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.

Anonymous sources, trust and the media

By Jennifer J. Foster

The ombudsman for The Washington Post had this article Sunday about the haphazard use of anonymous sources at that newspaper.

Andrew Alexander writes:

In the run-up to last week’s Virginia gubernatorial election, The Post published a front-page story quoting unnamed White House officials dumping on Democratic candidate R. Creigh Deeds.

“Senior administration officials” said they were frustrated with how Deeds was handling his campaign. A “senior administration official” said Deeds had “badly erred on several fronts.“ And “administration officials” predicted he would lose on Tuesday ...

Anonymous sources often are necessary. And too many of them appear in The Post.

But there’s another problem. When they must be used, The Post doesn’t do a good enough job of explaining why.

Alexander goes on to document how Post reporters not only don’t follow internal policies about the use of anonymous sources—“Of roughly 100 Post news stories using unnamed sources, fully a third provided no meaningful description”—but also:

A few months ago in this space, I criticized The Post for routinely ignoring its strict rules on anonymous sources. Many staffers confessed they hadn’t read them in years. And about two-thirds of the nearly 30 reporters I questioned said editors never or rarely demanded to know the identity of an anonymous source, which is required under Post policies.

Read that again: Staffers hadn’t read the rules governing the use of anonymous sources in YEARS, and editors RARELY OR NEVER questioned them about the identity of those sources.

Wow.

Ever wonder how Jayson Blair was able to do what he did?

This sort of take-your-word-for-it attitude is how.

I agree with Alexander that the provision of sufficient supporting information is critical to the reader’s ability to trust an anonymous source. But let’s back up a minute. Here’s the sentence that preceded his accounting of the “roughly 100 Post news stories using unnamed sources”:

A review of anonymous-source usage over the past month shows that readers often got only bare-bones attribution.

So ... that’s roughly 100 stories with anonymous sources in one month.

You can do the math and get the daily average.

I have commented here before—and often—about the media’s growing reliance on anonymous sources. Once reserved only for sensitive topics like national security, anonymous sources have become so ubiquitous that they are part of journalists’ daily course of work.

That is not OK.

Alexander seems rather unconcerned about the frequency of anonymous sources creeping into copy:

Readers write me constantly to complain about the overuse of anonymous sources. Some are troubled that they appear at all.

They’re often essential. Without them, readers would be deprived of important disclosures about official corruption, misconduct, high-level policy debates or diplomatic disputes.

That is true. But it used to be that reporters would use anonymous sources to develop on-the-record sources; they would be directed to documents to seek and examine. They would build on the whispers until they could write their stories in full voice.

So the issue, then, isn’t just whether readers should trust a reporter’s anonymous sources: It is also whether the reader should trust a reporter who relies on those shadows so often.

Alexander concludes his piece this way:

The Post must be relentless is trying to keep anonymous sources to a minimum.

If they must be used, The Post can at least strengthen the bond of trust with its readers by explaining why the sources should be believed.

If journalists will focus on the former, they won’t have so much trouble with the latter.

See also:

The Jayson Blair reference involves some unintended irony. Some of the stories Blair plagiarized or just plain made up involved his supposed coverage of the D.C. sniper case, the 10 murders attached to it and the trial that followed. That sniper, John Allen Muhammad, was executed for those killings in Virginia tonight.

Health care, C-SPAN and Twitter

By Jennifer J. Foster

You have surely heard, and you have probably read, about what happened in the U.S. House of Representatives on Saturday when members of that body passed a health care bill by a narrow five-vote margin.

I watched the entire thing.

Yes, I know it was Saturday. I know it was a Saturday in November. And I know that college football was on TV—free TV, even—all day long.

I chose C-SPAN willingly and without hesitation.

I understand why a lot of folks (OK, pretty much all the folks) don’t get this. Yes, I am a nerd. But what can I say? This—politics, government, policy—is my thing.

Dare I make the comparison?

For me, this debate was like Bowl Week.

I waited all day for the Stupak Amendment to come up. As I said on Twitter later, it is rare that we get to see Congress in action (not inaction, but in action—separate words) in a way that is not predetermined. It is rare that they ever hold votes whose outcomes aren’t assured. Everything is so boringly choreographed up there.

The Stupak Amendment was one occasion wherein Congress was a beautiful mess—a beautiful, chaotic, absolute mess.

In the end, a staggering 64 Democrats voted for the language opposed by the Speaker of the House, the president and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Sixty-four.

We had heard 40, at the most.

Anyway, I knew I was coming up on my 2,000th tweet late last week. As Congress kicked off action on the health care bill Saturday, I crept ever closer to the milestone.

I whizzed right by it ... and 70-some tweets later, I was done for the day.

I plan to cover the bill’s future and some of the specific issues raised during debate in my column next weekend. But suffice it to say that Saturday was a fascinating day of legislating and politicking.

I can’t wait to see what happens in the Senate.

See also:

If you’re interested in catching up with my tweets from the health care debate and C-SPAN coverage, click here and backtrack through my feed to Nov. 7.

Trust me—it isn’t as dry as it sounds. For example, you might know that Marsha Blackburn is a Republican congresswoman from Tennessee. But did you know that “Marsha Blackburn” is also a verb? See my tweet at 11:51 a.m.

Listen to me!! (But don’t tell anyone)

By Jennifer J. Foster

From CNN’s Political Ticker:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is set to deliver remarks at a Wisconsin Right to Life event Friday evening, one of the few speeches the former Republican presidential nominee will have given since she resigned the governorship last summer.

But Palin appears to be doing her best to keep a low profile on this trip: no press will be allowed into the Milwaukee auditorium where she will speak and those who have paid the $30 admittance fee are unable to carry in cell phones, cameras, laptops, or recording devices of any kind.

You know, circumstance (and some sketchy decision-making) made Sarah Palin a national figure when she was chosen as John McCain’s out-of-nowhere VP pick.

She insists that whatever poor or unfavorable impressions people have of her are the result of attacks on her by the national media (only the “liberal” members of the national media, though).

But here’s the thing: If you believe that the media parses your words and edits your tapes to make you look like an idiot, why wouldn’t you want as many legitimate, complete representations of your speeches as possible to counter your “attackers”?

I was hopeful that Palin was right—that McCain’s campaign staff had mishandled her and that the incompetency she appeared to show during her national roll-out was not her fault.

But a year later, I still don’t get Sarah Palin.

And it appears that I’m not alone: According to a Gallup poll noted by CNN, only about one in three Americans would seriously consider casting their vote for her.

I’m one of the other two.

Still not settled

By Jennifer J. Foster

Here’s your latest update on the status of the ongoing controversy over whether abortion will be covered in the pending public option.

From The New York Times:

House Democratic leaders struggled Wednesday to strike a deal that would restrict the use of federal money to pay for abortions under sweeping health care legislation headed for debate on the House floor this week ...

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a supporter of abortion rights, has little choice but to heed the concerns of members of her caucus who oppose abortion. As many as 40 House Democrats, a potentially decisive bloc, have threatened to oppose the bill without tighter restrictions on abortion.

As the Times reports, the current House bill neither requires nor forbids health plans from covering abortions; Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, would decide whether the public option would cover them.

Sebelius has a long record of support from and cooperation with Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the world. So while the House bill doesn’t stipulate that the public option would cover abortion, everyone knows that if Sebelius is making the decision, it will.

I’ve told you here previously about the effort by U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak to ensure that tax dollars are not used to fund abortions. Stupak’s amendment, though it is being assailed as an infringement on women’s rights, would simply continue the policy the federal government has had to abortion funding for 30 years.

U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth now has a compromise proposal. As the Times reports, “if the public plan decides to cover abortion, it would have to hire private contractors to handle money that might be used for that purpose.

Predictably, neither side is happy.

Supporters of abortion rights, like the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the proposed restrictions went too far.

Laurie Rubiner, vice president of Planned Parenthood, said Mr. Ellsworth’s proposal would “tip the balance away from women’s access to reproductive health care.”

“Abortion should not be treated any differently from any other medical benefit or procedure,” Ms. Rubiner said. “It is our hope and expectation that the secretary would decide to include coverage of abortion in the public option.“

... The bill stipulates that in every part of the country, there must be at least one insurance plan that provides coverage of abortions and at least one that does not.

Douglas D. Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said Mr. Ellsworth’s proposal was “a phony compromise.”

“It serves no purpose except to assist Speaker Pelosi in peeling votes away from an amendment that would flatly prohibit the public plan from paying for elective abortions,” Mr. Johnson said. That amendment was offered by Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan.

It’s been said that a sign of a good compromise is that neither side likes it. That may be true. But Ellsworth’s proposal does come off as a cop-out of sorts—not specifically precluding the public option from covering abortion, but simply providing a middleman to handle the money.

I hope the pro-life members of the Democratic Caucus see this for what it is: Worthless window dressing.