Home › Opinion › Opinion Columnists
Howry: Misstep on Obama speech
Efforts to provide balanced coverage fall short
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from Opinion Columnists
Like many people, I thought Barack Obama's speech last week on race relations was special. I sensed many in the newsroom felt the same way; it seemed to me especially evident in our afternoon news meeting. That should have unsettled me more than it did. As a result, we didn't do our job of covering the Obama speech as well as we should have.
In this age of instant access to the news, newspapers have evolved their coverage of national and international news away from reporting it as if it just happened to providing more depth, context and perspective. With local news, we still enjoy, for the most part, exclusivity, but with national and international news, we're often 18 to 24 hours behind events before we can deliver the news to our readers' doorsteps.
Because Obama's speech was delivered early Tuesday morning in Philadelphia, the vast majority of our readers would have watched it on television or the Internet, listened to it on radio, or read it online long before we even began to put the paper together. With that in mind, we decided to run an analysis of the speech, accompanied by a local reaction story.
Although we were aware that the people we interviewed locally were either totally positive about Obama's speech or noncommittal, thus making the story lopsided, we were confident we could find an analysis piece that would round out and balance the coverage. Usually, we can depend on The New York Times News Service to provide the kind of analysis required. As we were to learn, our respect and confidence in The Times were misplaced.
The analysis piece sent by The New York Times was neither an analysis nor did it live up to the high standards the paper espouses and we expect. An analysis is a comprehensive, 360-degree examination of a subject for the purpose of providing insight and clarity, not opinion. The piece sent by The New York Times was commentary that barely even tried to conceal the author's opinion.
Working on a tight deadline, the editors on the desk recognized the analysis' shortcomings and did their best to shore it up by inserting reactions from Obama's Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
In hindsight, the editors now agree the better course of action would have been to pull the Times' analysis piece and replace it with a straight news story. We would have looked terribly behind the story, but it would have been far better than the unbalanced, incomplete coverage we offered our readers.
The blame for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the editor. And it is not simply because the buck stops here, but something more fundamental. It is the editor who sets the standards of objectivity and who must communicate and enforce the standards vigilantly every day.
Had I done that, we would have informed our readers that Obama was forced to give the speech because of the inflammatory and divisive remarks of his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. We would have told our readers that, at its essence, it was a political speech aimed at addressing a campaign problem and its fallout. And we would have told our readers that when Obama was first confronted with the Rev. Wright's remarks, he denied hearing them, only to admit during the speech that he was aware of them.
Some might read into this that we allow opinion to seep into our news coverage. That would be wrong. If there is one thing I am certain about, it is the commitment of the reporters and editors at The Star to report the news as fairly and accurately as possible. I am equally certain that when we don't do it as well as we should, it is never by intent or design.
Obama's speech was masterful on many levels. By elevating it to a lofty and frank speech about race relations, he was able to quickly address and dismiss his political problem caused by his association with the Rev. Wright. He talked about race relations in the country in a way that has seldom been done on a national scale. And through his personal experience, he was able to connect with many on both sides of the divide.
That's my opinion and it's appropriate in this column. It's not appropriate in the news columns of this newspaper, and it's my job to make sure it doesn't appear there. Sadly, in this case, that didn't happen.
— Joe R. Howry is editor of The Star. He can be reached at 437-0200 or by e-mail at jhowry@VenturaCountyStar.com.
Posted by nannyfo1 on March 23, 2008 at 7:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What's goin' on J-dub? No mention of Faux News? Are you losing your touch. Did you read the piece or did you just shoot straight to the cut and paste? It's actually entertaining to read your posts. Sometimes I will try to guess how many words you can type before getting to either Nut-jobs or Faux News. Didn't get too far this time.
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 23, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jw--go read somewhere (probably not the Times) about the Democratic leaders Nunez and Peralta.
Now back to your tree....
Posted by Nosmo_King on March 23, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Joe, you might consider running this article
http://www.humanevents.com/article.ph...
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 23, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jw---read with interest the LA Times article on McClintock. If you would stifle your hatred of the "right wing" long enough to do some investigating of your own, you would find Tom has maintained residence in Ventura County at least since the mid-70's. If Tom had spent the per diem on an apartment near the State Capitol, would that make a difference? I'll admit the whole thing seems kind of murky, but the Democratic state legislature has not made any changes to the law. The per diem issue was raised by a political opponent---better take a hard look at him too.
Posted by shaver_one on March 23, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did I read the same article as jw1000, mikeb6804, or Nosmo_King?
I thought this article was about Barack Obama, and his speech regarding Jeremiah Wright.
Posted by luvsDC on March 23, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with you shaver_one: jw1000, mikeb6804, and Nosmo_King are as usual, off on some other planet. Their usual written retorts come with mean-spirited, vitriolic flair and rarely any facts. That's Libs though, no facts, just emotion.
Posted by luvsDC on March 23, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I bet Howry and his staff, all lib-Obama supporters love Obama's speech. I thought it was a very bad history speech, contrived with mumbo-jumbo designed to push dummies away from the real fact that Obama's minister is an out-and-out racist.
Obama had the audacity to label his own "white" grandmother a racist, his way to moral equivalence.
Mr. Howry should have known not to trust the NYT for anything balanced.
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 23, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Shaver---quite right you are. I think jw got there on the poor reporting kick.
luvsDC--I'll back up what I said with easily accessible facts. I don't know what planet you've been on, but I am not a liberal. I agree with everything in your last post.
jw--there is information right at your fingertips (that is, unless you use your toes) which tells the story on McClintock's property ownership. And Brown is not the opponent who brought up Tom's per diem issue; it was his opponent in the primary. And finally, if you go to the LA Times for your information, that tells a lot. Now back to your tree.
Posted by luvsDC on March 23, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Again, jw's retort is NOT facts to refute intelligent prose, but rather vitriol to an ad nauseam degree.
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 23, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
luvsDC---you're right again. At this point I'm bowing out. Arguing with jw is useless and then some.
Posted by Jacksprat on March 23, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It was a bad speach, he was trying to cover up something in his past, that can't be covered up. Trying to make excuse, He put civil rights back 50years with that speach. The Media had a lot of trouble with it, but at most the media are not Clinton lovers, and to pick on the speach and Obama is giving points to Clinton. He did bad, and showed just what would happen if he were to get elected, and have a big problem come up, no way could he have handled it. He would have been much better off if he would have kept his mouth shut and not tried. He even went to the extent of having the stage covered with American flags, some thing he had not done in the past.
He blew it and it is time for the media to say so, some have but not most because they are right wing and want to see him get beat in the general election
Posted by cassandra on March 23, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Howry apologizes for a molehill of "unbalanced" praise while the mountain of pro-corporate media bias goes unacknowledged. Over and over what our citizens vitally need to know is not addressed while attention is focused down to what the powerful would rather we looked at.
And the consequences are very bad.
For over 3 years the threat of sub-prime meltdown rumbled through the independent media and it was business as usual on these pages.
For 30 years or more scientists attempted to educate about global warming, but major media still give "balanced" space to EXXon financed think tankers despite the dire consequences for the planet we all live on.
For at least 20 years experts have warned us to prepare for world wide oil peaking between 2000 and 2010. The indies carried it, the major outlets gave "balanced" credibility to industry shills. And now most experts say oil peaked in 2007 and you can't read word one in the major outlets. We are not prepared for this and the results will be catastrophic.
Other crises wait in the wings where the independents find them and the corporates ignore them. Damage to soil and aquifers from industrial farming methods, population magnification that can't be supported without cheap fossil fuels, impending starvation? No, it's business as usual. Go out and buy something. That will fix it all.
I don't expect the Star will commit commercial suicide by say, covering the pattern of abuses in Guatanimo or Abu Ghraib (or Afghanistan or fill in the blank)--all of which rattled around the independents long before they surfaced in the corporate media. Likewise the Winter Soldier testimony. This is a military town, after all.
But sometimes it would be refreshing for the paper to "balance" their alleged even-handedness on the fulcrum of a duty to inform the public before a tsunami of troubles strikes the beaches.
A show of journalistic fastidiousness in obsessing over the greatness or non-greatness of a politician's speech is in these times grossly unbalanced.
Posted by luvsDC on March 23, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As usual, cassandra provides us all with false information. She claims that for, For 30 years or more scientists attempted to educate about global warming...
In reality, leftist-liberal scientists along with the liberal news reporters 30-years-ago claim upcoming doom of an impending ice age.
cassandra: "a person who prophesies doom or disaster," (dictionary.com).
GW is a huge fraud cassandra.
Posted by cassandra on March 23, 2008 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It was perhaps 1984 or 1985, I sat in front of television watching a PBS special with I believe British poli-math James Burke or some similar genius type narrating a special about how we would deal with the impending global warming crisis.
But perhaps I hallucinated it. Or perhaps your information sources are faith based.
Posted by cassandra on March 23, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay it's polymath, my sweetie informs me. Someone who knows much about much.
Posted by cassandra on March 23, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay it's polymath, my sweetie informs me. Someone who knows much about much.
Posted by cassandra on March 23, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay it's polymath, my sweetie informs me. Someone who knows much about much.
Posted by cassandra on March 23, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My goodness the system stuttered a bit. One more bit from James Hansen, the NASA dude who recently outed the administration on interfering with reporting science.
As Gallileo was alleged to say, "Nevertheless, it moves."
Nevertheless it warms.
Posted by cassandra on March 23, 2008 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/21...
Posted by mikeb6804 on March 24, 2008 at 12:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It warms cyclically. I remember the "global cooling" exercise too. Like luvs says, "GW is a huge fraud."
Take my word for it --- I invented the internet!
Posted by shaver_one on March 24, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And still...everyone talks about everything BUT Obama's speech...left-wing wackos and right-wing nutjobs, alike.
And I do remember, back in 1971, scientists were warning of an impending ice-age.
But...Whether it's a new ice-age or a new iceless-age, Climate Change is a fact. And, it's a fact that mankind is, at least, partly to blame. Now, what do we do about it?
(If you can't convince them to stay on topic, might as well join them in off-topic discussions.)
Posted by goldcoaster on March 25, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think Mr. Howry is trying to convince himself that he actually likes this guy. You obviously want a black man in the White House so badly that you turn to this election with blinders on. Yeah, this guy talks a good game but what has he said? He wants change. Good, we ALL want change. Exactly WHAT has this man said he is going to change and HOW is he going to do that? Anybody can get up and spout rhetoric all they want. It calls to mind they old, "Two chickens in every pot" promises. You can promise the world and make it sound eloquent but how in the world are you going to do it? I haven't heard one word or HOW in his talk. Tell me Mr. Howry, please tell me what you have heard that has you so hypnotized?
Posted by Face on March 25, 2008 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hillary's Sniper fiction seals the deal. Obama will be the Democratic Nominee.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.