Sunday, September 24, 2006

An Open Letter to Brian Lewis and my other Countless Critics

As a member of the media and a political reporter I expect criticism, but I don't always respond to it. When it is serious and measured criticism, I take it seriously and think about it a lot. It weighs on my mind. It makes me ponder how I can become a better journalist. I'd never claim to be right all the time. Here's a scoop: I even learn from my critics. They are good for journalism and a free press. But even when I vehemently disagree with the criticism, I still struggle about whether to defend myself and my work, or keep my thoughts to myself.

This weekend, the Springfield News-Leader's Associate Editorial Page Editor Brian Lewis targeted me (without using my name) in a piece about the questions I asked at a recent press conference with Alan Keyes and Rick Scarborough on embryonic stem cell research. Because this was done in such a public fashion, I felt I needed to respond. I also thought I'd use this opportunity to respond not only to Lewis, but to my countless critics in a broad way, who are viewers and bloggers.

Lewis began his piece with this lede: I hate news conferences when television personalities start hunting for soundbites.

First, I don't consider myself a TV personality. That's much too complimentary. I'm just a lowly reporter. But I do love my job. And yes, you caught me . . . I'm still fascinated by the power of television.

But the main argument Lewis makes in his editorial is that I wasn't asking relevant questions at a news conference in a church about embryonic stem cell research.

Lewis questions why I asked Keyes and Scarborough to define cloning. To me, that is a basic question every journalist should ask any person they are interviewing about stem cell research. In this high-charged debate, language is key. It defines the debate. What is human cloning? Cloning an embryo? Cloning a sheep? Cloning a human being? I believe it was imperative to ask them their definition. I just respectfully disagree with Lewis that I was "hunting for a soundbite."

Now, God knows I do love me some good sound! Television is a different medium than print. We have to get in, get out, all in 2 minutes. It's something I struggle with every night. So, yes, sometimes I look for a concise soundbite that makes it easier for people to understand. But I don't ask questions, especially political ones, for soundbites. I ask questions to better understand an argument, or pin a politician down on a position. If the response becomes a soundbite . . . even better! Again, to me, that is the essence of my job.

Lewis then takes me to task for asking the duo if it would be a sin to vote for amendment 2. Again, I believe that is a relevant question. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research have called it "sinful and devilish." These are two moral leaders of our time. As they sit in a church talking about the issue of when life begins, how can that not be a relevant inquiry?

And I did ask it 3 times . . . at least. But that's what I usually do when a politician doesn't answer my question directly. I re-ask. And then ask it again. And then again. Sure, it may make me look obnoxious. But follow-ups are the most important parts of interviews. I think it is really important not to let your interview subjects dodge you. Maybe that's not a journalistic technique Lewis admires or respects.

In his writing, Lewis also seems to imply that I am being unfair to Keyes and Scarborough. That I am out to get some "religious folks . . . shouting some irrational hoodoo." I've heard that before. To be honest, I'm a little surprise that Lewis would level that charge. Anytime I go to a press conference and attempt to ask tough questions to one side or the other, someone screams "BIAS." It's tough, because sometimes during tough questioning, you may look like you don't agree with the person you are questioning. But that's just a interviewing technique. I mistakenly assumed Lewis was familiar with it. It's pretty basic devil's advocate questioning. It's almost like I am having an argument with you about the issue, but you don't know my opinion. Heck, I may even agree with the person I'm grilling or I may not have formed an opinion. Whichever it is, I always try to conduct my questioning in a respectful manner. Still, sometimes a reporter has to get a little rough or even rude to get an answer and gain respect.

But I hope people understand that I use the same technique on all sides. I try to be equally tough on Republicans and Democrats, and all other political species. Does it always come out exactly equal in fairness and toughness . . . I would hope so, but probably not. My work is certainly not always perceived fair by partisans and others who have strong opinions one way or another. But I try to make a commitment to be equally fair and equally tough. Then again, objectivity is in the eye of the beholder.

Just for full disclosure, here are some of the other questions (paraphrased) that I posed at the press conference and you can decide if it's "gotcha journalism," as Lewis alleges.

*Why should Missourians believe two out- of-state political and religious leaders over Missouri doctors like the state medical association who have signed on to embryonic stem cell research?

*When do you believe life begins?

*Why shouldn't this issue be settled by lawmakers? Isn't it their job? Didn't they pass the buck to voters because it's too politically complicated and touchy?

Even though I find his complaints baseless, I thank Lewis for sparking a heck of a debate. There is nothing more I like than a rich, passionate debate about big ideas, like embryonic stem cell research and journalism. That's why I like asking tough questions . . . to have a debate. Don't we serve our viewers and readers better that way?

Finally, in his piece, Lewis also asks about the brainstorming sessions in our newsroom. I would say we argue about these same exact issues all the time. Which issues to cover? What questions to ask? What to lead the newscast with? Why would our viewers care? We debate, we argue. Sometimes we even shout. So to answer Lewis, it's a pretty vibrant, thought-provoking environment . . . even for a bunch of TV personalities.

5 comments:

Steven Reed said...

Clearly DAVID CATANESE AND THE KY3 POLITICAL BLOG HAVE MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE OPEN DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND THE POLITICAL
PROCESS IN SOUTHWEST MISSOURI AND ACROSS MISSOURI.

THE NEWS-LEADER HAS HAD VERY SORRY COVERAGE OF CANDIDATES AND CAMPAIGNS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. ACTUALLY THEY WERE STARTING TO
GET BACK INTO THE COVERAGE OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS WITH JAMES
GOODWIN. BUT, MR. GOODWIN WHO WAS VERY PROFFESIONAL---WENT TO
THE ST. LOUIS BUSINESS JOURNAL.

ACTUALLY, WE NEED MORE AND MORE AND MORE COVERAGE OF ISSUES THAT REALLY EFFECT PEOPLE AND THE KY3 POLITICAL BLOG HAS STARTED US DOWN THAT ROAD OR PUT ANOTHER WAY MOVED US LIGHT YEARS AHEAD.

LIKE THEY SAY IF NO ONE IS COMPLAINING YOU ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING.

SLR

Anonymous said...

David,

You seemed to catch Scarborough in a blatant attempt at moral equivalence:

"Purpose matters. If you study the science, agree that innocent human life is created and destroyed and vote to support the amendment, then that is a serious sin. If your conclusion after studying the science differs, that's a different type of moral situation."

Thank you, Mr. Scarborough, my conscience is now perfectly clear as I vote for Amendment 2, especially since I know it is not a "sin."

Anonymous said...

"Case in point is Tim Russert of NBC. For the most part people take him as being neutral because in the past he has asked hard, dignified questions of both sides the the isle."

Neutral...right. During the 2004 election, Russert would ask questions such as these of John Kerry: "If you were elected one year from now, will there be 100,000 American troops in Iraq?" "Could you accept a Shiite theocracy running Iraq similar to what we have in Iran?" Russert never asked such questions of Bush during the campaign.

"Now, take a look at say, the New York Times who has consistently leaked classified and slanted information to try and help Democrats get elected."

You mean the story about the Bush administration illegally wiretapping American citizens that the Times had before the November 2004 elections but chose to sit on until this past summer? Yes, I do remember the massive wave of Democratic officals elected in the wake of that strategy. Damn, those Times staffers are clever!

Anonymous said...

bobicus tomatocus said...
"And Strannix, Russert has drilled the Bush administration over and over and over again. He is presently on a tear against Republicans in general, or at least so it seems with the debates he has moderated recently.


And yet, you include not even one example of this current drilling or he is conducting this tear against Republicans in general.

Steven Reed said...

We are looking for Technology Companies who might like to locate to Missouri and also any companies wanting to put some funding into our efforts. I recently spoke at two Springfield City Council meetings about the possibility of establishing and developing a technology park. This project could bring more and better business and job opportunities for all of southwest Missouri. That is why we want people from across the area to consider joining the effort. To help or learn more please go to: www.technologypark2006.org and watch for updates that are coming.

This project could bring benefits to the nearly half million people in southwest Missouri and more business and revenues to the state in general.

We must work to compete against other states and nations for the jobs of the future. These technology parks allow incubators which allow for start up companies and they also create new products and processes for making life easier for people. I also think we need to include all the colleges in the area who may want to be part of it. College of the Ozarks, Drury, Evangel, MSU, OTC and others.
Sincerely,

Deborah Jean Atwood
1441 South Estate Avenue
Springfield, MO 65804
417-849-4279

Deborah J. Atwood
mswebdeb1@yahoo.com
datwood@technologypark2006.org