“As the world’s largest journalism organization of people of color, it is vital that NABJ stands up for the rights of journalists to do their job without being attacked,” the NABJ Board of Directors wrote in a letter. “Robin Givhan did not break any journalistic code of ethics in her decision to write about Michelle Obama at the BET conference.”From the comments there:
Per reporting from The Root’s Editor-in-Chief Danielle Belton, who was present at the event, BET said it was clear that the event was “an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship.”
The way some of her peers that I hold in high regard made me give them the side-eye with their responses to her. They came off looking like Black mean girls, even though they’re grown ass women. I’m happy NABJ sided with her.I guess "Devil Lee" is Debra Lee (who, as we see in the original Robin Givhan essay, organized the conference).
Also, even though BET is rehabilitating [its] image and program standards, when they fuck up, they fuck hard. Devil Lee and who ever decided to kick her out needs to apologize to her.
From the piece by The Root’s Editor-in-Chief Danielle Belton (linked above):
An overwhelming majority of [conference] attendees The Root spoke to felt the talk with Michelle Obama was private based on the fact that BET Networks told attendees to put down their phones and not record the conversation once it started....I'm very interested in this notion of the "spirit of the law" — the "spirit" of journalistic ethics. The NABJ referred to the "letter of the law" — that is, the official code of journalistic ethics — and announced that Givhan was in the clear. But what about the spirit? The letter/spirit distinction is a big topic, but that means it's got its own Wikipedia entry and you can brush up on it super-quick (and complete with references to Shakespeare and Jesus).
“I absolutely felt that this was an off-the-record conversation between Valerie Jarrett and the former first lady,” said Jamilah Lemieux, vice president of news and mens programming at iOne digital. “There was nothing in me that suspected otherwise. I did wonder, at the point when it became clear to me that this was meant to be off-the-record, I remember thinking, ‘Who in this space is going to violate the sanctity of this moment?’ I did not expect that there would be a writer in the room who heard the same instructions that I did about putting phones away and ‘this is a safe space’ and then would go on to report and in great detail about what they’d heard.... This may be a situation where the spirit of the law and the letter of the law don’t agree with one another, but I think that the spirit of this room required that Robin Givhan put her pen down and listen.... I wish she had.”
I'd just like to say that if we move beyond the letter to the spirit of journalistic ethics, we ought to talk about what the spirit is. Lemieux only says what she thinks it is — that Givhan should have kept the secrets of the inner circle to which her privileged stature gained her access. I would think the spirit is something closer to "The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," and Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett definitely fall into the comfortable category. Not that Givhan "afflicted" them. She only wrote respectfully about what she heard, and even that is not good enough for those who seem to think that the spirit of journalism is to protect the powerful who are on your side.
(Click the Robin Givhan tag to get back to the 3 posts I've already done on this controversy.)
Posts
44 comments:
Has the National Association of White Journalists issued a statement?
Modern journalism has thrown out the ethics book. There are no more rules of confidentiality, whether under the artifice of "off the record" or the formality of federal law or otherwise.
Saw this recent tweet by Matt Pearce from the LA Times:
"Journalism *is* activism in its most basic form. The entire basis for its ethical practice is the idea that a democracy requires an informed citizenry in order to function. Choosing what you want people to know is a form of activism, even if it’s not the march-and-protest kind."
There is an obligation, or there should be, on the part of media to provide the information that will allow consumers to get an accurate picture of what is being reporting on. Meaning that if they are only discuss one side of an issue, they need make the consumer aware of the bias.
In today's world, so many people are just getting the news in sound bites, and for the most part aren't holding the media accountable. And the media takes full advantage of that to push their agenda.
The spirit of Jounalistic ethics probably means that covering up for our side is the first job of any Info Warrior.
The National Association of White Readers thinks the members of The National Association of Black Journalists write articles which consist of nothing but "black black blackety black".
Given their stated interest in diversity and disinterest in segregation, I bet almost anyone could prove me wrong about "blackety-black" by showing that some of these people mentioned in the post are Asian or "Hispanic":
Michelle Obama
Terell Jermaine Starr
Danielle Belton
Debra Lee
Robin Givhan
Shakespeare
I hate hearing this word "sanctity" used in the context of a promotional event with the former wife of a US President. (A terrible president, by the way, who betrayed everyone who believed his advertising slogans of "hope" and "change.")
No politician or politician's wife is sacred or sanctified or should ever be perceived or treated that way.
Good for the journalist in the room!
I hung on every one of Givhan's words. Maybe she will too. Didn't NABJ proclaim Michelle Obama the Queen of Shade? And should BJ be part of any serious acronym?
I think once you've transitioned to a legislative conception of the law, the "spirit/letter" distinction doesn't really mean much. But -- and here I'm a little sympathetic with the organisers of this conference -- if you understand "law" as a shared custom or understanding expressed imperfectly in words (as words are always imperfect), the when there are discrepancies between the two, the actual thing ought to take precedence over its imprecise verbal expression.
Here, though, the whole business isn't really reflecting a longstanding norm or custom, so I'm only a little sympathetic. If you invite a journalist, what do you really expect her to do? Scorpion's going to sting.
Compare the reaction to Trumps chief of staff, Kelly’s off the records chat being revealed.
Nice double standard.
It looks like a bunch of journalists were invited, not one of them directly told that event was off the record, and only one did her job while the others are pearl clutching about sacred spaces.
And I agree with Cook about how strange it is to see the holiness that progs have granted the Obamas.
The spirit of the law is make it up as you go to benefit your tribe.
Conditions change.
Bunch of women is the general category.
Never was able to follow this. If they say it's off the record then you aren't allowed to report it. But if you aren't supposed to be there and can get some anonymous source to tell you about what was supposed to be a private meeting, that's fine, Pulitzer Prize stuff.
So what Robin Givhan should have done was to get someone else sitting next to her to repeat the words Michelle Obama said. The "someone else" might as well be her, of course.
Eenie meenie chili beanie. The spirits are about to speak....
Dear NABJ,
A professional photographer who takes a picture of Sen. Barack Obama with Louis Farrakhan in 2005 is asked by the Congressional Black Caucus after the fact to not publish the picture because its publication could prevent him from becoming POTUS. He not only complies by giving the picture to Farrakhan's staff, but doesn't say a peep about it for almost 13 years - well after Obama's second term as President is over. Is this conduct you would condone, or condemn? I don't think I ever read your opinion on this.
Asking for a friend.
National Association of Low IQ journalists.
The stories about them would make sense then.
"The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" Funny stuff. Like, LOL, hahaha.
I would think the spirit is something closer to "The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," and Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett definitely fall into the comfortable category.
No, no, no, no no! In polite society today, no black person is comfortable and all blacks are afflicted.
I hate the phrase "People of Color".
Which colors?
My Crayola 64 box has lots of colors.
I know the "white" crayon is definitely out. You could never see it on the paper anyway.
I get confused about the "Brown" though. Sometime some people tell me its really "white", other times they tell me its just as dark as "black".
And don't get me started on. "Yellow".
I want new designations, "Burnt Siena" for formerly Catholic now agonist 3rd generation immigrants from Central America who vote democrat over 60 % of the time. -OR-
"Tickle me Pink" for gay Caucasians who vote Republican on certain economic issues but Democrat on social issues.
Cookie could be "Brick Red" as in "solidly communist" or "willing to break a few windows for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
Why should anyone assume that just because the journalists are black, there would be an evening with sisterhood and fellowship with Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama? Because they are black?
When discussing his movie "Get Out", Jordan Peele often points to the annoying thing white liberals do (and the character of the father does it in the movie), and that is praising Obama to a black man, assuming the black man just has to support Obama.
So why is it any different when a black organization does it? A black journalism organization, on top of it? These are people who should be skeptical of power, not finding sisterhood with it. What are regular people supposed to think about sacred spaces being created around politicians because of their color, their gender, or the combination thereof?
The idea that two public figures get to present their ideas in front of supposed journalists without any reporting on the event is ludicrous in the extreme, although perfectly compatible with today's partisan media, whose only apparent goal is to serve their Democrat masters. And yes, that's racist, and meant to be so. If you claim to be a reporter and don't report on matters of public interest because you are told not to do so, you are not a reporter, you are a slave.
Derb reports that in the 70s, when he came to the US, he was impressed by the longing whites had for blacks to join society. This wasn't an integration thing but a patriotic thing. Everybody is American. The American idea.
Then politicians and self-appointed leaders started issuing bribes to blacks to become an interest group against America.
“People of Color” = the genteel way of adopting the one drop rule for the sake of solidarity. See Rachel Dolezal for a person who flunks the one drop rule. She is a POC wannabe.
If the same journalists were in the same room with Melania at the podium, would they take "please turn your phones off" as a clear indication the talk was off the record?
Do you think they'd publicly come out against anyone who wrote about what she said?
Then what is this "spirit" other than naked partisanship? And what is journalism other than advocacy?
I agree with Robert Cook that talk of the sacred is totally out of place. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
“People of Color”
Just a note on that phrase which caught my eye this morning: I remember when Yoko Ono was mocked for addressing a crowd as "People of Earth". How would she be treated if she addressed a room full of black people as "People of Color"?
And if it's not polite to address them that way directly, why should we continue to use that phrase when talking about them?
Phil 3:14 said...
I hate the phrase "People of Color"
The phrase sounds like new-agey silliness, but the silliness dates to before 1800, and became popular "along about" 1835.
"Along about eighteen twenty-five,
I left Tennessee very much alive.
I never would have got through the Arkansas mud
If I hadn't been a-ridin' on the Tennessee Stud."
“As the world’s largest journalism organization of people of color“
Sometimes Laslo just finds you...
'People of colour' carries more weight with that extra U, especially if you pronounce it.
“The National Association of White Readers thinks the members of The National Association of Black Journalists write articles which consist of nothing but "black black blackety black"
Which raises an interesting point. Even in the darkest of venues, POC journalism is mostly read by White folks. Given the cratering of racial amity, that suggests some serious fail.
I'm not afraid of the Times. But the spirit of the Times gives me the creeps. I check under my bed every night for the Zeitgeist.
In Soviet Union Zeitgeist checks under the bed for you.
It's time to interview Stormy Daniels about journalistic ethics again.
Almost as interesting as whale vomit.
Was there any reason why the press status of the talk as on or off the record wasn't made explicit from the get-go? You know, a moderator making a public announcement that this talk is off the record. Or, even better, having the status plainly stated on the invitation.
If the status was publicly clear that the talk was OtR, then shame on Givhans for recording it. But Givhans has been around a long time, & knows how the game is played. My guess is that the ladies went all fuzzy & got surprised when everyone didn't end up in agreement.
I wonder if in the course of Stormy Daniels' long career in the porn industry she ever had a falling out with a coworker or did something unethical. Of course not. If she had, we would have heard about it by now.......To be fair, some black journalists have pushed back against this code of the hills crap. Still, one can't help but observe that both Michelle and Stormy have been treated with tact and discretion by the press. There's been no great rush to reveal the unseemly sides if their personalities.
"People of color..." ? In the immortal words of Don van Vliet, "Everyone is colored or else you couldn't see them."
Valerie Jarrett needs to go away. And if these folks wanted a super secret off-the- record event they should have just said so.
In polite society today, no black person is comfortable and all blacks are afflicted.
And Obama & Jarrett, being women, are doubly afflicted.
I would think the spirit is something closer to "The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," and Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett definitely fall into the comfortable category.
The left still isn't what you wish it was as the contradiction you run into shows. Note how a small change of the "spirit" to "advance left wing politics wherever possible" eliminates the contradictions.
Note also how their overreaction fits this expectation. The "reveal" is not a big issue to normal people and thus her exclusion seems an overreaction. But the reveal could be very damaging to the movement. Left wing supporters including many on this site passionately attacked people who inferred political motives from Michele's activities. Supposedly it showed these people were paranoid thus discrediting them and conferring victim status on Michele. But Givhan's report shows those political inferences were correct and those left wing foot soldiers are thus proven useful idiots. Admittedly most of these foot soldiers don't care but potential converts recognize this sort of thing.
Chuck said...Has the National Association of White Journalists issued a statement?
--
"Racist!"
or
"That's not funny!"
I wonder if this off the books notion was mentioned in the invitation to the event.
Sorry..YH. I should add "too"
There’s never anything ‘off the record’ with reporters in general. Particularly if the reporter will say that it will be off the record.
Ann Althouse said...She only wrote respectfully about what she heard, and even that is not good enough for those who seem to think that the spirit of journalism is to protect the powerful who are on your side.
"Those who seem to think" = The Media.
Photographer Says He Suppressed Obama Farrakhan Photo For Years
He's not a member of a big Media organization, though, so he doesn't count, right? I mean even though Media people didn't condemn that suppression we all know they themselves wouldn't do anything like that, riiiight?
LA Time Suppresses Obama's Khalidi Party Tape
Huh. Weird! Almost like there's some kind of bias at work.
Post a Comment