We live in a media landscape that’s far more complicated than any in human history. Here in Humboldt County — in addition to the litany of national and local newspapers trying to win your attention and provide you information and cable news shows filled with red-in-the-face pundits bending the news of the day to their political will — we have a daily, five weeklies, two local news broadcasts, a host of public affairs radio shows and a handful of blogs. To say nothing of the steady flow of information from lord-knows-where entering your social media feeds.
It’s overwhelming. How do we navigate this 21st century newsscape and use it to get the information we need and trust to live our collective best lives? It’s a complicated question, and not unrelated to the ones we grapple with in our Old Town newsroom while doing the daily work of local journalism.
At a time when the media — let’s be specific: long standing, legitimate news outlets — are being attacked and vilified by a sitting president and his administration, it might seem counterproductive to further scrutinize our newspapers. But accountability and transparency are the foundations of public trust. And one might argue that part of the reason this vilification has resonated with some is that media outlets have done a poor job of promoting media literacy and teaching people how to navigate and digest the information bombarding them on a daily basis.
With that in mind, this week we’re tugging back the curtain to share how we make decisions about what to cover in our pages and online, how we report those stories, the role and ethics of advertising and even how we review food and movies. Here, you’ll also find a satirical letter — a work of fiction — imagining Facebook’s response to the turmoil it has created. That’s our side of things. But we also invited some experts to offer their insights into how to identify fake news, pitch the causes you’re passionate about and better understand the changing face of local network news.
This week’s edition will in no way serve as some magic bullet that will instantly render mass media a world of bright lines separating black from white, misinformation from truth and good reporting from bad. Most of these issues exist in complicated worlds of gray, where the answers lie within, to be tapped by critical thinking, additional research and honestly considering opposing views. Democracy, as they say, isn’t a spectator sport and neither is life.
Take, for example, the Journal‘s Facebook page, which as been the source of some internal consternation in recent months. On the one hand, the platform has a deleterious effect on society, our communities and the news organizations that cover them. It creates bubbles of like-minded thinking, where users are allowed to spew bigotry or alternatively live in a bubble that allows them to pretend it doesn’t exist, and the platform prizes hot takes over substance. And there’s no question the platform is pushing news organizations to cannibalize themselves by devoting limited resources to creating content for a social media platform that works to take as large a portion of digital advertising dollars as possible. But on the other hand, Facebook is so ubiquitous some feel we’d be fools not to use it as a tool to bring our content to its users. So many people in Humboldt County — and across the globe — depend on their Facebook timelines as a news source, it would be a disservice to readers not to make our content available there. While there’s some disagreement of the best path forward, many of us feel Facebook is at best a Faustian bargain for newspapers like ours.
One point that has become increasingly clear as we’ve worked to put this paper together is that we’re not hearing enough directly from you, our readers. In that vein, we’ll be rolling out an online readership poll in the coming months to give you a chance to directly weigh in on our content, what you like, what you don’t, what you want more of, what you want less of. We’ll let you know when it’s up and running and we hope you will participate by lending your perspective.
But there’s also no need to wait until then. Do you feel like there are stories we’re missing, like there are valuable voices absent from our pages, that interesting topics are going unexplored? Or maybe you’ve found yourself wondering why we made a certain editorial decision? Possibly you’ve just been dying to tell us we’re a bunch of amateur hacks working for a throw-away rag? (That’s certainly fair game, too.)
Our paper doesn’t exist without you, our readers, so take some ownership and drop us a line: newsroom@northcoastjournal.com. And we probably don’t say it enough, but thanks for reading.
‘s arts and features editor. Reach her at 442-1400, extension 321, or Jennifer@northcoastjournal.com. Follow her on Twitter @JFumikoCahill.
Thadeus Greenson is the Journal’s news editor. Reach him at 442-1400, extension 321, or thad@northcoastjournal.com. Follow him on Twitter @thadeusgreenson.
Related Stories
How We News
Fake News
Look at All These Ads
Hum Plate Roundup
This article appears in The Media Literacy Issue 2018.
Jennifer, are you trying to tell the world with a straight face that you cover race/gender/sexuality issues without your own opinion guiding your writing? “Seriously?” Didn’t Humboldt lose a discrimination lawsuit filed by male job candidates? Wasn’t Josiah Lawson a violent presence during the brawl that resulted in his stabbing? Don’t you know some really fucked up LGBTQ people? In your various forms of “coverage”, such insight wasn’t present, and in that very real way, you fail as an objective reporter. Maybe you get off on it, click bait, same old same old. Do a real article on “political correctness” and how you fit the stereotype and I might take your “let’s be specific” paragraph in this editorial more seriously, because you often don’t practice what you’re preaching on a local level, and your slant on national ideas fits the “politically correct” stereotype to a T. People are being polarized and you’re playing along. Just sayin…
I realized this editorial is coauthored by Thadeus Greenson, and my reply goes the same to him.
…I feel it fair to say, I read all the local papers, rags and mags. I love them all and they collectively paint a screwy but genuine picture of Humboldt’s reporters’ slant on things. Daniel Mintz (sp.) does a decent job of covering several perspectives of an issue, but even he manages to gloss over key points when his slant is more obvious.
Art-
Thanks for weighing in. To quote from “How We News,” another piece in this issue:
“With that in mind, we should address bias and objectivity, two hot-button issues in today’s political climate. This may not be a popular take, but we at the Journal acknowledge that complete objectivity is a myth and we all carry bias with us into just about everything we do. It’s silly to think of reporters as people who somehow get beamed into covering a story without any notion of how they got there or life experiences to guide them. Instead, the guiding principles of reporting are thoroughness and fairness. Reporters need to acknowledge their biases and the subjectiveness of decisions that brought them to a story and make sure they report stories in a way that is fair to all parties involved on all sides of an issue.”
And I’ll take that a step further in reference to your first question: The idea that people of all sexual orientations, gender identities and races are created equally and should have every right to live their lives peacefully as they please so long as they aren’t hurting others is a principle we proudly carry with us into every story we report and everything we do. I’ll add that, in your words, there are also some “fucked up” people of all demographics, orientations and genders but that fact in no way reflects back on the groups as a whole.
As to your questions about Lawson an the lawsuit, we’ve covered those issues:
https://www.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog…
https://www.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog…
If you have an example of how “political correctness” or a “slant on national ideas” affects our local news coverage not our editorials or opinion pieces please point it out. As to your charge that we “get off” on “clickbait,” etc., please troll somewhere else.
I haven’t read that you’ve covered the sentiment towards the Lawson clusterfuck that I mention at all. The links you just provided certainly don’t. You and Jennifer have petitiined your readers that it’s our responsibility to ask ourselves tough questions to provoke a positive change in ourselves, not yourselves, regarding racism and the Lawson case, and it’s based on a racist motivation that the violent incident itsef contradicts. My comment about fucked up LGBTQ people is feebly humorous, sorry.. I’m not trolling any more than you’re pumping out click bait, but within your response to mine lies the crux of the problem. As reporters you and Jennifer have chosen to humor the wad of idiots that parasite the internet. But even within their sea of garbage are legitimate aruements about coverage of such issues as the Lawson case that you’ve ignored, instead hilighting nationally trending political correctness. You’ve used the term “alt-right” in your reporting and venting. The term “politically correct” is as legitimate and prominant a term that applies to you. The big picture is an intentionally polarized population riding eachothers’ gravity. How does a reader like me put it to you politely that you haven’t been polite? It’s all there in your own words. You eagerly report that people see the Lawson case as a racially motivated issue, but haven’t once reported that people are also suggesting the stabbing mcould very well have been in self defense, which would explain the lack of witness credibility as everybody wants to protect their own asses. It’s one of many points of notice, and it’s important to me in trying to understand the flipside to terms like “alt-right” such as “politically correct”.
This response is all toward your own solicitation, asking what I think, and after you’ve already told me what to think. Put your money where your mouth is and show your readers that you’ve meditated on your own “political correctness” in the same way you admonish a small, pilar sect of countless individuals. I believe people are good and generous, and that we’re fooled into reacting certain ways by people who also unwittingly perpetuate dividing us.
…not to drawl on, but, don’t think I’m “frothing”. I’m trying to understand the divide. Jennifer started an article about the prominence of women reporters or something, along the lines of “it’s not about numbers”, yet the entire rest of her editorial was about “the numbers”. Her recent humor blip about involuntarily sexless men derided a “growing number” of them (on the internet, mind you…humoring the wad of idiots) who are blatantly misogynistic and turn to violence, whereas involuntarilly celebate women just read more. Funny, except that everybody’s mother and her brother knows hell hath no fury like two lesbians scorning eachother. Little thigs adding up to the “politically correct” label, same as either of you might stick a similar label on somebody.
It’s not “complicated” at all.
Think back to all of humanity’s biggest, most successful social justice advancements, or just the last few in the U.S., each one was necessarily preceded by contentious polarization (wanting to avoid “divisiveness” merely serving a tyrant’s desires).
Thus, the language of change must first permeate the nation, eventually media and other institutions either start sharing in their community’s outrage or become irrelevant. Like any disease, racism, classism, sexism, etc, requires a broad spectrum of attack.
One day, voter turnout will, somewhere, be accurately reported as a percentage of potential voters and not as a percentage of registered voters, ie, fake news. Enabling American’s to understand a growing crisis in our democracy since 1970.
One day unemployment numbers will be accurately reported by adding a disclaimer, “this information is meaningless”. Leading to demands for more accurate indicators.
One day, media will either stop reporting the Dow Jones with its endless punditry, or assemble its own “HSI” (Human Suffering Index) from readily available statistical data. Enabling Americans to wonder why both indexes rise together.
For the truth to be believed, it must be repeated.
It takes courage from every sector of society.
Art-
You are responding to our solicitation, which I appreciate. It’s always valuable to hear what readers are thinking.
A couple of points I want to respond directly to:
First, our coverage of the Lawson case. We absolutely have reported on Lawson’s role in the violent encounters that preceded his stabbing and we’ve reported on how those violent encounters complicate any potential prosecution in the case. We have never once referred to his killing as having been racially motivated, and I have repeatedly said in editorials that we don’t know who killed Lawson or why. But the fact that we don’t know what happened does not negate that this incident has caused people of color to step forward to say they don’t feel safe, that they have suffered discrimination in this community and they want to see changes. Our lack of knowledge about who killed Lawson and why doesn’t make their feelings illegitimate or untrue.
Second, I think your comparing “alt-right” and “politically correct” is beyond a stretch.
Third, to your reference to Jennifer’s column and your claim that “everybody’s mother and her brother knows hell hath no fury like two lesbians scorning eachother,” I’ll take that drivel seriously if an aggrieved lesbian ever picks up an assault rifle and shoots up a school or a nightclub. To date, that has been uniquely the province of men.
Thanks Thadeus. A better example of what I’m talking about was a rwcent opinion piece of yours about dialog on race etc in which you mentioned a woman who commented at a “dialog on race” meeting in Arcata. She said “show yourselves friendly”. Friends of mine were there in support of the Lawsons, and couldn’t believe the attitude of some participants. The woman you quoted was addressing hecklers who wouldn’t, for the life of them, politely engage in any kind of dialog. You took the comment out of context and, as a representative of “the media” made it about an abstract, essentially telling your own “community” (pardon the quotes, but it’s a buzzword) that we have certain obligations and that woman’s comment wasn’t good enough. I understand the pressures of deadline but how much thought goes into some of your work? Those pieces read like a highschool senior’s commencement speach, full of sentiment and fury signifying what’s “trending” and less than little more.
Statistically speaking, white people arw 100% more likely to be killed by police than black people in Humboldt.County. Journal repeats national bleating. Gun control? When a lesbian picks up a gun and shoots people you’ll consider what I’m saying? Do some research. Murder suicide off a cliff around here recently might be the first to pop up on your search. Women discriminated? Humboldt’s bucking the trend, and even lost a lawsuit for discriminating against men. Journal repeats.national bleating. How come there’s been no dialog on the fact that the popular mass shooters were all on meds? Seems like a bigger root of a bigger problem, whereby suggesting responsible gun owners are somehow ignorant of the bigger picture is a politically correct mantra. Comparing alt-right and politically corrext isn’t a stretxh if you’rw working wih what I’m trying to say. Don’t you see it in the internet cesspool? Red and blue, left and right, liberal and conservative.
So, what does “politically correct” mean to you and where do you feel you land on the divide? Bipartisan politics and the big distraction issues were hot topics throughout my schooling in the 80’s amd 90’s. When lots of people started chanting “no more war”, the media pushed the divide “should homosexuals be allowed in the army”? It’s a stereotype of the US population in general, that we seriously lack the ability to really openly discuss heavy issues. That’s an intentional part of our conditioning to keep us divided and distracted from the politics that effect us all regardless of how we believe ourselves affiliated. I haven’t read that anybpsy at the journal has addressed this reality. Instead, when NBC or CNN or FOX is hammering everybody with divisive dialog, I’ve come to expect a predictably polar response from just about every local media outlet. Bandwagonning. I really feel for printed papers, I want the Journal to thrive.
I’m not a writer, this is off the cuff, work with me please. More that and than I can write right now…
I’m wondering about the ethics of getting your ex-coworker fired from her county job over a fully disclosed non-issue that meant that she’d be more effective at the job. I wonder if it occurred to you that you could prompt a family to lose an income.
And then have the gall to call out the county for firing her, like it happened in a vacuum.
I have to doubt the veracity of any of your big exposes, the seriousness of your pet causes, given how you totally failed to meet the most basic requirements of journalistic integrity. It was weak sauce, and you spilled it all over the publication’s reputation, which is a damned shame, ’cause the competition isn’t exactly incredible.
Maxwell-
Thanks for taking the time to comment. To bring everyone else into the loop of what youre asking about, its this piece I wrote about the county planning department hiring Allison Edrington as an extra-help staffer in the Cannabis Services Division. In the column, I questioned whether Edrington had a conflict of interest or at least the appearance of one given that she was retaining her role as board president and co-founder of the Humboldt Cannabis Chamber of Commerce, which was charging cannabis businesses $175 annual membership fees and lobbying the county on cannabis-related issues.
https://www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt…
In the column, I likened the situation to having then Greater Eureka Area Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Don Smullin process business license applications for the city of Eureka, or Humboldt Builders Exchange Board President Kathy Rodriguez working on building permits for the county. I think these comparisons were fair.
As you note, Allison is a former co-worker of mine I like her personally and have no ill-will toward her, and certainly didnt want to prompt a family to lose an income. But I felt the questions were fair and it warranted asking the county to answer them, which it did, defending the hire and Edringtons ability to handle applications fairly and navigate the waters between county planning and the role of Cannabis Chamber board president. And if I had chosen not to report on the story simply because I used to work with Edrington, that would have truly failed to meet the requirements of journalistic integrity.
As to your charge that we called out the county for firing Edrington like it happened in a vacuum, thats simply untrue. When my co-editor Jennifer Fumiko Cahill wrote the piece calling out the countys treatment of Edrington, she noted that the firing came a day after we published my column.
https://www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt…
As to the ethics of all this, while I do personally feel bad that Edrington lost her job with the county, I 100-percent stand by my belief that it was an issue that warranted reporting and asking questions, just as I would have felt had Smullin been called in to process business license applications or Rodriguez been tasked with looking at building permits. Conflicts of interests in local government are a serious issue as they often lead to allegations of preferential treatment and the appearance that the government is working to stack the deck for or against some residents. If that led you to doubt the veracity of our other reporting, thats unfortunate but beyond my control.
Thanks again for taking the time to weigh in with your thoughts.