|
TWO WEEKS AGO I wrote a column criticizing guidelines published by the Society of Professional Journalists. The guidelines purported to tell journalists how to avoid "racial profiling" in coverage of the September 11 attacks and their aftermath.
The Society of Professional Journalists didn't like my reporting--and they didn't like my conclusions. The SPJ president sent two letters (you can read them here and here) arguing that my column "cavalierly distorts" the guidelines. The SPJ Diversity Chair fired off a separate missive accusing me of "sweeping inaccuracies." Those claims, which I'll address in a moment, are baseless. The SPJ leaders fail to present any evidence of either distortion or inaccuracy.
But their response to my article is perhaps more troubling than the guidelines that provoked my initial criticism. It appears that the SPJ--self-appointed arbiter of journalistic excellence and paragon of journalistic virtue--is just another organization worried about negative press. The lengths to which the organization has gone to spin the story--including scapegoating one of its own student-reporters--is truly bizarre.
Much of my piece focused on information I got from a news article published on the SPJ's website. That story, written by student-reporter Curtis Woodward and edited by Candace Heckman of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, made a startling claim: Richard Luna, editor of the Salem, Oregon, Statesman-Journal, invited Salem-area Muslims into his newsroom on September 12 to edit the paper for content they deemed offensive.
"Pre-publication reviews" rank somewhere near the top of the list of journalistic no-nos. But such transgressions in the name of diversity are often overlooked, even celebrated. The SPJ article suggested that this pre-publication review was one such occasion--a triumph of sensitivity.
According to that report Luna not only admitted offering the pre-publication review, he called the session therapeutic. "I'm not sure how much [content] they really changed, but we all felt a lot better at the end of the night."
Steve Smith, the Statesman-Journal's editor and Richard Luna's boss, maintains that while "we invite people from the community to sit in on our news meetings, and we'll listen to anybody complain," no one other than the paper's editors change content.
And SPJ leaders now claim that the article on their website was inaccurate. In his first letter, SPJ president Al Cross says, "I see how the story could have given you the impression that Richard Luna granted pre-pub review to his Arab American readers, but he did not. But the story was unclear on that point and thus should have been checked out. The student byline should have been an additional warning flag." Rather than assume the blame for publishing an inaccurate article, Cross faults me for using the information on his website and implies that because the article was written by a student--a student the SPJ selected, it might be noted--it was somehow untrustworthy.
The "student byline" on the SPJ website read "Curt Woodward, Western Washington University." And upon hearing about Cross's undercutting, Woodward isn't amused.
"Regardless of what anyone at the SPJ says, I definitely stand by my story," he says.
Woodward says Luna talked freely about the review during a panel discussion at the SPJ national convention. Curious about Luna's admission, Woodward followed up with the Salem editor.
"I went up to him and talked to him about letting them edit stuff in his paper. I said, 'That's really interesting, because as a student we've been told never to give anyone pre-publication review.' And he talked about it with me."
Was Woodward surprised?
"Yeah, I mean, Jesus, the guy said he let people in his newsroom to edit his paper! That's why it ended up as the lede. It was something like my ninth panel discussion of the day, and to be honest, not all of them are that interesting. So when some guy says he let other people in his newsroom to edit the paper . . . "
Woodward says that he worked closely on the piece with Candace Heckman, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter. He adds that he and Heckman sat side-by-side at the panel discussion, and as they went over his first draft. Woodward says that she agreed that Luna's admission was big news. (An editor at the Post-Intelligencer says Heckman is currently on vacation.)
When I first called Paul Kostyu, Columbus Bureau chief for the Canton Repository and editor-adviser to the SPJ newsletter, the Working Press, which ran the original story, he backed-up Woodward. "As one of the advisers, I stand by Curt's reporting," says Kostyu. "Nobody has raised any questions about the article and nobody has raised any questions about Curt. This thing went through two edits--I stand by him and I stand by the report."
But a few hours later, after taking a look at the letters SPJ sent to The Weekly Standard, Kostyu called back incensed. "I think Mr. Cross is out of line. I'm offended by the tone of his letter, particularly his reference to the fact that a student byline should have been 'an additional warning flag' about the accuracy of this story."
"He's doing the exact same thing he accuses you of doing," Kostyu said. "He didn't check on anything. He didn't call me about this. He didn't call Curtis about this. He didn't call any of the other editors about this."
"It's absolutely unconscionable that he would do this to Curt. The story was edited by professionals."
NOW, AS FOR the charge of "sweeping inaccuracies":
Cross scolds me for failing to call either him or the SPJ diversity chair to clear up "what the guidelines recommend." But what use are guidelines if they require personal phone calls to the SPJ president and diversity chair to clear them up? Is it a stretch to assume that guidelines published by a society of professional journalists are clear-cut and need no further interpretation?
In her letter, SPJ diversity chair Sally Lehrman writes that my "inaccuracies" "begin with" my characterization of the Luna incident. They must end there, too, because she fails to cite another. This is the sort of dishonest bluster one would expect from a tobacco company PR flack, not a professional journalist.
But Lehrman makes some good points.
"We are a diverse nation of people with a range of skin tones and religions including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and many others," she argues. "The effects of the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, the related plane crash and the anthrax mailings have not been limited to people of one religion, color or skin tone."
That's obviously true, and as everyone but the most violent skinhead agrees, innocent and law-abiding Americans should not be blamed for the actions of 19 young men who were fanatical followers of Islam. If journalists wish to use "al Qaeda terrorist" rather than "Muslim extremist," one can make a reasonable argument that such specificity is more accurate and thus better servers readers, listeners and viewers.
It's hard to launder the language, though, in a story exploring whether the U.S. response constitutes a "war on Islam," for example. That is just one reason these specific guidelines create more problems than they solve.
But another part of Lehrman's letter stands as a shining example of exactly the kind of difficulties I warned against in my original piece: "There are seven million Muslims in America of all races and ethnicities," she writes, "and sad to say, many Americans lack even a basic understanding of their religion and culture."
Lehrman herself is buying into very specific propaganda. As many news organizations have reported for weeks, the number of Muslims in America is right now, and has been for years, a hotly contested issue. "There are many reasons why getting a good read on America's Muslim population remains difficult," writes Salon investigative reporter Eric Boehlert.
Boehlert reports that Muslim interest groups do their best to inflate the estimates and Jewish interest groups play down the numbers. Just last week, the American Jewish Committee published a report suggesting there are only 2.5 million American Muslims. The American Muslim Council argued that the new Jewish Committee numbers seek to "deny the existence of four and a half million American Muslims."
That Lehrman uses the number preferred by the American Muslim Council and not the American Jewish Committee, should not be a surprise to anyone who has read the guidelines that her diversity committee authored. These guidelines encourage journalists to "use spellings preferred by the American Muslim Council," and list the council as a "web resource."
First, the SPJ wants to allow the American Muslim Council to dictate the spelling of certain words. Now, apparently, the SPJ defers to the Muslim interest group--whose slogan is "toward the political empowerment of Muslims in America"--in determining facts.
Call that what you want, but it's not good journalism. Nor is it particularly professional.
Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.