Pete Nickeas

I’m glad to know I’m not the only one who gagged when Lara Logan played cheerleader on CNN last weekend.

Quote of the year (it’s only July, I know):
“Anyone who wants to know why network television news hasn’t mattered since the seventies just needs to check out this appearance by Logan. Here’s CBS’s chief foreign correspondent saying out loud on TV that when the man running a war that’s killing thousands of young men and women every year steps on his own dick in front of a journalist, that journalist is supposed to eat the story so as not to embarrass the flag.”

This whole Hastings / Rolling Stone / McChrystal flap is bringing about a lot of good journalism discussions.

But on Sunday, bored for about 15 minutes, I turned on CNN and heard a CBS correspondent acknowledge her “unspoken agreement” with the people she covers: she won’t “embarrass them by reporting insults and banter.”

Background… Michael Hastings’ much discussed profile of (former?) Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Here’s the excerpted transcript … … …

KURTZ: When you are out with the troops and you’re living together and sleeping together, is there an unspoken agreement –
LOGAN: Absolutely.
KURTZ: — that you’re not going to embarrass them by reporting insults and banter?
LOGAN: Yes.
KURTZ: Tell me about that.
LOGAN: Yes, absolutely. There is an element of trust.

… … …

Element of trust? I’m sorry. Maybe this is a TV thing? I don’t know. I don’t know of this “element of trust” she speaks of that gives reporters a “don’t embarrass my sources” card.

I mean, if someone tells you off the record and you say “yea, off the record,” then that stays between you. There is certainly an element of trust between sources and reporters in that regard.

Unless you establish ground rules (as suggested here by Tom Ricks), and you say / do something stupid in plain sight of a reporter,  why would that not be reported? Why SHOULD that not be reported?

To be fair, Logan continued with another point after saying “there is an element of trust.”

CONTINUING… … …

LOGAN: And what I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he’s laid out there what his game is. That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don’t — I don’t go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life.

And, I mean, I take that to the point of, even when I plan to interview someone about something difficult, and they want to know the areas of the interview, I might not say, well, we’re going to spend the whole interview on this, but I will list that. I will list that controversial issue.
KURTZ: Because you don’t want to blindside them.
LOGAN: Because I don’t believe in that.

HERE is what she’s referencing from the earlier Hastings interview:

KURTZ: Did the rest of the media, in your view, protect General McChrystal? I mean, there are a lot of glowing profiles about this guy. “Newsweek” called him a “Jedi Warrior.” You come in. You’re not a beat reporter. You’re there to do one piece, and you gave us a very different side of the way the war is being run.
HASTINGS: Oh, I’m positive that that’s the case with General McChrystal. He was a subject of a series of glowing profiles. And there’s — this is actually an interesting journalistic point.

There’s a reason why when General McChrystal took the job, everyone writes a glowing profile of him, because then that assures access later on. And that assures better — if you ever write a favorable story, they’ll get better access later.

And that was a game General McChrystal’s team played very well, that if you get — that if you write us a good story, we’ll give you good access.

They gave unprecedented access to everybody. You know, they let — you know, debriefings. They let you hang out with them. And they try to make you feel like you’re part of the team.

But that’s an illusion. You’re really part of the team. You know?

… … …

To me, it doesn’t sound like Hastings is “pretending to build an illusion of trust.” It sounds like (from Hastings’ answer) that McChrystal was building the illusion throughout the course of these glowing profiles.

But, it is good to know that a CBS reporter dedicated to covering two wars and the ongoing deployment of hundreds of thousands of young people in support of major combat operations, has an “unspoken agreement” to not embarrass the people she covers.  Every time I see a CBS report on the war I’m going to ask myself, “I wonder what information has been left out because of this unspoken agreement not to embarrass people.”

VACATION! Erin & I are going to Denver next weekend for a low-budget honeymoon. Two nights in Denver, a Rockies game, maybe some shopping and whatnot. We’ll see. Pictures to follow.

Speaking of, here are some wedding photos. Shout out to Pat Yeagle, wedding photog extraordinaire, plus good friend and whiskey drinker.

A good read via my colleague Josh, one man’s defense of Michael Hastings’ much discussed profile of (former?) Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Perhaps a more substantive post to follow.

In the meantime, there’s been quite a bit of discussion prompted by Hastings’ profile. I find the AfPak Channel on ForeignPolicy.com to be quite informative.

And Tom Ricks’ blog, too. He guessed that USMC General James Mattis would take over in place of McChrystal, but made his pitch for Gen. David Petraeus, who did eventually replace McChrystal.

I don’t know where to start … this is like three blog posts condensed into one.

It’s hard to empathize with people, people don’t care about poor people, and media coverage lacks when it comes to poor people.

(EDIT: I’m going to do more posts on the various topics.)

First … I confess, I have a hard time empathizing with people. Or feeling bad for people when bad shit happens.

I’ll cry like a baby when some bad shit happens to innocent people. This is probably one of the most profane videos I’ve ever seen. And I had a disgusting feeling in my gut watching a kid in his final moments. How could you not feel bad about that?

The two or three dozen people involved in that kids death will get theirs one day, and I can’t feel bad for them. They’ll go to prison and get spit out, or avoid jail time and go to a group home, or never get caught. They’ll get theirs, at some point in life, and I can’t feel bad about it.

Feeling bad for kids and other innocent people, though, is about the extent of my feelings for “man kind” in general.

When you do bad shit to people, bad things happen to you. That’s life.

How many people died of gun violence in Chicago last year? More than 500. To say it was a long hot summer would be an understatement.

There’s another video floating around of a guy who stuck a gun in someone’s face, then got the shit beat out of him by someone who fought back. It was gruesome. The guy who had the gun was on his back, on the ground, with a guy over him throwing punches quicker than most. Left, right, left, right. Just laying into him with a disregard for his well being.

But when you stick a gun in someone’s face, that’s what happens. Someone’s gonna fight back.

What’s bothers me, I think as much as the problem itself, is the media coverage. The Chicago Tribune’s editorial board isn’t in the streets pounding its chests about the lack of parenting, policing, whatever it is … that’s leading to 500 violent deaths in the city. You don’t see any special projects, either.

(Disclaimer: of all the papers in the country, I have more admiration for the Trib than any other paper. Their political coverage is what, in my humble opinion, what political coverage should be.)

Under its “Watchdog” tab, you don’t see “violence in the city.” Or anything similar. It’s not to detract from their state coverage (out front on almost every story involving Blago and observing the Trib’s bureau in Springfield was a learning experience in itself) or their city hall coverage (I still point to the “Neighborhoods for Sale” series as an example of what I one day hope to do) but they aren’t dedicating resources to this like they are other things.

The closest thing I’ve seen to a comprehensive look at what it’s like to be in the hood in Chicago is Alex Kotlotwitz’s “There Are No Children Here.” And that story details life two decades ago.

Maybe I’m wrong, and the Trib has three people in Englewood right now working on a project. But I doubt it. I just don’t see it, and it’s something we should be seeing.

So, either The Office is more than halfway through its tenure or it will last longer than Friends.

Friends went ten seasons and The Office just aired the first episode of its 6th season.

Now, I wasn’t old enough when Friends was popular. I was merely a punk ass sixth grade kid that didn’t give a shit when the teachers were talking about their infatuation with Joey.

So, is it too early to talk about the end of The Office? Or is it not yet halfway through, and will it outlast Friends?

I have no clue. And, having watched every episode of both, I’m not sure which one I like more. Damn.

And I gotta say, I’m kinda nervous.

It’s my first day at the Casper Star-Tribune. I still have to check to see whether there’s a dash there.

Edit: GAH! There is a dash! But only sometimes!

Continuing … not nervous because I’m worried about my ability to do the job … it’s not that.

But I mean, I’m more nervous with this start than I was in the beginning of covering the Illinois legislature. With that, I was just kinda thrown in and told to call around for quotes. There was no breaking in period.

But with this! Time to stew about and think of scenarios and situations and … I know I’ll do fine. Just gotta get those first day jitters out of the way.

About the job:
I’ll be covering Casper city council meetings, local politics, and more importantly - POLICY.

Yeaaaaa buddy!

Newsroom people seem pretty cool so far. Erin and I crashed with three of them when we came out here to look for a spot to live.

One of the editors has an assignment waiting for me tomorrow - that’s good. I’m glad I’m writing on the first day. Once I get that out of the way and start getting a better feel for what the editors look for, work will be easier.

I’ve spent most of the day looking at clips from the last city reporter and other city-related articles, as well as putting together a contact sheet. I’ve got about 120 people listed, categorized in different fields and sortable for easy finding. I’ve got about 60 more business cards to enter into the spreadsheet and I’ll be good. I’ve also got about a dozen things that I think could be viable story ideas.

Because it’s all about story ideas. And communication. And building relationships.

Anyway, I’ll let you know how it went. See ya!

David Simon at the National Press Club.

So, there’s probably a dozen and a half of us up here on a regular basis, more during busy weeks, less now that everyone’s leaving for home and other jobs. We’re interns for various news outlets covering Illinois State government during a year that saw a failed plan to increase taxes, impeachment and removal of a sitting governor, campaign finance “reform,” ethics “reform,” and a monstrous construction plan.

Between that, we’ve argued about revenue models for newspapers, or bemoaned our papers’ lack of a web presence, or complained that we don’t make any attempt to incorporate blogs or social media into outreach efforts. Not everyone, but a few of us.

So, like 9 days ago, a buddy of mine sent me a link to a video of David Simon speaking to the National Press Club about journalism stuff.

Now, I’m not just regurgitating what he said. I’m not an expert, and I’m green, but what I hear from him is a more articulate and far better reasoned argument of what young people in the press room argue about when we’re not making “that’s what she said” jokes or talking about food (or both at the same time).

And, he really laid into the industry I think, and scolded newspaper management for being shortsighted profit-driven tools.

It’s inspiring because if what he says actually does happen - newspapers provide worthwhile content and move their readers to an online subscription model - all will seemingly be right and proper in the “newspaper industry.”

But it’s also saddening, and it’s hard to get your hopes up. His view on beat reporting, and how institutional knowledge is the key to being able to provide context and clarity to your readers, I don’t think can be argued with. I mean, you spend more time working on something, you’re going to know more about it. Right?

And in the Illinois State Capitol press room, I’ve seen that. There’s a few reporters here who’ve been covering state government for 10+ years, and a bunch of others right around that mark. Though the ranks are thinning (a few papers in the last year shuttered their bureaus and other bureaus have trimmed down) the people that are here have institutional knowledge. They know people, they know the process, they know what’s going on.

So, just being around people who have such expertise in their fields has been inspiring enough to solidify my belief that beat reporting is the foundation of journalism that matters - especially on a local level.

But the notion that one day, profit-driven newspaper execs and even middle management will see the light and start caring about public well being instead of the “seventh grade reader” Simon references is so incredibly idealistic and romanticized that I’m skeptical it will ever come to fruition.

I want it to. And I’m going to hopefully spend my life reporting. But I feel disenchanted with the whole news industry right now. Seeing speeches and commentary like this is inspiring, but at some point, everyone falls back to reality.

Hopefully, the distance between what news should be and what news isn’t can be bridged in the near future.