Hey Newsweek, WTF?

Reading a paper copy of Newseek, I came across a section with the title "The Dignity Index." This purports to rate a particular event of the last week on a scale of 1 to 100, with 1 being "mildly tacky" and 100 being "utterly shameless."

Setting aside for a minute how judgmental and un-journalistic this is, I was a little shocked by the particular items listed in the Index and how they were rated.
From the online edition:

Texas Judge Sharon Keller refuses to keep her court open an extra 20 minutes so lawyers could fix a computer glitch and file a death-row appeal. Hours later, the inmate was executed.
Score: 32

A bittersweet buh-bye to Sen. Larry Craig. Your three-week reign of shame (for ruining Idaho's Hall of Fame ceremony just by showing up) is over. You've been bested. Or worsted.
Score: 73

Pandering for votes, lifelong Yankee fan Rudy Giuliani does the unthinkable: he's rooting for the Red Sox in the World Series. So wrong on so many levels, we're speechless.
Score: 95

What the hell? A judge refusing to wait 20 minutes to give a human being a chance to live rates a 32, and a New Yorker rooting for the Red Sox rates a 95?

Fuck You, Newsweek.

On the Barometer Editorial Regarding Blackface etc.

I have gone back and forth regarding this editorial all weekend.

On the one hand, I'm very glad to see the Baro address the issue at all. This incident involved not a columnist but a staff decision, so I can't say I'm all that surprised (but yes, still somewhat surprised) at the choice to cover the issue in some fashion.

On the other hand, I think it's kind of a weasely editorial. Let me explain.

The editorial starts with this:

We've spent a week talking about it, and it's created quite a stir on campus. The editorial board of The Daily Barometer felt that the matter required more than just simply running the column submitted by staff columnist Renée Roman Nose.

A few weeks ago, we ran a news story that included a graphic of a college-aged male wearing all black. He was also wearing black face paint. This graphic was designed in the name of school spirit, but it didn't come off that way to some members of our campus community.

It came off as offensive. It could be seen as a throwback to minstrel-era comedians mocking African heritage.

We explain this not in ignorance, but in order to pose a question.

A few things:

1. In the first paragraph, they note that they felt a greater response was needed than just Renee's column, but that doesn't explain why they held her column. We'll return to that decision later in the editorial.

2. They note that they are not explaining why the blackface is offensive out of ignorance - whose ignorance? It seems clear that the Baro staff was ignorant about this issue since they ran the photo in the first place. The ignorance of the reader? Well, if OSU students are so busy defending the black facepaint on Facebook, then it seems they are a wee bit ignorant as well. So - who is ignorant, again?

That sentence sounds like a way to weasel out of taking responsibility for the staff's own ignorance.

Moving on:

More than a week after this story ran in The Daily Barometer, Roman Nose submitted a column explaining and apologizing for the misdeed that the staff of the Barometer had perpetrated.

In literal shock and dismay that we hadn't heard about this issue before our columnist submitted something she intended to have printed, we chose - as an editorial board - to hold her column until further notice.

Holding Roman Nose's column was not a decision made to silence the voices of those offended. It was not a decision made to hide the something we did wrong.

It was a decision made so that we could appropriately and accurately respond to the campus community - with the opinions of Barometer staff members, community members and especially the opinions and understanding given to us by Renée Roman Nose.

OK. So the Baro's editorial board held the column because they were caught by surprise - due to their ignorance - and wanted to have a chance to formulate a response before they ran her column.

That's weaselly. And kind of pathetic. Again, we have a suggestion that the Baro staff was ignorant about what they did, reluctant as they may be to admit it. Second, we have a pretty sad use of their power: They held Renee's column because it would make them look bad, and they wanted a chance to come up with some sort of response before it was printed.

If I, as a columnist or reader, or as a subject of a news story, were to be in the same position, it's highly unlikely that the Baro would extend the same offer to me. I think this was a case of panicked CYA, and a shameful one at that, since the Baro's learning from Roman Nose's column hinged in no way on whether or not it had been printed. Better the Baro print her column when she submitted it and deal with the fact that they fucked up, stepping into the conversation when they learned enough to have something useful to say.

Also, the fact that they did not hear about this issue before the column's submission suggests a few things:

One, that they don't have any connections to the communities that get upset about things like racism on the front page, the implications of which are not good, since the communities were likely people of color and their anti-racist allies and friends.

Two, that people in said communities did not go the Baro staff with their concerns. Speaking from experience, I can safely suggest that this is the case because the Baro has historically been very unwelcoming to anyone the hyper-cliquish staff deems outsiders. Outsiders, of course, being anyone who is not friends with the staff.

Next, the editorial contains of the lamest statements I've ever heard:

Members of the community have asked how it is possible that we could have completely missed the boat on how that was offensive.

To this we ask, couldn't that be a good thing that the era of offensive mockery is now far enough behind us that it was not present in our active memory?

Could you display your privilege any more prominently? It's not quite inducing vomiting yet. But it's close.

Seriously.

Here's what I heard: "Isn't it a good thing we are so privileged to have no knowledge of blackface?"

Never mind the fact that every other year, some dumbshit fraternity makes national news for hosting a blackface party. That's just news - and why would the members of a newspaper's editorial board want to keep up on something as useless as news?

Or how about this: "Isn't it a good thing we are ignorant of this aspect of the history of racism in America?"

For fuck's sake, Baro. Just because you know something about history - be it blackface or the Armenian genocide of 1915 - does not mean you endorse or condone said historical fact.

Also, that is a profoundly anti-intellectual argument in that it portrays ignorance of history as a good thing. Coming from a newspaper located on a college campus, that's kind of....bad.

The fact that the editorial employs that poor of an argument shows just how badly they are grasping at any excuse not to own their ignorance on this one.

The editorial closes with a plea:

After a week of pondering and asking ourselves what the correct response would be, we understand the correct response is to open our minds, open our doors and hear what our campus is telling us. We understand that an apology for the unintentional offense was necessary.

Promoting a culture of fear and lack of inclusiveness goes against the lessons learned in difference, power and discrimination courses and the lessons we accumulate as contributing members of the campus community.

It is important for a thriving student media that all students participate in the conversation. Please, write a letter to the editor. Stop and visit the Barometer office. Give us a call.

We actually do want to hear what we do wrong. We want to improve as we strive to act professionally in working toward career goals.

I am of two minds about this.

On the one hand, I do not want to discard what I think is a genuine request on the Baro's part. This represents an opportunity for growth and learning, and that's good. I hope students take them up on this.

On the other, the Baro is constantly inviting people to come talk to them.... but they almost always fail to listen.

The Baro staff, in my experience, has always been a closed clique of people. I'm certainly not the only person to notice this. So historical experience makes me very skeptical of this newfound desire for openness.

Overall, I think the editorial was pretty poor on reasoning and responsibility. While it officially apologized, it tripped over itself to avoid any sort of blame (and perhaps the attendant consequences?), and it shows a dangerous lack of understanding on the relevant issues.

Plus, the decision to hold Roman Nose's column comes across - and was - a poor move designed almost solely to cover their collective asses.

The Baro needs to do better.

Another Inconvenient Truth?

Loathe as I am to say it, I think that last comment on this post over at LT's place has just enough truth to it to make it worth noting:

It is interesting to me that this blog is titled Lebanon for Truth and Reconciliation... and yet no part of this bitter, back bitting, "truthful" blog (and it's comments) are doing anything to bring reconciliation. I both agree and disagree with many of the comments posted for various reasons but as anyone I have discussed this blog with points out, regardless if the points are valid THIS blog has stirred up MORE controversy and anger than was already there (which was NOT what we needed) so LT I suggest if you want to continue on your crusade for Truth... leave out the reconciliation title because you are far from bringing that about.

While I don't think LT's blog is "backbiting" or bitter", I do think that at times, the content of the blog runs at odds with the blog's title (whereas, obviously, this blog's title of Rhetorical Wasteland is a good indicator that I babble on and on without saying anything interesting; take note). Even given the obvious historical reference - South African Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, in which people were given amnesty for admitting to crimes committed while SA was under apartheid - I definitely expected LT's blog to be more.... positive? Is that the word?

On the other hand, I appreciate that LT is a critical thinker, and I appreciate the urge to get rumors out into the open. But ultimately, I think that the tone present in LT's writing is often more abrasive than the content, which I think leads to people overlooking said content and being dismissive based on tone.

Or something.

This has been your incoherent post of the day.

Meta - Leaving Links in Comments

I have discovered that links left in comments as text (i.e. not embedded) don't work for some reason - Blogger cuts them off at the width of the comment section. So if you can, please leave them using HTML tags. Thanks.

There are no words

FEMA conducts fake news conference, uses press officials as reporters.

I can't get mad over this - it's far too absurd.

GT Covers the Barometer/Blackface Issue

I will have more to say over the weekend about this - probably lots more - but for now just read the story, and if you're brave, wade into the comments. It's ugly.

h/t Roxy.

More On Native American Mascots & Oregon High Schools II

I am beginning to wonder if it's too late for Susan Castillo to get some buy-in when it comes to the recommendation to eliminate Native mascots and logos:

“We certainly heard from the superintendents loud and clear that they think this needs more discussion and more time,” said Gene Evans, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Education. “They weren’t ready to accept the proposal made by the advisory team. I think there was a lot of opposition.”

Superintendents said they want to bring the question to their communities. The results of those conversations will be gathered for further study by the committee, Evans said.

I'm thinking there is and will be a ton of resistance to this idea at the community level.

Also, there is this:

Some superintendents asked about other nationalities used by Oregon high school teams, such as the Fighting Irish, and whether they should also be concerned about criticism from animal protection groups regarding animal nicknames.

Part of me wants to say that this is evidence that whoever asked this question doesn't get why Native mascots and logos are a bad idea.

The other part of me is thinking about how lawsuit-conscious superintendents must be these days.

But I think the majority of me is the former - that asking the question suggests a failure to try and really comprehend why anyone would be upset in the first place.

In any case, from this commenter, here is the Powerpoint presentation that Che Butler gave. It's pretty darn good.

In fact, let me show you one slide:

Smart Prison Policy

This letter in the DH is spot-on:

More prisons don’t help

About Mannix’s measures: It must be tough being a genius. The answer to Oregon’s problems: more prisons.

Of course. Why am I not surprised? Probably because I’ve been to prison six times. Why? Well, let me give you the very short version: Because prison isn’t what’s going to keep me from going back to what put me there, to what I know.

What a lot of prisoners don’t know is how to get a job, make a resume and set goals. No one wants to hire a felon. Why not build work release centers instead of prisons? Why not try to help people get on the right track to leading a productive, normal life? How about more transitional leave programs? Programs that require inmates to be employed or in school 40 hours a week within the first 30 days of being released and for 90 days (total) or they will return to prison for the remainder of their sentence.

More prisons will not stop the rising rate of crime in Oregon. Wouldn’t the residents of Oregon rather have a more positive say in how their tax dollars are spent on the people that are stealing their belongings and victimizing them? Would they rather see something done to deter criminals from returning to their dysfunctional lives?

Anyone who responds to this in regards to me and not the issue at hand isn’t any smarter than I was when I made the choices that put me here.

Sheli Starr, Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, Wilsonville

Lebanon Rumors

Been hearing a few interesting things today....

For example, that the account given by LT as to how the newspaper knew about the complaint filed with the district? I've been told that's false - though since I've also been told it's true, both claims having been made by trustworthy sources, I'm withholding judgment.

Next, I've heard that there is more to the complaint filed with the district than the Lebanon Express story lets on. While the Express story relates Fandiño's claims of libelous statements being made on the LT blog (an issue that I have no stance on at the moment) and notes how that has been passed to the school board, I have been told that there was element to the complaint that referenced the LCSD's cyberbullying policy - basically, a claim that the writing of LT consitutes cyberbullying by existing district standards. I find that really interesting, since a) I had always assumed cyberbullying was done mostly by students (a terrible assumption, to be sure) and b), because I'm not at all sure if I think the statements made on the LT blog constitute cyberbullying. I just don't know much about it at this point. Furthermore, since this is a relatively new issue nationally, I'm sure it's relatively new to the district, which suggests that district policies that exist surrounding it have yet to really be tested... and I don't really want to see Josh and Rick doing the testing.

But the point is this: Nowhere in the Express story is the cyberbullying angle noted. Furthermore, that part of the complaint - if my information is true - is squarely directed at existing school district policy, which suggests that perhaps it should be dealt with in the Superintendent's Office or at least in the District Office and not at a School Board meeting. I wonder if all parts of the complaint have been passed to the board, or just the part dealing with Fandiño's claims of libel? If not, is Robinson dealing with the cyberbullying stuff? Should he be? Is it his place, or the board's place?

In any case, I also want to take this chance to ask a few more questions about the idea that blogger LT needs to be outed.

Fandiño has said that she wants the attacks to stop. Regardless of one's stance on whether or not what LT writes are 'attacks', let's take Kim's claim at face value.

Well, let's back up a step before that, even. What are the desirable outcomes to the filing of the complaint? (Obviously, different people are going to desire different outcomes.) What are the potential outcomes?

We know Fandiño's stated outcome; it was in the newspaper. Is that the same as her desired outcome? I suspect - but have no proof for - that Fandiño wants LT outed because Fandiño thinks LT is a teacher, and outing her will both end her blogging and let Fandiño exert some pressure on her.

Here's why I say this: If Fandiño wants the attacks to stop, is it possible to do so without outing LT? I think it is, depending on how the complaint is handled and who says what to whom. I value free speech fairly highly, and I think anonymous free speech is, for me at least (and my opinion may not be in line with legal interpretations), included in that category. Therefore, my desired outcome will leave the anonymity of LT intact (since their power to speak as they see fit partially derives from their anonymity). So, in my mind, if Fandiño and LT could find some common ground when it comes to what constitutes an attack and what constitutes libel - if they could talk, and I've not heard an account of them doing so (correct me if I'm wrong) - then maybe the complaint and the whole process could be avoided, and instead two folks who don't seem to get along could maybe start building a relationship based on communication and trust, even though they both know they disagree on many issues.

For me, it comes back to process and honest communication.

Gulf War Syndrom Hits Lebanon

[Just to be clear, I'm claiming the link between his illness and GWS, not the newspaper or his family.]

From the Lebanon Express:

Andrew Rounds, Iraq vet, passed away Saturday

A Waterloo man who spent the last nine months battling leukemia died at Samaritan Regional Medical Center (SRMC) in Corvallis on Saturday.

...

The cause of his leukemia was unidentified. Because researchers found no genetic markers in his cells, it was not genetic but something environmental.

His family wonders whether the explosion of an ammunition depot in 2004, when he was serving in the U.S. Army in Iraq, could have exposed him to something that led to the disease.

More on Gulf War Syndrome can be found here.