Saturday, April 23, 2005
"Sobering News"
Been workin' on my paper, which is about 90 percent done, to present next Friday at the Oklahoma Historical Society's annual conference and shindig, "Sobering News: The Choctaw Press and Civic Journalism."
I will argue that the Choctaw Telegraph and Choctaw Intelligencer, which published in Indian Territory in 1849-1852, can be seen as prototypes of what is now called "civic journalism."
It is not biased journalism, although some moss-backed traditionalists think it is.
What it is is when editors decide that something is so broadly important to the community that the paper needs to not only take an editorial stand for or agin' it, but that said position should be the perspective from which ALL ELSE is seen, interpreted and reported.
In the Choctaw papers' case, it was the cause of temperance. The editors, and many other tribal leaders, saw the need to oppose alcohol in all its forms, always, forever and ever amen, not only as a moral question, but as an absolute matter of life and death, for the Choctaw republic and for the Choctaws as a people.
Those who know me might find it amusing that I would choose such a topic. :-) I am just wowed at the quality of these two little newspapers, and the editors' dedication to journalism and to their community.
It's refreshing, considering all the crap that passes for "news" today and for all the abuse heaped upon journalists as a class. It is particularly painful to those of us who work hard to do journalsim the way the Choctaw editors did: honestly and honorably.
--ER
I will argue that the Choctaw Telegraph and Choctaw Intelligencer, which published in Indian Territory in 1849-1852, can be seen as prototypes of what is now called "civic journalism."
It is not biased journalism, although some moss-backed traditionalists think it is.
What it is is when editors decide that something is so broadly important to the community that the paper needs to not only take an editorial stand for or agin' it, but that said position should be the perspective from which ALL ELSE is seen, interpreted and reported.
In the Choctaw papers' case, it was the cause of temperance. The editors, and many other tribal leaders, saw the need to oppose alcohol in all its forms, always, forever and ever amen, not only as a moral question, but as an absolute matter of life and death, for the Choctaw republic and for the Choctaws as a people.
Those who know me might find it amusing that I would choose such a topic. :-) I am just wowed at the quality of these two little newspapers, and the editors' dedication to journalism and to their community.
It's refreshing, considering all the crap that passes for "news" today and for all the abuse heaped upon journalists as a class. It is particularly painful to those of us who work hard to do journalsim the way the Choctaw editors did: honestly and honorably.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Okay, I'm embarassed to admit this, but I've never heard the term "civic journalism". I wouldn't classify myself as a moss-backed traditionalist, but it did kind of smack of biased journalism. So, I tried to look it up on the internet and found several definitions. If by "civic journalism" you mean people in the media imposing their philosophy and their value systems on the readers, then I say save it for the editoral pages, please. If you mean "civic journalism" is an effort to reach out to the public more aggressively in the reporting process, to listen to how citizens frame their problems and what citizens see as solutions to those problems.... and then to use that information to enrich news stories....then I'm all for it. All I want, personally, is information I need to make intelligent decisions. I'll use my own value system to arrive at those decisions.
And while I'm kinda on that subject (in a roundabout way) here's my wish list of what I wish journalists wouldn't report on the next election:
Unsubstantiated attacks of one candidate against the other that won't matter a month after the election.
How the candidate's wives wear their hair.
Who wears boxers and who wears briefs.
Who loaned their brother-in-law money to make a movie 20 years ago.
Polls with empty statistics and nothing about issues.
Can anyone else think of any others?
Oh, and congratulations on your speaking engagement. So...you're going to be arguing the Indian papers were prototypes of civic journalism, which I take it you think is a good thing, yet you're not exactly in favor of their cause, which is temperance. That should be interesting..I'd love to be able to hear you speak in person and be able to sit in the audience during the question-and-answer session. Are you going to compare them to any civic journalism going on today? And,if so, who or what paper would be an good example?
And while I'm kinda on that subject (in a roundabout way) here's my wish list of what I wish journalists wouldn't report on the next election:
Unsubstantiated attacks of one candidate against the other that won't matter a month after the election.
How the candidate's wives wear their hair.
Who wears boxers and who wears briefs.
Who loaned their brother-in-law money to make a movie 20 years ago.
Polls with empty statistics and nothing about issues.
Can anyone else think of any others?
Oh, and congratulations on your speaking engagement. So...you're going to be arguing the Indian papers were prototypes of civic journalism, which I take it you think is a good thing, yet you're not exactly in favor of their cause, which is temperance. That should be interesting..I'd love to be able to hear you speak in person and be able to sit in the audience during the question-and-answer session. Are you going to compare them to any civic journalism going on today? And,if so, who or what paper would be an good example?
Well, you should be embarrassed, and, as much as I do looove you -- :-) -- you are, in some ways, a moss-backed traditionalist. Search for "Pew Center" AND "civic journalism" and you'll get some good hits. ... On "bias." It's a myth because "objective journalism" is a dang myth. "Objectivity" is a freaking myth. Even in the dang dictionaries and encyclopedias. People want so-called "facts" so they don't have to think. Pbhtthth. ... and who said I wasn't in favor of the cause of temperance -- for the Choctaws, in the 1840s? I just thought it was amusing that I, a drinker, would find that interesting. Plus, remember what they used to say about Oklahomans: that we would vote against liquor-by-the-drink as long as we could stumble to the polls. Which I did. Twice. Because what I think is best for the state, or country, or community, as a whole, and what I think is best for myself -- or what I will do, good or bad -- are many, different, many-splendored things. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home
