get involved with The LAMP!

Cartoon by Sam Milai for the Pittsburgh Courier

In honor of Black History Month, The LAMP dedicates February’s Gaslight to African American pioneers in news media.

February 3, 1947: Percival Prattis becomes the first African American news correspondent admitted to the press galleries of both the United States House of Representatives and the Senate. In addition to his work as a journalist, Prattis was a civil rights leader working to advance the African American press. A veteran of World War I, Prattis joined the Pittsburgh Courier in 1935, became editor in 1956 and retired in 1962. He has been noted for his ability to unify black newsmen behind the fight against discrimination of African Americans in the press, particularly in the years around World War II. Prattis’ ability to directly observe Congress allowed him to report on government proceedings with firsthand knowledge of events, and he could apply his unique perspective as an African American veteran and leader of the early movement for civil rights.

February 8, 1944: Before Percival Prattis integrated the Congressional news galleries, Harry S. McAlpin integrated the Washington press corps when he became the first African American admitted to a White House press conference. McAlpin was advised against going to the press conference by Paul Wooten, reporter for the New Orleans Times-Picayune and President of the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA). Wooten informed McAlpin that he was not welcome in the press conference, that he would be given the notes taken by others in attendance for use in his reporting, and was told he could join the WHCA if he agreed to stay out of the press conferences. However, McAlpin attended the conference in the Oval Office anyway, and made a point of stopping by President Theodore Roosevelt’s desk. The President shook his hand and said, “I’m glad to see you McAlpin, and very happy to have you here.”

Malvin R. Goode

February 13, 1908: This is the birthday of Malvin R. Goode, who became the first African American television news correspondent for ABC in 1962. It happened that the lead ABC correspondent was on vacation during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Goode was called upon to report in his absence. His 1995 obituary in the New York Times notes that Mal Goode was recommended to the position by his friend Jackie Robinson, and anchor Peter Jennings considered him a mentor. Before going on television, Goode worked at the Pittsburgh Courier while Percival Prattis was there, and continued the fight for civil rights long after his retirement from ABC in 1973.

I wholeheartedly agree with Rather that a standard of poor journalism is both insulting and dangerous. What I’m not sure of, though, is his prescription that the President or any government-appointed commission be tasked with ”fixing” the news. Perhaps this is just cynicism on my part, but even with the best intentions, putting the government anywhere near the news industry only invites more trouble.  And–now, this is definitely cynicism–I’m tired of commissions making recommendations and putting out reports. If we as news consumers want more honest reporting, more investigative journalism, we have to demand it.  The change comes from us.

When the line between news and propaganda becomes increasingly blurred, as it is now, news literacy is our greatest tool. This may sound oversimplified, but when I watch the news on TV I frequently wonder if people understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. Most news shows are really just stretches of editorial content asking you to do little more than sit back and follow their single stream of logic–nevermind the presentation and validation of opposing viewpoints or facts. We have to ask questions. We have to demand better. We have to turn off the snake oil salespeople on both sides of the political spectrum who report from a place of fear that even-handed journalism is not profitable.

One way to do this is to read a variety of media. Back in March, New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof wrote a great piece called “The Daily Me.”  In it, Kristof implies that we as news consumers may be at fault for a poor newsscape, citing a condition where “we generally don’t truly want good information — but rather information that confirms our prejudices.” If I’m only going to read what I agree with, if I’m not ready to listen to a plausible and intelligent argument that might change my mind on something, then I’m at fault for not demanding a better product.

Let me add that I don’t know if there ever has been a “golden era” of news, where everything was thoughtful, unbiased and accurate. Tabloids and shock jocks have been around since the beginning of time, and if they’re louder now, then maybe it’s only because there are more ways for them to make their message heard. Whether or not the news industry has worsened or whether its ills have simply become more exposed is difficult to determine, but one thing that remains true is that we are still consumers. We eat what we’re fed, but if we stop ordering the same entree, then, with time and patience, the menu will change.

–Emily Long

Another recent reminder that news as we traditionally conceive of it is losing the battle with our current economic/social/technological circumstances is the New York Times report that in many TV markets news studios are either pairing up with local newspapers or are sharing resources (equipment and talent) with other competing studios.  Or they’re doing both.  More and more news businesses are losing money because advertisers don’t have many advertising dollars to invest these days.  And they pay for most of the news we get via the traditional outlets such as TV and newspapers/news magazines.  They even pay for a lot of web news content.  

Pair that situation with the fact that , for a longer period of time, journalists, journalism educators and public advocates of all types have been concerned about what happens when everyone is a journalist, and whatever anyone posts through any digital platform is considered news and treated as news by any number of fractured audience groups.  What happens to cohesion?  What happens to journalistic standards like fairness, balance and truth?  What happens to people getting good information that they can use to make sense of the world?  What happens to shared information?  What happens to making lots of money from the news?

Maybe news shouldn’t be a business at all.  Seems hard to imagine since news has followed a business model in this country for literally centuries.  Journalists have been trained, either in school or on the job at newspapers, in newsmagazines, at radio stations, on television and for many websites (sponsored by the CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NY Times, etc.  brands) to create news that will sell audiences to advertisers.  News is a product.  Even the news for PBS and NPR is a product fit for the public broadcast brand, though less so than within the for-profit world.  The point is that now we need a new paradigm for thinking about news and information. 

The digital realm is forcing us into a new paradigm deeply, though the current economic situation is making us feel it more acutely at present. Unfortunately paradigm isn’t a word that sits well with many people because it, accurately, suggests a revolution in thinking, then practice.  Maybe we’ll just go with model for right now.  That’s a more palatable word, especially for those who think like business folk.  The business model for news is on the way out.  It’s time to face that fact.  What a journalist does is going to change.  What a journalist is will change as well.  Maybe we won’t have the word journalist eventually.

But I’m taking a very long view, as I prefer.  Starting with baby steps, let’s consider the proposal by long-time journalist and journalism educator Len Sellers.  In a recent interview published in Miller-McCune Magazine, he’s suggesting that the solid sources of accurate, responsible, cohesive reporting ought to be centered in the nation’s leading journalism education university centers pairing up with big money foundations.   In other words, the centers for solid reporting will be  journalism students and their seasoned mentors working at universities which are funded by foundations, not corporations.  This is a shift in the business model, and will change the relationship of advertising dollars to audiences.  The news generated from these sources could be created for all platforms, and more time could be spent preparing in-depth investigative reporting.  Hallelujah.

I’m on board with that kind of news future, but I think it would necessarily be paired with a good slew of citizen journalists doing their own investigative, local, even micro reporting across many different platforms as well.  News and information have to come from lots of different sources.  Everyone needs to be a consumer as well as participant.

And that’s where I give my spiel for news literacy.  No matter what the paradigm–or model–everybody’s got to know how to evaluate news and information, and everyone’s go to know how it’s put together, how the arguments and facts are arranged to convey meaning, whether using words, images, sounds or various combinations of all these.

Maybe some will still make money from news in this transformed news and information order, but many will not.  It will require a shift in thinking and practice.  But that’s where we’re headed.  In the long view.

–Katherine G. Fry