AU student responds to WSJ article

By Jennifer J. Foster

If you read my post last week about the ridiculous Wall Street Journal article about football and dating, you will be interested in this letter to the editor, which appeared in the print edition of the Opelika-Auburn News today.

Auburn University freshman Peyton Alsobrook was an interview subject for Ms. Hannah Karp. In her letter today, Peyton does a terrific job of responding—with class—to the charges Karp made in the article and the misconceptions she included therein.

War Eagle, Peyton.

Ignorance run amok

By Jennifer J. Foster

If you are a member of the Auburn Family, or if you are a fan of any football team in the Southeastern Conference, you need to read “Southern Football’s Dating Game” in The Wall Street Journal.

Unfortunately, friends, I’ve seen my share of poor excuses for journalism. But this one is right up there with the worst I’ve ever seen. I don’t know whether the editors in charge of assigning and reading this article were out to lunch (or out of the country), but I surely hope this is an anomaly for the Journal.

Go ahead and read the story. I’ll wait.

***

Most of the time, when I read bad articles, I just shake my head and let them go.

Not this time.

My e-mail to Hannah Karp, the reporter, follows below.

Dear Ms. Karp,

I read, then re-read in stunned confusion, your article called “Southern Football’s Dating Game.“ Fraternity football seating? As a professional journalist, I must say, it is difficult to conceive of a less relevant topic for The Wall Street Journal to cover, even in Life & Style.

As a Southerner and a graduate of Auburn University, it is difficult to conceive how you could have written a more obnoxious story if you had made a concerted effort.

I do hope that you are just the latest in a long line of know-it-all, big-city reporters from the North who parachute into our area and try to impart your knowledge and culture to us poor, hapless Southerners. If not—if you actually live or have lived here and have any frame of reference for that of which you write—then your research and observation skills are among the poorest I’ve ever had the misfortune of encountering.

The tradition of Southern men and women dressing up for football games is neither new nor unique to Auburn University. Hence, the word “tradition.” I’m not sure why you chose to focus your story on Auburn, but I am confident that if you would have spent any time researching your subject, you would have found—from sources from visiting schools, no less—that Auburn is one of the classiest places in the country, let alone the South, to attend a football game. It is unfortunate that you chose to highlight one letter to the editor from one disaffected student upon which to hang your entire story.

I did a simple Google search and found the following here in about 60 seconds (emphasis mine):

“And I wonder why people from the South seem to have such a bad taste for these papers. Had they done their research they would know the Auburn honors college has block seats, AFROTC, and several other non fraternity groups. And furthermore no group is handed the seats, fraternities must compete with spirit points to get them. And if you have ever been competing for spirit points it is not easy nor fun. It is tons of community service and going to AU tennis, volleyball and soccer matches to get them. So they help out the school and community a lot.”

What? You mean, the entire premise of this article – that frat guys are handed seats as an entitlement, and they are taking girls to games to try to keep them – is dead wrong?

Researching stories properly is a time-consuming, meticulous process. And what you find out can get in the way of the story you’ve already got planned. Perhaps that’s why you didn’t bother doing it.

It is also unfortunate that you lump Auburn into the same category with the ongoing controversy at The University of Mississippi. There is nothing here that echoes what you mentioned there. Your comparison is completely baseless.

To read your story, one would think that there are no fraternity men who take sorority women to football games up North, and no college students ever get rowdy at football games up there. I hope you wouldn’t intentionally insinuate something so ridiculous.

From a broader perspective, I am personally extremely disappointed in the Journal. Your story, as is plainly seen in the comments you have drawn, has only contributed to the cultural divide in this country; worse, it has done so needlessly and on the basis of poorly reported and completely misunderstood notions that you treat as “facts.“ This story is a disgrace to anyone who calls herself a professional journalist, and carrying it is a disgrace for any media outlet that purports to be a legitimate source of news.

Because of this story and your newspaper’s reckless decision to publish it, The Wall Street Journal has suffered a significant—and potentially irreparable—hit to its credibility throughout a large portion of the country. I know it has among the hundreds of thousands of Southern football fans who don’t care for your attitude as you sit in judgment of their values.

In the future, if you happen to cover anything in the South, I implore you to make a better effort to educate yourself and limit your ignorance. Otherwise, at the very least, please make at least a minimal effort to conceal your contempt for things you do not, and choose not to, understand. We would appreciate it, and it will help you to not come off as such a self-important, condescending snob.

Thank you,

Jennifer Foster

P.S. I am copying this note to your editor in hopes that he or she can sit down with you and explain to you the difference between “maybe” and “may be” (e.g., “no matter where in the world they maybe” from your sidebar, “A Sampling of SEC Traditions”). If not, contact us in the South. We may love our football, but we know the difference, and we’ll be glad to talk you through it.

If you would like to send Ms. Karp an e-mail of your own, her address is hannah(dot)karp(at)dowjones.com.

War Eagle!!! We know why we say it, even if they don’t.

Tuesday: Political junkies’ delight

By Jennifer J. Foster

Today is a big day for political junkies—especially in Alabama.

All sorts of intrigue awaits later today as several contentious races will be settled:

In the New Jersey governor’s race, incumbent Jon “Don’t vote for the fat guy” Corzine finally faces off with Republican challenger Chris Christie. You might remember a recent post I wrote about the whole “fat” thing. This race seems to be in a dead heat, so the results will be eagerly awaited.

Virginia looks poised to elect a Republican governor to succeed super-popular Democratic Gov. Tim “should-have-been-VP” Kaine despite President Obama’s support for the Democratic candidate, R. Creigh Deeds. Polls show that some dissatisfaction with the Obama/Pelosi/Democratic legislative platform has been a component in GOP candidate Bob McDonnell’s healthy preview numbers, and pundits will chatter tomorrow night about what this race means, if anything, for congressional Democrats in 2010.

The congressional race in New York’s 23rd District, one of the most bizarre contests ever, will be settled between a candidate on the Conservative Party platform and a Democrat (who was endorsed by the Republican nominee, who dropped out this weekend). Yes, I said it was strange. Read more here. But the takeaway in this contest won’t be the winner; it will be how grassroots Republicans and conservative (small c) independents break with mainline Republicans. When the pundits get sick of talking about New Jersey, they’ll talk this one up (or, if you watch MSNBC, they’ll focus on it completely to play up the splits in the GOP).

And then there are the ballot measures, always fun. Issues this year include medical marijuana expansion (Maine), the repeal of benefits extention to gay couples (Washington), the repeal of a statute allowing gay marriage (Maine) and whether to allow casino gambling for economic benefit (Ohio). Fun, huh?

OH!! And I almost forgot. If all those elections and ballot initiatives weren’t enough fun, CNN is going to have JESSE VENTURA on as a guest on Larry King Live! Yes, the former-wrestler-turned-governor-of-Minnesota-turned-party-unaffiliate will be sounding off about the evils of organized politics tomorrow night. CNN! What? Joy Behar wasn’t available? Oh, that’s right—you guys gave her her own show. And how’s that working out, exactly?

Closer to home, there’s plenty going on, too:

The Alabama Republican Party will host a news conference in Montgomery at 10 a.m. to talk ethics reform. Word has it that there are some questions about some personnel spending in the Senate, among a bunch of other related things.

GOP gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne will roll out his ethics plan at 2 p.m. in Birmingham. “Byrne will outline the specifics of his Ethics Reform package and his plans for achieving legislative passage,“ according to a campaign news release. Note the capital E and the capital R. It must be important if random, inexplicable capitalization is involved!

Unless he’s planning a first-hand report about rush-hour traffic on 280, Byrne had better make it quick in Birmingham, or rent a helicopter, because he’s due to appear with the other six announced gubernatorial candidates in a forum at Auburn University at 7 p.m. This is one of the first times all seven candidates—two Democrats, five Republicans—will appear together. Yes, I’m planning to be there, if for no other reason than to report to you how many times the candidates dodge state issues, like why most of them don’t trust you to reform Alabama’s antiquated constitution, to share with you their unsolicited thoughts on congressional issues, like how much they oppose the dreaded OBAMACARE (insert blood-curdling screams from your Halloween garden noise machine here).

I’m really counting on the League of Women Voters and our local chambers of commerce to keep the candidates’ feet to the fire and keep their attention focused where it should be—on the people, potential and problems in Alabama, not on cheap shots at national figures in Washington.

Bill Johnson on the gas tax

By Jennifer J. Foster

I have heard from GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Johnson about my column criticizing the effort by Madison County officials to secure more funding for road projects and his decision to sign their pledge (“Think critically about campaign promises you hear,“ Oct. 3).

Johnson contacted me via e-mail and asked me to call him to discuss “why I made the pledge and how I intend to keep it.“ I wrote him back that while I would certainly be happy to call him, he was also welcome to write a piece explaining his decision; if he did so, I told him, I would post it here on the blog exactly as he provided it.

He chose to write his response, and it appears below.

Thanks for responding to my inquiry.  As you commented, I recently made a commitment to the Tennessee-Valley area to return 80% of the gas tax paid in that area to develop infrastructure there.  Your question was how can the citizens in the area know I will keep my commitment?

Firstly, I’d like to mention that as Director for the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA), I coordinated the state Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) investments and sent more than $1 million dollars to the various BRAC committees to not only make sure we didn’t lose BRAC jobs under that process, but to ensure we gained jobs.  Through that process, our BRAC committees did an outstanding job gaining thousands of new, high-paying jobs for Alabama.  When compared to other industrial-related recruitment projects, the cost per job was miniscule.  We definitely realized tremendous bang for our investment.

As head of ADECA, a large part of my responsibility was working with communities on economic and workforce development.  I understand very well the implications and requirements on locating new companies and jobs AND how important delivering the infrastructure to capitalize on those jobs is.

Even though I managed more than $240 million a year at ADECA, there was never enough money for economic development.  I frequently met with mayors, county commissioners, senators and representatives who were looking for funding for infrastructure for new companies and jobs. My priority on the funds was this:  they had to have a ‘bird in the hand’; i.e. an actual company willing to locate and commit to creating ‘X’ number of jobs for the amount of our investment.

My commitment on the gas tax is going to be the same:  my priority is going to be targeting limited infrastructure dollars to support economic development and job creation.  In the case of Huntsville, we already know more than 10,000 plus jobs are on their way.  On the Alabama side of Ft Benning, I have had ADECA staff working more than a year making sure they are prepared for the growth that will be associated with the new BRAC jobs.
We believe that at least one third of those new families will end up living on the Alabama side of the Chattahoochee River because of our outstanding quality of life.

I can assure the citizenry of your area that when I make a promise or a pledge, I’ll do everything within my power to see it is carried out.

I will give Johnson this much: He gives it a good shot.

But my problem with the pledge is two-fold: One, Johnson—and all the other candidates who sign the pledge—are making policy five years out. The pledge calls for the return of 80 percent of the gas tax money collected in Madison County to Madison County for the first term of the next governor. That’s five years from now. The information I had on the BRAC-related growth in Madison County calls for that growth to have happened by 2011. The next governor won’t take office until January 2011. Add four years—and the reality that you can’t know what future needs might pop up in that time period—to that, and you can see why I called this approach “reckless planning.“

The second problem is the more insidious and serious one, especially for rural communities throughout Alabama. As I noted in the column, economically depressed areas rely on the redistribution of the gasoline tax to help them meet their infrastructure needs. If Johnson’s philosophy as governor is going to be “bird in the hand,“ that’s going to mean a lot of uphill sledding for a lot of Alabamians—not just those in rural communities, but also those in places that are in transition after having seen factories or plants leave the state (or the country altogether). Here in this area, the cities of Valley and Wadley immediately come to mind. Those cities and other towns like them have to remake themselves; they have to attract new industry if they are going to survive. Their roads have to support that industry. They don’t have a tourist economy. They don’t have other resources for local revenue at their disposal. How are they going to build those roads to attract that industry if they can no longer rely on the state to provide the funding to—quite literally—pave the way?

I had an interesting conversation about this same issue with Democratic congressional candidate Josh Segall about a year ago. As I mentioned before in profiling him, Segall is passionate about creating jobs and economic development. In his editorial meeting with the Opelika-Auburn News, he talked about all the development potential that exists at Lake Martin but is yet virtually untapped because of the infrastructure problem there. You have to have the roads first, he said; otherwise, you can’t get companies’ attention.

I commend Johnson for stepping up and at least trying to shed some light on this issue. But I still think it’s bad policy.

Sparks: Gee ... thanks

By Jennifer J. Foster

Now here’s a little something of note.

Auburn City Councilman Arthur Dowdell wrote a letter to the editor that appeared in this morning’s print edition of the Opelika-Auburn News. It’s also online.

Dowdell supports Democratic candidate Ron Sparks for governor, and he wants you to, too.

Here are his reasons:

Sparks “is the best qualified to lead our state in challenging times” because he “is compassionately concerned about all Alabamians.“

Oh, also:

He appointed blacks to two of four top deputy positions at the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries. He also appointed blacks to 27 of 66 voter registrar seats across the state.

What? You didn’t think that mattered? Oh, well, think again. It matters. Arthur Dowdell says so.

And then Dowdell cites Sparks’ efforts to open new markets for Alabamians’ farm products around the world.

... You know, those things that are part of his JOB as ag commissioner.

Oh, but Dowdell being Dowdell, there’s more. Specifically, he wants to tell you why he isn’t supporting Artur Davis—who just happens to be black:

Why am I not supporting Artur Davis?

Um, Councilman Dowdell, we didn’t ask. But you’re going to tell us anyway, aren’t you? Yes, you are.

First, I was, and am, a strong Barack Obama supporter. I support Obama’s public health option, something badly needed by our numerous uninsured brethren. Davis opposes the public option, apparently currying favor with more conservative voters.

Secondly, when I took a stand earlier this year against the proliferation of Confederate flags in a public cemetery Davis criticized me for that. In his effort to play for more votes, Davis has become insensitive to the suffering the flag has represented to African-Americans as a people.

Oh, where to start with this ...

First of all, regarding the public option, how is that an issue in the gubernatorial race? If President Obama is successful in securing a plan that includes it at the federal level—something Dowdell wants—then it’s moot at the state level. If it isn’t passed at the federal level (and the president has even stopped his regular use of the phrase “public option,“ if you think that has anything to do with his chances), Davis doesn’t support it anyway, so it isn’t an issue.

And anyway, could it be that Davis doesn’t support the public option because A) It’s financially untenable B) It’s constitutionally questionable and/or C) It is not in and of itself a critical component of health care reform? Whatever the reason, Dowdell isn’t interested in hearing about it. He just knows that the only reason Davis could possibly oppose a public option is because he is “currying favor with more conservative voters.“

(*Sigh* and *eye roll*)

Secondly, Dowdell just has to—just has to—make this about himself. I live here in Auburn, and trust me: The best thing Arthur Dowdell can do for himself is to NEVER MENTION THE FLAG CONTROVERSY AGAIN. Not, Councilman Dowdell, because it isn’t a symbol of controversy, but because it is a non-issue in Auburn.

I was told back in the spring, when Dowdell pulled those flags—

SIDEBAR: Let’s stop there for a minute. I don’t remember whether I told you this here back then, but I was told that Dowdell specifically involved the media in his flag-pulling stunt. I was told that Dowdell had already pulled the flags when he encountered an employee of the Opelika-Auburn News at a local fast-food restaurant. Dowdell approached that employee and told him that he had pulled the flags from the graves of the Confederate war dead from the historic cemetery. Dowdell then accompanied the employee back to the cemetery, retrieved the flags from his car and posed with them. That is how the infamous photo that appeared on the front of the OA News came about. END SIDEBAR

—that Auburn residents as a whole aren’t the only ones who’ve had enough of Dowdell and his grandstanding tactics. I was told that more than a few folks in Ward 1, which Dowdell represents, wish that he would spend more time attending to their needs instead of to his own publicity.

Davis just happened to be in town that week for a campaign event. Not surprisingly, he was asked about the flag controversy. He responded with an articulate, measured and thoughtful response—a response that likely displeased Dowdell not only because Davis did not leap to Dowdell’s defense but also because it was articulate, measured and thoughtful—which I commended in this space.

So even if Dowdell wasn’t explicitly confirming it, it would still be a no-brainer that he thinks it’s his duty to settle that score with Davis by endorsing Sparks.

As you can see from the comments that have already been left on the web page, Dowdell’s endorsement is not exactly the most coveted nod in Auburn. So here’s the irony: In trying to hurt Davis by endorsing his opponent, Dowdell will probably manage to secure a few dozen votes for him, instead.

I’m sure Sparks is extraordinarily grateful.

See also:

Apology in Auburn, my blog entry from May 6 following a city council meeting wherein Dowdell apologized for pulling up those flags. This entry references and links to Davis’ reaction to the flag flap; it also includes that infamous picture described above.

Dowdell: Off-base on race, again: My blog entry from May 21 discussing how Dowdell wants to rework the entire structure of the Auburn City Council so that more black members will be included. Because, apparently, you can’t trust free and fair elections based on a ward system approved by the U.S. Department of Justice. Or, put another way: You can trust democracy, but only if you get the result you want.

“Councilman Dowdell’s actions continue to be puzzling,“ my column from May 23 about the flag and ward map issues.