Background: Originally published September 6, 2006. In sorting through my columns from this past decade, I've encountered numerous political columns that dealt with a snapshot in time. I felt the columns were important and relevant when they were published, but years later I'm not sure if the columns have any current value.
I haven't decided yet whether I'm going to publish political columns that only deal with a specific incident in time. However, I decided to publish this column because it not only deals with a political issue...the recall effort against Douglas County Commissioner Marilyn Kittelman...but it also deals with he broader, more timely issue, of how journalists treat recall campaigns.
The current recall campaign against Douglas County Commissioner Marilyn Kittelman has unleashed some "firsts" in local political reporting.
This is apparently the first recall campaign against a county commissioner since the 1970s.
This is the first time that a news report based on third-hand information from an anonymous source, has generated as big an ongoing controversy for as long as it has.
This is the one of the first times, if not the first, that a local newspaper has endorsed a "yes" vote on a recall.
And it's also one of the first times in my memory, that a Douglas County commissioner has refused to be interviewed for a news story....but the news media outlet instead offered the individual the opportunity to submit verbatim responses to be published in its place.
Without offering an opinion on the merits of the recall itself....I repeat WITHOUT offering an opinion on the recall itself....it's interesting to reflect on the circumstances surrounding the recall. While there are many issues surrounding the recall, most sides agree the dispute between the Cow Creek Indian tribe and the county commissioners office is at the forefront. And, one of the incidents that heated the dispute occurred at a Rice Hill restaurant where Kittelman allegedly made racist remarks about the Indian tribe.
What's interesting to me is that the incident was reported on local radio stations without any attribution from the individuals making the complaint. Because a county commissioner is a public figure, there is a higher standard of libel or slander. A quick glance at the cartoons on the editorial page will prove that anyone can say just about anything they want to about an elected official, without fear of being sued.
However, as a standard rule of thumb, if a complaint against a public official is the basis of a news story, AND there is no police or official investigation to coincide with the complaint, then it's rare not to attribute the source of the complaint in a news story. Of course, one can find numerous exceptions to this practice on the national level. But it's unusual to see these types of anonymous sources quoted in local county political stories.
The radio stations did not disclose the name of the person(s) who allegedly heard Kitelman make the racist remarks, and the story quickly spread to the local print media as well.
Newspapers general do not endorse a "yes" vote on recalls, citing that recalls are divisive, and they often cause more harm than good. After all, if the public doesn't like an elected official, that's what elections are for.
The only time that I've seen a yes recall endorsement is when an elected official is accused and/or convicted of a crime. The Roseburg News-Review broke its past record of rejecting local recall efforts, and is now encouraging a yes vote on Kittelman's recall. Despite the recall gridlock that now exists among the unfilled Oakland city council seats (the two remaining Oakland councilors could not agree on a single candidate to fill the three vacant council seats), the local newspaper apparently has more confidence in Commissioners Doug Robertson and Dan Van Slyke agreeing on a person to fill Kittelman's position, should she be recalled.
But what I found most interesting of all was the News-Review's offering a question and answer format for Kittelman to comment on the recall. In my opinion, and not all journalists agree, it is never appropriate to agree to pre-arranged questions. In my opinion, it is a form of prior restraint. In the history of the United States, people have fought and died for a free press. Journalists should have the unfettered ability to question government leaders.
And, if the government leaders do not recognize their obligation to assist the free press in disseminating information to the general public, then the public figure does not deserve to have their opinion aired, in my opinion. Otherwise, the news media in the United States becomes no different than the news media in communist countries. They become mouthpieces for the government, printing only the information that the government wants the public to know. Pre-arranged questions stop the investigative process; it filters the free flow of information between government and the public.
At this point, one could point out that a pre-arranged question and answer format is common during elections, when newspapers often give all candidates equal opportunity to respond to questions with unedited answers. The key word here is "equal." If Kittelman is allowed to give unedited responses to questions, then one may wonder why recall petitioner Don Keogh isn't given the same privilege?
In the News-Review's defense, they may have had no other way to obtain Kittelman's side of the recall. Kittelman has accused some of the local news media of biased reporting. As a courtesy, or a gesture of goodwill, the News-Review may have offered Kittelman the question and answer format as an olive branch or overture to allow her to give her side of the story. In some circumstances, getting a message to the public may be a more paramount concern than temporarily compromising any journalism ethics.
Kittelman isn't the only government official who has become adversarial with the local news media. I personally have had to deal with a school superintendent and a city manager who also insisted on pre-arranged questions instead of a free-flowing interview. Not wishing to alienate the individual, I've generally tried to "feel" my way with the individual and let them know the general nature of my questions, without specifically agreeing to discuss a set number of questions.
By making a non-threatening, positive first impression with the individual, they usually forget all about pre-arranged questions for future news stories. I'm happy to say the city manager referred to above had never asked me again for pre-arranged questions, and is always accessible to do an interview when I need one.
My fear of pre-arranged questions is the dangerous precedent that it sets. If some disgruntled Douglas County public official in the future does not wish to be interviewed, they may instead ask for pre-arranged questions. If the newspaper refuses, the public official will then say that Kittelman was given pre-arranged questions instead of an interview, so why shouldn't he/she be given the same privilege?
Then there will be accusations of the newspaper's bias, and accusations the newspaper showed favoritism to Kittelman and gave her an unfair advantage. Sound absurd? I've seen similar situations before.
However, not all media outlets live in a black and white world where rigid rules are adhered to in all circumstances. Some media outlets instead prefer to handle ethical dilemmas on a case by case basis. But when established policies are in place, it sure makes it easier to avoid accusations of favoritism when one person is treated differently than another person in the same situation.
Experience has shown me that people will accuse the news media of bias and favoritism, even when stringent rules are followed and applied equally to everyone. I've had different people accuse me of favoritism toward the timber industry, AND accuse me of favoritism toward environmentalists, from the SAME news story! I guess the old adage is true: the only way for reporters to know that they're doing the job right, is when people from BOTH sides of an issue are upset with the reporters!
Afterwards: Marilyn Kittelman narrowly survived the recall effort. The News-Review later commented on its editorial page that Kittelman might have lost the recall, if the newspaper hadn't given her the question and answer column. Kittelman ran for re-election for a second term, but was defeated by state legislator Susan Morgan.
No comments:
Post a Comment