The great media menace - Scottsdale edition

Apparently the great media menace has reared its ugly head in Scottsdale, Ariz. -- at least according to some members of the governing board of the local community college system.

You can read the note below and show your support, if you wish, in any way you deem appropriate.

But I do think a good underlying point is raised here -- we are coming to grips, hook or crook, with the reality that we are a multiracial society. In the case of the Cole cartoon, I can see the offense that could be taken. I don't think any was intended, but the drawing clearly could be interpreted as having monkey-like characteristics.

Before you start writing nasty comments and e-mails about the danger of "PC," I'm not suggesting we turn everything into milquetoast. But attention must be paid to the details -- and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

-----

*Subject: *College press rights threatened

Hello friends. I hope this email finds you well. I apologize in advance for the long note. Just wanted to give you the facts on what we are facing.

*We could use any support you can bring to bear to protect press freedoms for college journalists.
*
A cartoon that ran in our Scottsdale Chronicle Feb. 11 edition shows Obama climbing a small mountain to the presidency then facing a much larger one of expectations. It is called "The Ascent" by John Cole: http://community.thetimes-tribune.com/blogs/johncole/archive/2009/01/21/the-ascent.aspx. It was drawn in honor of the inauguration and ran in his paper, the Scranton Times-Tribune, without a complaint, we have been told. We pay a small fee to Cagle Cartoons to use their syndicated cartoonists after the cartoons run in their original newspapers. It wasn't until the NY Post cartoon came out a week after the Cole cartoon ran in our campus paper that we received an email complaint. The complainant then attached the NY Post cartoon (now referred to as the Chimp cartoon) to an email sent to all African-American faculty and staff districtwide, the local NAACP members, the local media and many members of other African-American Valley organizations inferring that we ran the NY Post cartoon. Because most of those who received the emails weren't on our campus and we don't carry the cartoons online due to copyright issues, It caused a lot of anger but no one contacted us directly so that we could straighten it out. Some people contacted the Governing Board to complain even though they had not seen the cartoon we really ran.

We aren't making excuses for the Cole cartoon. Once people are told that the cartoon we ran makes Obama look like a monkey, then they see it and we understood how some could be offended, especially in light of the NY Post cartoon. Because of the NY Post cartoon, most media are now rethinking how to handle editorial cartoons about Obama, including the Chronicle. We have had great dialogs about the difficult topic of race portrayals in all of society on our campus because of this and have been trying to move forward --- until last night.

Our newspaper appeared on the MCCCD Governing Board agenda for last night (March 10) and two editors and I went. We were led to believe that it was probably just going to be a summation of action taken to dialog with those offended. Instead, all but one of the board members (Don Campbell) decided that all student newspapers in the district needed to allow the board to control content in the future. They didn't feel like the Chronicle had any kind of guidance and wondered if the other district student newspapers operate the same way. The board has trouble understanding the difference between "guidance/adviser" and "control." We were not allowed to speak during all of this. When the Chronicle was discussed, board member Debra Pearson went on a diatribe of how terrible today's media is and how they (the governing board) need to take control of all of the campus newspapers because we are all just a bunch of tabloid journalists. Board member Randolph Lumm kept talking about how there was no oversight for the college newspaper. The worst was when they asked Pete Kushibab, district counsel, if they had a right to take control of the newspaper content and he said they did but that most colleges in the nation choose not to do so. Pete didn't explain why and the board didn't ask. The board told all of the presidents that they are to report back to them on how much oversight and control they have over their campus newspapers. There wasn't a date set, but I suspect it will be on the next agenda, Tuesday, March 24.

So, if the newspaper control discussion ends up on the agenda for March 24, we are calling out all of the students, faculty, staff and media interested in standing up for the First Amendment to show up so that people are flowing out the doors of the building. This new governing board (two just took office this year) doesn't understand its limits. It was an incredibly frustrating night, but we have much support from our own administration and faculty. Dr. Jan Gehler, SCC's new president, has been a very strong defender of the newspaper. It's amazing what one person with a districtwide email system and the wrong cartoon can do to damage the press. We'd appreciate your support.

You can access the Governing Board agenda at http://www.maricopa.edu/gvbd/agenda.php. I'll also sent out a note when I hear.

If you would like to contact me, please feel free to do so through this email address, not my work email. I'd be glad to answer further questions. Our spring break is next week, unlike most of yours, so I won't be in the office.

Take care, Julie

Julie Knapp
SCC Chronicle Adviser, Scottsdale Community College Journalism Director
stpress@cox.net

Stupid law tricks

The Washington Post's Marc Fisher (no known relative) has a blog post on one of the stupider legislative bills to come down the pike: Virginia state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli introduced a bill to make a criminal of anyone going onto the property of someone "within a week after the owner's family 'suffered a substantial personal, physical, mental, or emotional loss, injury, or trauma.' "

Cuccinelli wants to ban reporters from bothering the grieving. Fisher has a different tale, one from when he was a 22-year-old reporter sent to talk with the widow of an FBI agent who had just been killed:

I knocked. The reality was vastly worse than my expectation, because it turned out I was the first human being the new widow saw after getting the call about her husband's death. To my amazement, she did not turn me away, but asked me to come in.

She wanted to tell me everything about her husband. She wanted to talk. She wanted the world to know what a wonderful man he'd been, what had driven him to become an FBI agent, what he intended for himself and for her.

I thought I might get a few telling details, borrow a family photo and get out of there in 10 minutes.

I stayed three hours. Sure, I had an ulterior motive, a business purpose. But I also served the function of listener, fellow human being, witness. Several times, I offered to leave. Each time, the woman begged me to stay.

As Fisher points out, that's the reality in many cases -- families and friends want to talk about those who have died, and good reporters know they are there to help tell those stories.

Fisher does us a bit of a disservice, however, with this throw-away line: "Sure, there are jerks and abusers who take advantage of families in such situations; no one should have to deal with pompous TV reporters barging into their houses, lights shining and hairspray hanging in the air."

So Fisher is suggesting that somehow only print reporters have the dignity and skills to interview the grieving? Balderdash. Yes, TV is intrusive, but to generalize TV reporters as hairspray freaks shallower than a puddle after a midsummer rain is as guilty of being as broad-brush as Cuccinelli's idiotic proposal. (And I've known more than my share of boorish print reporters.) Not only that, but given the choice, I think more than a few grieving folks would take the chance to tell their story on TV; they're not stupid -- they realize the relative impact.

Aside from that little slip, however, Fisher's blog entry is well worth reading. And it's comforting to know that the Virginia Senate has smacked this one down in committee for now. But don't let legislators in some other states know about this idea -- it might show up in your Statehouse.