Let's Talk About Context

So as many have started to point out, little Petey Sessions now has an opponent in the next election. His name is Grier Raggio, and his mother was just the subject - and rightfully so - of many tributes after her recent birthday. Today Wickburner (let's face it, after he came back from his fishing trip, Frontburner became all Wick Allison, all the time) mentioned that Sessions has an opponent. And then he points to this, saying Sessions will have a field day with it. Only if he's a bottom-feeding, non-comprehending, knuckle-dragging mouth breather who doesn't understand the concept of context - no offense to any mouth breathers or shrimp. But seriously, anyone who saw the date on the review would realize that, contextually, Negro wasn't an out of date word at the time. It was commonly used. Martin Luther King Jr. used it. I'm pretty sure Jesse Jackson used it. It was 1969, and while I wasn't even a glimmer in my mother's eye back then, I'm pretty sure the subject, former Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver, probably even used the word. Oh, look! I found where he did, in his book "Soul on Ice." Try Page 22. So yeah, a little historical context is probably a nice thing, I would think. And when you have that, you realize that Raggio's use of the word Negro when writing about Eldridge Cleaver, given the time and subject, is pretty much a non-issue. And if that's all the dirt he can find to rap Raggio on, then Pete Sessions may need to actually address some issues, and make some constituents happy.

In the meantime...

At a loss as to where to find your old Frontburner comment friends? Well, there's always right here, or Trey, or here .... or even here...or here...or here...or here... I also highly recommend here. Any other now former FB commenters out there on the Internets?

In Memoriam: Frontburner Comments

Today, D Magazine publisher Wick Allison announced that Frontburner, the magazine's blog, would no longer allow comments on posts. I can't say I'm really surprised. If pressed to deliniate a time frame, I'd have to say that in the months leading up to the 2008 election, commenting on Frontburner became somewhat like that scene in Forrest Gump where Forrest, Bubba and the rest of the soldiers are following Lt. Dan, cautiously walking, ready to jump behind bushes and into trenches at a moment's handwave of possible gunfire. More often than not, you'd lob a comment onto that road, and hope that nothing blew up. Lord knows that I've been the butt of many a diatribe in the comments section of Frontburner. And yes, I've admitted before that it was annoying, and brought down the level of conversation - partly because it discouraged the non-trollesque commenters from putting in an appearance, and partly because so many times comments were completely deleted, leaving giant, gaping holes - much like if I decided to black out key words in the last chapter of a Harry Potter book. But I do take issue with Mr. Allison essentially calling the experiment a failure. It was not. It produced hilarity. It produced good, salient points. It produced, many times, at least one little corner of the print product. Commenting made readers feel engaged with your product. Sure, I can drop Wick Allison an e-mail, but having done so, well, let's just say I do know that the chances of a reply are slim to none. Not to mention he is completely devaluing the importance of comments. It drove visitors to the Web site. Now, anyone can simply add Frontburner to his or her RSS feed, and since there are no comments to read, will never have the need to come to www.dmagazine.com. I do know having to delete comments and constantly monitor things is a hassle, and with a smaller staff, something that can be difficult to do. But I also know that Wordpress offers several comment approval options, as do many of the other blog options out there. Gawker requires you to basically audition to comment, which is also an option. But don't discount the power those comments had. They corrected instantly when erroneous information got out. They gave you instant feedback. And, more importantly, they gave you a relationship with your readers. In fact, Frontburner is what made me subscribe to D. I wonder how many others did so, as well.

Probably Over It

So as many of you know, I've been a long-time commenter on D Magazine's Frontburner. In the halcyon days when I first began commenting, it was fun. There was some good-natured ribbing here and there, but it was a pleasant read, and I was genuinely excited about taking part in some small way in the conversation when the ability to comment was added. But nowadays, it's turned into a mean-spirited, modern-day Roman arena, where the object is more often than not to tear down and destroy, not engage in civil conversation. Take, for instance, Wick Allison's post about Rawlins Gilliland's latest KERA commentary for the New Year. What was meant - I hope - to be an acknowledgement of an entertaining and endearing commentary became a full-on assault on Rawlins' credibility and his reputation. It was vitriolic for no reason, insulting to the point of obnoxiousness, and a discouraging example of what commenting has become. That being said, I don't believe in wholesale censorship, as I've said before. However, in this case, we're talking libelous untruths, and I do feel that someone could've stepped in to address it. I hope - I do - that the purpose of Wick's original post was not to set Rawlins up for a full-on assault. I guess what I really wish is not for policing, but for a return to civility, which doesn't have to be boring. The debate can be spirited without having to affix the word "mean" before it. And until people figure that out and can behave as they would if they were in the room with that person, I'm hard-pressed to come up with a reason to continue participating in the conversation that I used to enjoy.

Lowell Cannaday Push Polling?

Yesterday, Tim Rogers on D Magazine's blog, Frontburner, posted an item about possible push-polling by the Republican candidate for Dallas County Sheriff, Lowell Cannaday. Apparently, Frontburner reader sent the following:

Just got a push poll call on behalf of sherriff candidate Lowell Cannaday. Claiming to be a 45-second poll and pausing to record my answers, it first asked me whom I’d support in the sherriff’s race and then proceeded to ask questions that dealt with Lupe Valdez’s “failures” in office and had just gotten down to her sexuality when I hung up. Wonder if any of your other readers have gotten this.

So that got me wondering - was Cannaday behind the push-polling, and did it get as bad as that writer - and other commenters - made it out to be? So I e-mailed the Cannaday campaign to ask. My e-mail said:

I am a Dallas writer who has recently heard reports from several people of push-polling about Lupe Valdez. The poll detailed some of her "failures" in office, but then began bringing up her sexuality as well. This leads me to a few questions: Is this a poll done by the Cannaday campaign, or under its auspices? If so, why the questions about her sexuality? Also, given several polls that suggest negative campaigning, is it considered to be a risky move to engage in something that many people view in a negative light? Thank you in advance for your time in answering these questions. Bethany Anderson

Today, I got a response (I won't exactly say answer, and you'll see why when you read further):

Bethany,

The questions on the poll did not contain any questions about sexuality. None. Zero.

This is something an unknown blogger (to us) on the DMagazine FrontBurner blogsite started to try and create an issue where there is none.

regards,

Peggy Lundy

Now, while that didn't answer all my questions, it did seem to imply the following: Lowell Cannaday was push-polling and Peggy Lundy thinks DMag got punked (I think). But this now begs the following question: Did someone go off script in this polling, or is someone fibbing? UPDATE: Tim explains here.

Continuing the Conversation Here, So I Don't Hog Space

On Frontburner today, D Magazine publisher Wick Allison posted this item about the possible death of newspapers. A lot was said, and one commenter insisted that there was there was a liberal bias in all media, effectively tarring us all with the same brush. It's not a complaint unfamiliar to those of us who have been journalists for any length of time. As I shot back today, for every five letters a publication gets complaining that there is a liberal bias, it gets five more insisting the paper favors conservatives. It's not a pat answer, either. I used to keep a clipping book of stories about Democrats and stories about Republicans for one paper I edited - on purpose. Inevitably, I'd get someone that would come in and insist I favored one over the other, and I'd pull the book out, and have them count. Hard to argue with such concrete evidence. I'm never surprised that those who've never stepped foot inside a newsroom would believe that a journalist could not keep his or her personal politics out of a story. But what surprised me was what a fellow journalist said there:

While very few would cop to it, it’s a ’60s-throwback, baby-boomer world-view that you could sum up like this: Government action good; greedy businesspeople bad; guns bad; abortion not good, but not really that bad; religious people scary, and on and on. I mean, look at all the polls showing 80% or 90% of newspeople are Democrats. This mentality affects the stories that are chosen and the way they’re written, and it’s part of the reason readers are leaving.

According to Fair and Accurateness in Reporting, most journalists are actually more centerist in their politics, and even lean more conservatively on some things than the general public. Yes, those numbers are from 1998, but I doubt the numbers have changed that drastically in 10 years. Yes, there is a more recent Pew study that says journalists identify themselves as liberals, but I'm with Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, who wrote as NPR Ombudsman that he hoped Pew would try the study again - for the reasons he mentioned, and with perhaps a bigger pool of participants. Yes, it is true that a 1996 American Society of Newspaper Editors survey said more journalists say they're Democrats than Republicans. What I found most interesting was that a separate section of that same survey said editorial writers (who are usually the subject of the most vitriol and accusations of liberal bias) statistically, are more likely to be independent or conservative than elsewhere in the newsroom. "The writers of opinion are more diverse and balanced in their ideologies than the newsroom staff, " the survey said. If a journalist personally identifies himself or herself as liberally-leaning, does it mean that he or she cannot write a fair and balanced story? If so, does it meant that only astronauts should write about space, that only someone who has never held a baby should write about cases such as, say Dena Schlosser? There are all kinds of things that can taint - if allowed - our reporting. It's our training and ethics that prevents such a thing from happening. Most journalists I know - and I have had the pleasure of even meeting several at this city's paper of record as well - are deeply invested in presenting the fairest account of the day possible. Even the op-ed page is a delicate balance of what I like to think of as averages of opinions. They are completely aware that veering too far to the left or the right will cost them not only readers but credibility. Many have various stances on this. I know some that even refuse to vote at all - I even knew an ethics prof at the University of Arkansas J-school who actively advocated that very thing. My first editor felt you could, but who you voted for shouldn't be discussed in the newsroom. Yard signs, buttons and bumper stickers, of course, were verboten, as was fraternizing with campaign workers. Me? I always thought that as long as neither side could really figure out where I was leaning, then my job was done - even if it meant driving to a Republican fish fry at one end of Fannin County, staying as long as humanly possible and then burning rubber on 30 miles of bad road to get to a Democratic barbecue at the other end of the county on time. And I do agree with some of the commenters - every paper of size does need an ombudsman. I, for one, love how Clark Hoyt keeps the Grey Lady honest on a regular basis. So do I think that the "liberal" media caused the demise of newspapers? No. Because if that were the case, television would be turned off, too, or Fox would be experiencing record ratings. What is making newspapers an endangered species, then? Two words: Poor planning. Five more: Newspapers thought they were invincible. As I said today in the conversation on Frontburner, newspapers were not as a whole quick to anticipate and hop on to the possibilities involving the Internet. Marketing strategies that should’ve been in place years ago to attract and assure advertisers that they could get a return on investment on the Web and the print product just didn’t happen. Bottom line, we didn’t get consumers and advertisers to become early adopters of a fully-integrated online/print advertising strategy because we weren’t early adopters. I know this thing is hellaciously long, but I drove home tonight still thinking about what was said today. There are so many hard-working reporters - the rank and file - out there who get up every morning thinking of how they're going to inform, and go home at night hoping they did just that. That is their sole agenda - with no skew involved. If you're a journalist who can't keep your politics out of your reporting, that's fine and well. But do the rest of us a favor - don't throw us under the bus when you cop to it.

Best Pithy Response to Pathos-Laden Story

In response to the story of the couple from Arlington, married 75 years, who died within 5 hours of each other, Frontburner commenter Brian gives quite possibly the best response ever: