We Didn’t Start the Fire: a discussion on political reporting

Note: I changed the headline because when I have the opportunity to make an 80s pop music reference, I take it.

Common blog commenter “David” responded to a recent post about Duarte possibly trying to turn a fire at a Vulcan Materials facility into a political affair.

As a response to that post, David said “Pot meet Kettle” implying that, for my part, I was guilty of the very thing I was writing about. In response, I left the following comment that I thought would make for some good discussion:

I expected this response and I can’t say it isn’t wholly unwarranted. I conferred with several colleagues and outside friends wondering if I was being critical. The resounding answer was no.

But that is outside of the point I want to make in response. I think that argument – media fans the political fire just as much as politicians – is circular reasoning.

If we lived in fear of that criticism and chose to ignore stories to avoid adding to the fervor, how would we ever write about politics? Any story that is in any way critical or shows a politician in a negative light could be criticized (and often is) as a media creation meant to urge feuds and feed turmoil.

Just because we write about politics doesn’t make us political. When we write about political turmoil, that doesn’t make us tumultuous. If I report on a political argument, I am not being argumentative. So, if I write about one entity turning an apolitical incident into a political one, I don’t believe I am guilty by association.

Think of the slippery slope of your comment outside the context of the media. If you go and talk to your friends about this story, are you inciting or sensationalizing the episode? Or merely making an objective statement about something you witnessed?

Obviously, it can’t be ignored that writing about something naturally raises a situation to a different level of awareness. What I try to decide is if something is worthy (information that is pertinent/necessary/interesting to the people) of giving it the added attention. I felt this situation warranted the post and I believe I was fair in reporting it.

I will also admit that there are reporters and media outlets who do use their abilities for evil and pour gas on the fire or push something to be more than it is. It is a fine line that we walk. Every time I report on something, I weigh its newsworthiness, run a check list of pros and cons, consider the consequences, who this would be important to and why. For a blog post, this passed the test.

Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune

Do you still care about Octomom?

I know a lot of the Leftovers readers are the people the posts directly pertain to – city staff, employees, politicos, local politics junkies – so that means not a lot of comments on the posts.

People don’t want anything traced back to them, even harmless replies, in the case it could affect their job or political standing. I get it, no worries.

But for those who do read and don’t mind commenting, I have a question to pose.

Is Octomom, i.e. Nadya Suleman, still news you want to hear about? Or are we just feeding the beast in giving her attention?

You’ll notice the brief on the Tribune’s homepage regarding Suleman and her recent tribulations. Apparently, her attorney is now the owner of the home Suleman lives in.

But do people still care to hear about Suleman or have the legs on that story finally tired?

People often criticize the media for stories they cover when they don’t feel they are newsworthy. I don’t always disagree with those statements, but other times I feel it is the general public that dictates the news based on their interest and instead of looking to the media, they should look to themselves, their friends and neighbors.

I don’t know which it is in the case of Suleman. You tell me.

In related starved media attention news, Gloria Allred plans to end her hunger strike. From Allred’s “urgent media advisory.”

Attorney Gloria Allred who has been on a hunger strike giving up 90 solid food meals for 30 days to draw attention to the need to add the Equal Rights Amendment (E.R.A.) to the U.S. Constitution will end her hunger strike on August 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM at a press conference at the West Hollywood City Hall Lobby at 8300 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood.

Email: daniel.tedford@sgvn.com | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune