I've been sitting on my hands and biting my tongue all week while this debate plays
out.
The first conclusion I draw is that some List members are as thin-skinned as most
journalists.
Second, the debate seems to have encouraged many to weigh in through an ideological
prism.
Aaron Osterby raises two points with which I disagree, involving the use of the term
"activist," and the relationship between PR and the news media.
He comments: "I can't get away from the connection between public relations and
corporate power and the fact that giant corporations run the media. It seems like big
business being in control of what we read every day is harmful to democracy if you
believe that democracy is about what we covered in civics class, that people should
determine the shape of their communities."
I suspect that he is thinking globally, but I'd like to bring the point home locally.
I agree that there are too many instances of the Star Tribune pursuing stories that
have little relevance to everyday lives or long-lasting impact. Some of those are PR
driven.
I'm a reporter who has made a point of dealing with as few PR people as possible. The
only ones I bother to contact are those whom I've learned through experience will
provide credible information in a timely fashion. One experience from my
neighborhoods-based beat is that PR efforts are not limited to corporations. Take the
Hwy. 55/Coldwater issue as an example. There was lots more PR coming from those who
like to think of themselves as the good guys in this issue than from MNDOT, which was
generally reactive. I've got a box full of PR releases from Bob Greenberg on behalf
of Earth First!, from Susu Jeffrey and the Preserve Camp Coldwater Coalition, from the
Sierra Club and like-minded organizations, from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District, which employs a PR person on contract and a PR staffer. Indeed, these
organizations usually have Web sites which we listed for readers, while MNDOT posted
almost nothing on the issue, and thus was at a PR disadvantage.
My experience is that there is is a place in the paper for reporters whose stories
aren't driven by PR. The best reporters are contrarians, who zig when everyone else
zags. Few of us have the luxury of doing that full time. There are days when I have
a few hours to frame an issue, and I do the best I can with the time I have and the
information i can dig up. That comes with the franchise at a metro daily. I feel
more effective when I have a few weeks to look at an issue, and I think this results
in any reporter's best work. That's why some good stories show up in City Pages.
No PR person suggested I write about Jackie Cherryhomes benefitting from NRP
remodelling the house she purchased. Nobody in PR suggested I become the first
reporter to dig up the total law enforcement cost of the first big raid on the Hwy. 55
encampment. No PR person suggested I hold the Metro Council to account a year ago
when it lagged in creating Hollman replacement housing in the suburbs. Certainly no PR
person has encouraged me to write dozens of stories about some of the most powerless
people in Minneapolis--those who were victims of mortgage flipping. No PR person is
pushing me to a follow-up about the latest real estate scam against the vulnerable.
No Honeywell PR person suggested that I focus a story on the several hundred renters
displaced without relocation benefits when the Honeywell-led Portland Place project
razed their hosuing. No PR person suggested I do statistical research to disprove the
claim that there was a correlation between NRP investments and property values.
Maybe I don't write a story the way your ideology points, but that's often got more to
do with a lack of empirically credible evidence, rather than PR spin.
Mr. Osterby also dislikes the term activist. He posits that the Vikings owner should
be called a "stadium activist" if the word is to be applied to others. That would be
apt if he sold insurance for a living or ran an venture capital fund. But it strikes
me that his stadium activities are part of his portfolio as team owner. To label him
merely as a stadium activist would be to screen his main motivation for a stadium, to
profit as a team owner.
Mr. Osterby suggests that there's a broader opprobrium suggested with the term
activist. If so, I'd suggest it's more inferred than implied. The word is newspaper
shorthand, the sort of jargon we used when trying to fit 10 pounds of information into
a five-pound story. I could refer to someone as a "Hwy. 55 activist" or as the
"assistant deputy executive director of the Stop the Reroute Coalition." The latter
takes up more space, space that could be used to convey the news instead of someone's
title. It's the same reason we call someone a "spokeswoman" instead of the "deputy
communications coordinator." Also, many of the grassroots groups with whom I've
dealt, such as Hwy. 55 opponents, eschew hierarchical titles in the spirit of
collective decision-making. "Activist" becomes a short punchy descriptor. My
experience is that people would rather be called an "activist" than a "protester."
As for suggestions that the Star Tribune feels threatened by the List, there's holes
in that conspiracy theory. I wrote a 27-inch article last Oct. 22 on the List's role
in shaping the civic agenda in an election year, and a follow up to that on Nov. 11.
And yes, both gave the link for subscribing to the List, even though it's readily
obtainable by searching the Web.
Yours for less PR in journalism,
Steve Brandt
Star Tribune {40 hours a week}
Kingfield {128 hours a week}
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
