Hering, Journalism, and Ethics (Which One Of These Does Not Belong?)

I know the Society for Professional Journalists is not a mandatory organization for journalists to join, but I thought I'd post an excerpt from their Code of Ethics to further illustrate why I tend to get annoyed with DH Editor-in-Chief Hasso Hering. (See this post for a specific reason.)

This is too easy - from the first sentence of the frackin' preamble...

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

Got that? Public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.

Advocating the destruction of records runs directly counter to public enlightenment, I would think. Not to mention "providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues."

Next (heck, the section is even called "Seek Truth and Report It"):

— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

Nope. Can't say advocating the destruction of public records and "that government records are open to inspection" are anything alike. In fact, they seem run directly counter to each other.

Moving on (from the section entitled "Act Independently"):

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

I don't really know what interests Hering was advocating for when he approved of the destruction of the records, but it certainly wasn't "the public's right to know." (Shades of Civic Journalism!)

Finally, we get to the one section that I think might have provided Hering with his best argument, had he chosen to make one.

From "Minimize Harm":

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

This is where Hering could have made an argument for keeping the records under strict lock and key, since their public release will undoubtedly cause harm to the detainees in the videos (not to mention the CIA and military folks who carried out the alleged acts of torture).

But he didn't. He didn't really make an argument at all, actually; he just sort of asserted the claim, almost like he expected us to believe him because he's Teh Editor, didn't you know?

Certainly Hering wasn't about to make an argument defending the rights and humanity of the victims of torture at the hands of the U.S.

Worse, as it stands, the people who were tortured at the hands of U.S. officials just lost a compelling piece of evidence that would allow them better access to justice - and Hering supported that.

Anyway - the point here is that Hering's editorials show an amazing lack of concern and respect for a sensible code of ethics for journalists.

One can make the argument that an editorial is not the same as a news story, and strictly speaking, that's true. But it doesn't excuse his behavior, especially since the SPJ's Code of Ethics speaks of the actions of a journalist, not the medium they are working in.

I ask again: Can Hering be the editor of a daily newspaper? Of course - he is undoubtedly qualified and has years of experience.

Should he be?

No.

I Give Up; Hasso, You Win [Especially For Folks Who Tune Out When They See the Words "Hasso Hering"]

I can't compete with Hering anymore - after all, I am just some dude with a blog... who apparently is more of a journalist than Hering.

Why do I say that? And how am I so full of myself as to be dead serious?

This:

Michael Hayden, the new chief of the Central Intelligence Agency, is trying to explain to Congress why the agency under his predecessors destroyed videotapes it had made of the interrogation of terrorist suspects. Congress wants to know. But why?

According to testimony Tuesday, the questioning in 2002 produced immediate results in the capture of the 9/11 mastermind. Suppose those tapes showed waterboarding or any other normally indefensible way of interrogating suspects? It would not do the country any good to have them lying around, to be leaked and played on YouTube worldwide.

Whoever destroyed the tapes saved the country a lot of additional and needless grief. (hh)

To quote the person who sent this to me: "When does a journalist ever advocate the destruction of records?"

I agree completely.

Real journalists don't advocate the destruction of records - especially records almost guaranteed to show criminal acts up to and including violations of the Geneva Convention. That's the role of Republican Party operatives. REAL journalists value the truth.

Hering is actually very clear here: When it comes down to supporting the U.S. (my country, right or wrong!) or supporting the rule of law, Hering has no interest in supporting the rule of law.

Which is shameful, and kind of sad, and a whole long list of things that aren't fit to say in public.

The question is not can Hering be the editor of a daily newspaper, it's should he be?

The answer is clearly no.

UPDATE: Apparently there was a standing court order against destroying the tapes.

Kevin Drum Defines the Modern Republican Party

"What bugs me about this is not the fact that the modern Republican Party doesn't really care about actual governance. This is hardly news. At this point, it's an exhausted organization so bereft of ideas that it really doesn't have much choice except to follow a policy of obstruction to its logical, nihilistic conclusion."

Discuss.

The Mutability of IQ

Via Ezra Klein, this book review by Malcolm Gladwell on James Flynn's work on the statistical changes (and significance thereof, especially as it pertains to race) of IQ over time.

Gladwell:

Our great-grandparents may have been perfectly intelligent. But they would have done poorly on I.Q. tests because they did not participate in the twentieth century’s great cognitive revolution, in which we learned to sort experience according to a new set of abstract categories. In Flynn’s phrase, we have now had to put on “scientific spectacles,” which enable us to make sense of the WISC questions about similarities. To say that Dutch I.Q. scores rose substantially between 1952 and 1982 was another way of saying that the Netherlands in 1982 was, in at least certain respects, much more cognitively demanding than the Netherlands in 1952. An I.Q., in other words, measures not so much how smart we are as how modern we are. [emphasis added]

A test like the Wechsler test, or any IQ test, really, can't help but be testing (and made up of) localized, culturally bound knowledge. There is no way for it to be universal, since those that created it - us humans - do not have a universal knowledge or perspective (though of course many privileged folks claim to do so).

Klein on that paragraph:

If, rather than testing some innate capacity known as "intelligence," IQ actually tests how familiar individuals are with a particular mode of abstract analysis, that throws the whole universe of hereditary determinism into chaos. It suggests that what we call intelligence is, on some level, closer to a skill, and it can be refined and strengthened through practice.

I think Klein gets it exactly right: Intelligence is not immutable - or, at the least, whatever it is IQ measures is not immutable.

Certainly this should lead to a whole new set of policy prescriptions, especially in education.... but it won't.

BZ

I should have done this a long time ago.

Y'all should check out bz's sense of humor and ability to make tiny things.

Those are store links, by the way, so get over there and support her habits. It's Christmas, people!

bz link also added to the sidebar.

Defining a Generation - Or, At Least, Making a Snarky Comment on Same

From a recent email conversation with my friend bz (reprinted with permission) regarding the website Jezebel and the people behind it:

They're between the working poor and lower middle class, a lot of them (Chase and I began describing ourselves as such like a year ago), but it varies. It's like new money, but instead of folks who came into monetary wealth without effort, it's college degrees. I mean, think about the glut of folks who went through their four years and learned shit, right? They didn't really try too hard, because seriously, what the hell is college practically mandatory for anyway. But like, everyone did the same thing, and so folks are just floating around with these brains and y'know—ideas?—but there's not much for them outside of tiny houses, jobs not quite fulfilling and a society that isn't sure any more what the general proper way of conducting oneself is. [emphasis added]

I think she is getting at something that definitely affects me (and a whole lot of other people): The collapse of the American Dream and the security that goes with it... and the fact that it's not being replaced with much more than a fractured vision of the good life filled with anomie.

To be clear, there is a damned big upside to that: Freedom.

But freedom - choice - can be a scary thing sometimes, as it implies a need to take responsibility for one's actions.

My generation, it seems, is doing a great job putting that off.

Thanks, Judd Apatow.

Also, have I mentioned that Jezebel is awesome?

What Makes a Good School Board Member?

LT broaches the subject of educational attainment and participation on the Lebanon School Board, asking about the levels of education of the board members and whether or not education matters in this context.

I've wondered about that, and my thinking has changed substantially over time. It is clear to me based on LT's post that they think educational attainment does matter, and that not having education past the high school level is problematic when it comes to serving on the school board.

Part of me wants to agree with this statement; after all, I have a four-year degree and getting it was the best experience of my life. And it's real easy to slip from "Rick Alexander" to "education matters."

That said, I think framing the question in the way LT does has two problems:

1. It shows a class bias. While on its face it shows an education bias, the two are very clearly (and often closely) related. The people LT mentions as good school board candidates tend to have advanced degrees (lawyer, doctor) that often lead to pleasant incomes or are personally invested people (parents) who have the time to volunteer - both of which indicate a certain level of socioeconomic status. I don't think such a bias is a good thing, and I've certainly had to fight it in my own thinking and writing on this issue.

I think it's important for most, if not all, groups in Lebanon to be involved in the process. Right now, I see a large gap where the professional class (the McHills, Wopats, Barishes, etc) used to be. I would like to see them (and/or their colleagues) re-enter the field, as distasteful and filled with infighting as it may be. Just because their kids are out of school doesn't mean they should walk away.

2. What are the criteria by which a good school board member is evaluated? That is, what makes a good school board member? (The point being, of course, to see if education itself matters as a criteria, or if education correlates to something that matters, or if it does not matter at all - or if it's somewhere in between).

I don't have a concrete answer to the latter question, actually, but I'll throw out some suggestions and see what sticks:

a) The ability to listen - this is just a good skill for people to have in general, but I think it becomes especially relevant when one is part of a deliberative body that conducts oversight. The LCSD board members can't personally oversee everything in the district, so being able to filter and understand the information presented to them is key to being able to process the big picture.

b) The ability (and inclination) to separate one's own interests from that of the district as a whole. This is easy - Rick doesn't even try. In fact, he goes the opposite direction: His interests become board interests because he pushes them until he gets his way. See for examples anything related to Sand Ridge and/or getting rid of Robinson for an example.

c) The ability to critically evaluate the information presented to you and make decisions based on that evaluation. This is, for me, the one that correlates the most closely with educational attainment by far. Certainly in my case - with half of my degree in Philosophy (aka critical thinking), this is something I personally value quite a bit. After all, it's managed to get me a long way.

As well, I think it's pretty important for a school board member - though I should be clear about where critical thinking skill can come from: Increased critical thinking skills and education have a relationship based on correlation, not causation, since one can be a critical thinker without getting an education. (Yes, I just denigrated the necessity of my own degree. I have no few illusions about that.)

All that said, being able to accurately evaluate the information in front of you and make a sound decision is incredibly important: Often those decisions have a significant impact, whether it be financial or otherwise.

d) Perspective - that is (and I know this is not the best way to put it), having spent a significant amount of time outside of Lebanon. Or something along those lines; I brings this up not because there are Lebanon Lifers involved (which can be a very good thing), but because the more expansive one's consciousness is when it comes to the larger world, the more accurate a context one can place the LCSD in. Or something. This one definitely warrants a bit more thinking about.

So that's it for my short list of things a school board member needs to be able to do. I don't think it's a complete list by any means, but I think it's a start.

Notice the absence of a few things: Education (no, I don't think it's absolutely necessary, but damn does it appear to help in light of the current situation), the presence of a child in a district school, public speaking skills, a background in education policy or finance. Those things might be useful, but are not, strictly speaking, necessary to be effective.

And yes, I realize I am on record as saying conflicting things about education and being a school board member. That's because my thinking on the matter is conflicted.

Another WGA Video

'Subtext $5' - awesome.

With Jaws Agape

I don't think anything I've ever seen on the Interwebs has prepared me for this:

Gold Pill Makes Your Poop Glitter for $425.

My mind is shutting down, possibly for good.

Thanks to BZ, I guess, and via Jezebel.

Jezebel is fucking brilliant.

Bad Editorial Writing 101

The single most boring editorial ever.

It can be summed up as "Be thankful for improvements in Christmas tree stand technology."

If Hasso is trying this hard to fill space, he should just run an extra political cartoon or two.

Seriously.