Citizen editors: New solution to an old problem?

Just curious, Gina. How many African Americans belong to your stable of writers and editors? Who is responsible at your newspapers for covering events/issues that may affect racial or ethnic minorities? Is this person or persons minorities themselves?

Do you and your colleagues routinely sit down and discuss matters of bias, intentional and/or unintentional, and ways to curtail it? Do you and your colleagues discuss how you might approach even a semblance of objectivity given your paper's heavy reliance upon advertisers? Do you and your stable of writers and editors even think that objectivity is a desirable goal? Does objectivity figure into your thinking, at all, when you select what stories to select and prioritize?

Have you and yours discussed the ratio of kinds of sources your paper uses in its stories? Have you ever determined what the ratio is between officials -- DA's, Police Chiefs, political party heads, company owners/administrators -- versus eyewitnesses on the street, ordinary Joes, community activists, wage workers?

Or are you content to continue sounding like a High School sophomore who's in charge of the school newspaper? Typos? Indeed. Whoooooooosh!

Noam,
The makeup of the staff reflects the makeup of the community as best as it can. Minority journalists are few and far between and the few there are usually go to jobs that pay quite a bit more we can.

Yes, we do discuss objectivity, and we base our story selection on journalistic principles of timeliness, prominence, importance, etc. (J-school, first semester.)

As far as advertising, if you can come up with a better way to fund an independent media source that employs professional journalists, let me know. And before you say the "PBS model," I invite you to visit SupportLocalJournalism.com/Pleasanton and become a member.

As far as everything else, WHOOOOOSH! I believe I hear someone volunteering to go to city council, school board and planning commission meetings, hang out at the police station at all hours day and night, and read fun and exciting board packets 2 inches thick ... FOR FREE .... so you can provide your expert opinion on what exactly we should be covering. If you have a journalism degree, and are willing to work long, strange hours FOR FREE, you can put in some long hours writing the stories to go with all those tips. Let me know when you\'re available! Then you can share in the glamorous lifestyles and gushing expressions of appreciation we journalists enjoy.

I see. So, since Pleasanton is the Idaho of the Bay Area (predominantly white), no reason to attempt to diversify one's stable of writers and editors, eh? And, besides, minority journalists just demand too much money! So, given the homogeneous composition of the newspaper, we'll simply have to rely on the white newspaper's point of view.

Timeliness, prominence, importance, which you imply you 'learned' in journalism school, have PRECIOUS LITTLE to do with objectivity. (You seem to be conflating objectivity with popularity of themes.) These simplistic 'criteria' you offer might easily reflect a newspaper's unreflective conformity to what it THINKS its community desires. More pertinent criteria, I would think, would entail a diversity of viewpoint and critical reflexivity which is going to be difficult to cull from a stable of homogenized workers/staff.

The question isn't about advertising per se, as you simplistically suggest. It is a matter of to what extent the journalists, editors, and owners internalize the advertisers' values. For after all, it is your advertisers who are paying your bills. That you're seemingly unable to recognize this as a problem, wedded to your simplistic -- better said, wrongheaded -- idea of objectivity, reveals quite a bit about yourself and the paucity of standards underlying your newspapers' practices.

Your comments about me volunteering to do your work for you appear scatter-brained, and off the topic. Maybe you should censor your remarks in this regard?

So, here's what I gather from your response. To sum up: your idea of objectivity is simpleminded at best, if not outright wrong. It is clear enough that any mature concept/standard of objectivity does not figure into your own thinking or the practices of your newspaper. "Prominence?" "Importance?" I think not. Instead, you suggest strongly it's okay to bow to what you assume are the values/beliefs of a largely homogeneous community, and your silence on how you attempt to address the information needs of Pleasanton's minority population is pretty loud and clear. All this becomes even more troublesome given that you must cater to the values of your advertisers as a function of running a business rather than a newspaper.

Your censorship practices, frankly, are a revealing tip of this rather sizable iceberg. I don't think you and your staff have much of a clue as to what you are doing; and thus any promise of improvement along lines of objectivity, diversity of viewpoint, critical-inquiry-in-the-face-of-possible-community(advertiser)-disapprobation appears to be nil.

You are welcome to attend an editorial meeting and enlighten us on what you think we should cover, how we should cover it and how to run a newspaper - without advertisers. Really, I'd love to hear. Call my office - 600-0840.

Oh, but you can't be anonymous if you have to come to the office, can you?

Yes, I have no intention of forfeiting my anonymity; nor do I have any desire to give up my day job.

You don't need me at your meetings. There are plenty of alternative models out there. Yes, they'd require that you read a book or two. But you might also take a gander at how various African American newspapers function in the world of white majorities and advertisers. Take a look at, say, the Chicago Defender, New York Amsterdam News, New York Beacon -- all available thru easy accessed search engines. This should be in your interest on many levels. You do realize, don't you, that ethnic minority newspapers in California are now reaching a larger subscriber readership than are so-called mainstream, white majority-based newspapers?

One of the things ethnic newspapers seem to do so much better than white homogeneous newspapers like the PW, is that they take very seriously their sources. In fact, a quick read of any of the black newspapers I've mentioned will show something of a reversal in source selection. In white homogeneous newspapers, officials are interviewed at approx. a 2-1 ratio over people from the street; in black newspapers, 'street people' -- eyewitnesses, neighbors and family members of subjects, community activists -- are interviewed at about the same rate 2-1, in their favor. Now, in a democracy that purports to uphold an equality of voice, it strikes me that a newspaper would want to emulate the ethnic minority newspapers in this regard. For, after all, do we ALWAYS need to hear 2 officials for every one "common" person? And how might you think that might have a bearing upon matters of objectivity?

We, the residents of Pleasanton, are pretty much all 'editors' of sorts, as I see it. We exchange observations and opinions of happenings in our town...presumably 'representative' of Pleasanton's natural makeup of people, activities, and opinions. We have a large representation of Asians in town, and I suppose they make up a large representation on this site, but how would I know? How could I tell?? Do I 'need' to know?? I don't think it should matter. Our opinions should be color & culture blind. I assume posters would sort of 'naturally' represent the appropriate 'mix' according to our population.
PW is certainly NOT a national, state, or even county paper. I pay to subscribe to some of those. PW Town Square is as the name implies, "TOWN" square... where locals 'sit and chat' about thoughts for that day....
NOT complicated, NOT structured. IF that starts happening that's when PW becomes history & disappears.

'News' articles in the PW 'paper' are reasonably 'objective. But this on site 'running' exchange is anything BUT objective. It's usually a discussion, debate, or even a 'shouting' match, of sorts. It could well be two extreme positions for days, without 'objectivity'. This site is for the people, and does not need to be as rigid as subscription 'papers'. . .In my humble 'opinion' which is what is offered on this site.
You are free to offer anything. It might be replied to, or it might not.

It is rare to find a troll who consistently hits the tri-fecta of self-importance, tone-deafness and neediness. "Chumpsky's" point could have been constructively made in one paragraph, but that would've sacrificed several opportunities for the perceived self-aggrandizement, errant pedantry, and attention from others that are sought above all else.

On thing about trolls, though: they are all insatiable -- feeding them only makes them want more. I think a simple "thanks for sharing" may be the best response, in case any is needed, at all.

Noam, I do not think it is Gina's fault that Pleasanton is a predominantly white community.
I am looking forward to the first issue of "The Pleasanton Defender" hitting my mailbox...

When I become a blogger, use multiple names to shore up the (self-induced)illusion that people are reading and commenting on my blog, use other multiple names on other blogs in order to defend my boss, and do all this without having anything to say, then I'll plead guilty to "self-aggrandizement ... and attention from others above all else." Really, Citizen Paine, how foolish you sound.

I've made several points, all underscoring the problems that inhere in being an all-white, advertiser-fed, politically biased newspaper. Unless some of these problems are honestly addressed, the paper is destined to have a low readership, with its Town Forum reduced to a highly censored comedienne and a local racist (who rarely gets censored -- gosh, go figure!). These two contributors, combined with the two bloggers whose addictions can only be fed by commenting on every possible blog site under the sun, probably constitutes, what, maybe 95% of Town Forum commentators?

I try to point out trouble areas, and offer recommendations. In response, the clowns inevitably spill out of the Volkswagen. File this under: No good deed goes unpunished.

Thanks for sharing.

I don't see anything wrong with all white advertiser-fed with a point of view just as I don't see anything wrong with predominantly of one race sports league that is advertise-fed with its own agenda. Don't like this publication go elsewhere or start your own. We all have the freedom and the means to avail ourselves to a variety of sources. quit whining!

A key difference between (most) white newspapers and (most) ethnic newspapers. The former claims an adherence to objectivity, and thereby disguises its biases (see Gina's unfortunate effort to discuss objectivity); the latter promulgates its biases so that readers and advertisers know what it is they are reading and/or patronizing. Neither are objective, but only one has the honesty to admit it.

Not quite sure I'm familiar with any 'one race sports league that is advertise-fed with its own agenda'. I doubt Jake is familiar with such either. More likely, he sees African Americans participating in a sport and, being the frightened and insecure person he is, immediately assumes a 'one race league'. I think it is highly revealing (as well as mildly amusing) that the town racist is defending the PW.

Noam,

Where is all of this coming from? Why blindside the PW with non-specific accusations of racism? Are there "black" stories not being told because of a "white coverup?" I've seen plenty of stories that reflect the diversity of our town, Chinese, Indian, Arab, Scottish, etc. This really looks like trolling at its worst and most puerile, and I'm somewhat taken aback to see Gina even try to answer your antagonism seriously.

I agree Barabbas, After pages and pages of general opinion and comments comparing papers and racism, Noam has not offered any situation or anything specific about racism, just general attacks. She, at any point, could have introduced any specific situation, and still can...not, just generalizations. If anybody thought there was something that needs to be brought up anybody could have, including Noam. This is not a 'paper' with limitations.
In my Pleasanton fitness class, I am often just 1 of 2 whites, other 38 an assortment of everything else.,I just never thought that was newsworthy....I guess maybe it is.

When a community excludes certain points of view, certain experiences, that belong to a minority of its members, it is then relatively easy for the majority to be blinded to the exclusion and its possible effects. We then get thinly veiled racist platitudes as: Well, what's the big deal, we live in a free society ... a colorblind society ... a diverse community with Scots, Indians, and Swedes. Such platitudes, of course, serve to deny the validity of other people's (a minority's) experiences, values, and world views.

How many PW pieces have looked at with any seriousness the experiences of African Americans living in Pleasanton? What does it mean to be black in this town? What kinds of discrimination, intended or unintended, are there? What kind of view of certain newsworthy events is perhaps (likely) seen differently from a minority point of view? When a newspaper complacently hides behind -- yeah, we're mostly lily white but we're just reflecting a mostly lily white community -- then of course news will be selected/interpreted/written/disseminated from a predominantly white point of view. If you believe points of view are not racially tinged, I invite you (again) to look at many African-American newspapers. If the community is racist (as Pleasanton most assuredly is), it will tend to remain racist without most even being aware of it.

What stands out in the black press is that African Americans value such things as freedom more so than whites, who tend to take freedom for granted. Being African American MEANS having experiences of freedom that are highly problematized; it is highly unlikely that a white majority (or even other minorities with different historical experiences) can appreciate this.

For a newspaper to dwell on matters of punctuation (and censorship) while minimizing issues of race and how such issues bear on news reportage, diversity of interpretation of the news, and hence quality of information, is to do everyone a great disservice. For if we truly value such concepts as freedom, individualism, rights, democratization, we will want to learn from those whose experiences with such have been far more problematized with these, thus putting them in a position to teach us a great deal that we might not otherwise learn.

If you think coverage of, say, a town meeting where low income housing is being discussed is going to be reported on relatively similarly by white and black reporters alike, you are simply being naive and, most likely, intentionally so. I could name dozens of other 'kinds of news', reported and not reported, where an assured prevalence of a dominant (white) perspective will seriously skew a community's overall perception of the world.

Huh. Now, that's a comment that is informative and challenging -- and nearly devoid of noise. 'Grats, man -- here's hoping for more like that. You have raised the bar on yourself.

So in other words, no, there is nothing specifically you have a beef with. It's pretty much, "Hey, racism exists!"

Well, I wouldn't word it quite like that, Barabbas. For after reading your trenchant, thoughtful comment, I'd say not so much "Hey, racism exists!" but rather, "Hey, racism and dirt-dumb stupidity tend usually to co-exist!"

The challenge of African-American discourse has always been to use various rhetorical devices to bring readers/listeners to their senses. Of course, it's nice when an audience is receptive, and shows a willingness to understand and learn. But as your post testifies, the union of racism and stupidity forms a rather formidable obstruction to any reasoned effort that aims to achieve shared understanding by discursive means.

Don't worry, I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying. But thanks oodles for offering up your witless reply as exemplar of a stubborn and willful ignorance.