An Open Letter to The New (low) Standard

This is an open letter to Michelle Chen and the Editorial Staff of The New Standard:

Dear Michelle and Staff,

I have to say that I like what you stand for. I too have often written about the profit-blinders worn by corporate media and longed for a worker-centered voice.

Your masthead states:


TNS strives for accountability and fairness, and to uphold rigorous rules for sourcing, transparency and ethics. With an organizational structure based on equity, solidarity, diversity and self-management, The NewStandard serves grassroots social change with uncompromised journalism and the application of democratic principles at all levels of its operation.

Fine words.

It's unfortunate that you do not live up to them.

The headline `Racism' Seen in Liberals' Opposition to Mexican Truckers does take a bold and definitive stand, one surely backed by rigorous reporting and bullet-proof sourcing, right?

Sorry, only more disappointment. Nowhere in your story are charges of racism brought by any source. The closest you come is a quote from a dissident former Teamster who says:

"Workers have a right to protect their jobs, wages, benefits and conditions from employers and governments who would try to undermine them," said Dan La Botz, a labor historian and former Teamster who has researched Mexican labor movements. "But, at the same time," he continued, "protectionism can easily slip into national chauvinism and racism."

Yes, and predetermined conclusions could mean that the reporter and her editors were looking for racism. Trying to fuel racial tension by waving red herrings regularly wafted by corporate America, well one could call you a `racist' as well.

You see, as a former journalist I know that every reporter comes to a story with a preconception (that preconception could come from an editor, or a tip from a source that may have political axes to grind). A good journalist would look beyond those preconceptions and write the story based on facts supported by multiple sources and thorough research.

In your blog you write about the Teamsters' objection to your reporting and your headline:

"...We were encouraged to reconsider the headline - the main part of the story to which they objected.

They were very concerned, they said, that the word " `Racism' " in the title of the article unfairly implied that the opposition to the trucking program was, well, racist. This despite our tactful flanking of the term in quotation marks, and the fact that it was drawn from a quoted source in the body of our story.

It wasn't that we were unaware it could be viewed as a risky headline. But at TNS, we pride ourselves on being provocative when we have the appropriate backing from research and reporting. And the idea of retracting a headline based on no editorial or ethical reason, other than the offense taken by a source, would be irresponsible to ourselves and our readers.

But aside from that, what I found most interesting about this hullabaloo was the Teamsters fixation on the allegations of racism - which come in the article through the critique of labor historian and former dissident Teamster Dan La Botz.

A good journalist supports allegations, she does not tactfully flank them in quotation marks. I called you a "racist" too, does that make it "okay?"

Not only does the quote not allege racism - but rather protectionism - your sensational headline is supported by a single source, with ties to a group that is the sworn political enemy of Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa. If you had done any research on Mr. La Botz at all, you surely would have run across some of his "objective" pieces such as this excerpt from a 1998 article:


Today in the Teamsters the stakes in the struggle between an Old Guard led by Jimmy Hoffa and a reform movement headed by Tom Leedham and backed by Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) seem pretty clear. The union will either go forward with the reformers to democratize and build rank-and-file power to take on management, or it will go backward with the Old Guard and return to domination by conservative union officials, and indirectly by employers, the Republican Party, and perhaps even by the Mafia.

Mr. Hoffa went on to handily win that election and last fall was re-elected to a third term in a rank and file election by a 2-1 majority. Mr. La Botz clearly is not objective and maintains a decidedly minority viewpoint.

So Collective, do you think Michelle and her editors researched this issue enough or "strived" for fairness?

She bases her claims of racism on unchecked government statistics -- and we all know how historically honest and responsible the Bush administration has been of late.

Public Citizen revealed that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's safety Compliance Reviews of Mexico-domiciled trucks coming across the southern border, plunged from 268 in 2003 to 236 in 2004, and down to only 106 in 2005. Michelle failed to be report this.

Likewise, in a follow-up letter to The New Standard, our press secretary reveals:

There was one significant detail concerning the statistics Michelle cites that [Legislative affairs director] Fred McLuckie did, in fact, make her aware of during the interview. (I only bring this up now because I wasn't able to confirm with Fred until yesterday). The DHS representative testified in front of the House committee that there were an estimated 40,000 violations within the commercial zone in Texas that were never reported. According to his testimony, the inspectors just decided to stop submitting the violations. How dependable can those statistics be?

There are giant, gaping holes in this system and that is the problem - not racial bias. I would suggest TNS take a closer look at those issues. You say you didn't find any data to support the safety claims and that the story was originally supposed to be about those concerns. So answer this question - How did you go from a story on safety claims to a one that questions whether there is a racial bias?  Never once did she ask any questions of our representatives about this issue.

So Collective, I ask again, did Michelle strive for accountability and fairness, and uphold your rigorous rules for sourcing, transparency and ethics?

I hope not. I hope this is not the level you hold your standard to. Otherwise, one must challenge your very integrity as a news gathering body.

Tags: Labor, Media, Teamsters, The New Standard (all tags)

Comments

2 Comments

Re: An Open Letter to The New (low) Standard

They provide a valuable service, and I read them regularly. Any issues they may have regarding labor unions are not currently significant enough for me to stop reading. Other publications have other stances, so I read many independent news outlets. In fact, my favorites are:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/

http://legitgov.org/

http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/cu lture_of_life_news/

by blues 2007-04-01 04:20AM | 0 recs
not calling for a boycot, only fair reporting

Our problem with this site does not warrent a call for boycot, but if this biased report is an example of how this organization sources, reports and labels stories, then every serious news consumer should question its integrity. It certainly calls into question how stories past and future have been and will be handled.

by Teamsters 2007-04-01 12:48PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads