Monday, February 15, 2010
News Atlanta Progressive News fires reporter for trying to be objective
Posted by Andisheh Nouraee on Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:16 PM
Atlanta Progressive News has parted ways with long-serving senior staff writer Jonathan Springston. Apparently, Springston's affinity for fact-based reporting clashed with Cardinale's vision.
And, no, that's not sarcasm.
In an e-mail statement, editor Matthew Cardinale says Springston was asked to leave APN last week "because he held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News."
Cardinale says he has no plans to fill the position left vacant by Springston's exit. His full statement to CL appears after the jump.
####APN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM CREATIVE LOAFING ATLANTA REGARDING JONATHAN SPRINGSTON
Atlanta Progressive News was not planning to make any public statements regarding Jonathan Springston's departure from Atlanta Progressive News until having been contacted by Andisheh Nouaree at Creative Loafing with the news agency's threat of publishing a blog entry about it.
It should be noted that Nouaree's motives in writing this piece are questionable, seeing as how he has made negative statements about APN's Editor in the past.
Jonathan Springston served as Staff Writer, then Senior Staff Writer for a total of four years. During that time, he has grown as a writer and has produced a lot of content which has served to inform our readership on issues ranging from Troy Davis to Grady Hospital.
As many of our readers know, we are in the midst of a major website redesign and relaunch that will result in new content and new forms of content, as well as tools to empower our readers to meaningfully participate in the democratic process. Part of that has meant going back to our core mission and re-examining how every part of what we do is consistent with, and advances, that mission.
In the end, we had to make a very difficult decision to move forward as a publication without Jonathan Springston. Last Wednesday, we informed him it seemed more appropriate if he found work with another publication or started his own publication.
At a very fundamental, core level, Springston did not share our vision for a news publication with a progressive perspective. He held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News. It just wasn't the right fit.
We have already begun drafting a more programmatic statement on our editorial position regarding objectivity, inter-subjectivity, and news. To be sure, I've commented on Creative Loafing's blog previously about such issues.
In the meantime, here is some information from our Frequently Asked Questions page:
"Progressive news is news that brings us closer to universal health care, living wages, affordable housing, peace, a healthy environment, and voting systems we can trust.
We provide news of concern to working families, and therefore, our writing is geared toward a specific audience. Fortunately, our audience--working families--comprises a majority of people in the United States who are largely ignored by corporate media sources.
We believe there is no such thing as objective news. Typically, mainstream media presents itself as objective but is actually skewed towards promoting the corporate agenda of the ultra-wealthy.
APN, on the other hand, does not pretend to be objective. We believe that our news coverage is fair and that our progressive principles are fair. We aim when possible to give voice to all sides, but aim to provide something different than what is already provided by corporate sources."
We wish Mr. Springston the best of luck in his future endeavors and in fact we think he would be a good candidate for Creative Loafing or even the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Also in response to the other question from Mr. Nouaree: we will currently not have anyone in the Senior Staff Writer position, although we have a handful of staff writers. Gloria Tatum, an activist and corporate media critic, recently joined our staff as well.
We are always seeking additional writers and contributors, and the new website coming soon will make it easier for people to submit content.
Comments (107)
Showing 1-50 of 107
This is really sad, Jonathan was one of the few writers I enjoyed reading. I think the owner/editor had lost his mind.. first the "rap" at the council meeting and now this.. APN.. a good idea that never really got beyond that.
like
dislike
Matthew Cardinale is f**ked up. Noone reads the APN anyway. Mabye because its editorial policy makes it looks like the 3rd rate rag that it really is.
Of course Andisheh would spin it this way: "Apparently, Springston’s affinity for fact-based reporting clashed with Cardinale’s vision." This has nothing to do with fact versus non-fact. Everything we print in our news articles is factual. Unlike, Creative Loafing we don't mix facts and opinions in the same articles. But we do have a transparent editorial perspective that shapes which facts get included and which facts are given priority over others. My point regarding the non-existence of objectivity in news has to do with which facts get included and which don't-- which "sides" get included and which don't. Every publication has to make choices about this, which are unique to each publication and to each situation being written about. So don't get it twisted.
Also, I didn't mean to imply--even indirectly or in the slightest way--that Creative Loafing was objective. Quite the opposite- Creative Loafing's slant is so inline with the bourgeois, corporate ideology of most of the corporate media in Atlanta, that you all kind of reinforce and reify each other to the point where one can easily become deluded that this corporate ideology you propagate is somehow an objective truth.
One minor correction: He held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported PROFESSIONALLY, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News. It just wasn’t the right fit.
While it's clear from some of his previous antics that Cardinale's an asshole - and his attempts to paint Creative Loafing as part of some sort of conservative oligarchy with the AJC is laughable - he nevertheless has a point. All news stories are constructed...which views and facts you choose to include and exclude inevitably shapes the reader's understanding of reality. It's unfair to say that he fired Springston for reporting facts as opposed to falsehoods. I also agree with Cardinale that CL has long mixed fact and opinion in its articles. But I've always kind of liked that. CL's articles tend to be analysis, which can't be done without expressing opinions. CL's a scrappy indie paper with (yes, Cardinale!) a progressive take on the news. And Andisheh Nouraee - despite my disappointment with how he phrased this article - is probably the best damn writer in the city.
Benjy, while I enjoy Nouraee's pessimistic foreign policy stanzas and his DIY photo illustrations, don't give him a hard-on with a last word compliment like that. Cardinale may be accurate in the free-thinking realm that all journalism is skewed by individual bias, but his idea that all news is a cesspool regulated by 'the man' is just another brick in his crawl space of delusion. Cardinale does not have an journalism degree and has not worked for any news organization of note beyond the one helped create. His idea of news spawns from the same mentality of Rupert Murdoch: Everyone is against me. Matthew, please feel free to correct me on your qualifications. I must say however, watching you during the mayoral campaign, I trust a newscast from Tabitha Soren over your so-called progressive evangelism.
I'm mildly amused at the notion of Atlanta's Creative Loafing being considered a part of the "corporate bourgeois." Nothing about Creative Loafing screams corporate. In fact, anyone familiar with Atlanta's alternative news weekly knows that "The Loaf" promotes independent artists, music and films that aren't backed by corporate America. Now, as for Atlanta Progressive "News" and its decision to part ways with Jonathan Springston, I've met Springston and I have to say that APN just kicked its best damn reporter to the curb. What. A. Shame.
Re: "John Brown's Body" Let me correct your statement about my writing. My works have previously appeared in several publications including the Sun-Sentinel newspaper (Fort Lauderdale), The Advocate Magazine (GLBT), the Berkeley Daily Planet, the San Francisco Bay View, and others. Currently, I am also a wire correspondent for Inter-Press Service, a multi-lingual, international wire service that is the global voice of civil society. You know, the ironic thing is, to an international audience, my writing doesn't even seem progressive- it just seems reasonable. As far as my education, I have two masters degrees, one in sociology and one in public administration. I would argue these degrees have allowed me to see the interconnection between social policy and people's lives, and to have a comprehensive social and political theoretical perspective that has shaped for APN a consistent editorial platform and a multi-level analytical framework. To be frank, I believe that if more journalists came from sociology and policy backgrounds the world would be a better place! Also, no, I don't think Creative Loafing is (knowingly at least) part of a capitalist conspiracy. I think the way the ideological function of corporate media operates is much more insidious than that. And don't forget, the only reason Creative Loafing is in existence today after the bankruptcy is to sell enough advertising so that Atalaya can make their money back. Informing people and enhancing democracy is for CL's owners a coincidental or secondary function, at least in comparison to the revenue from the weekly plastic surgery advertising on page 2.
Andre- Jonathan works hard and he's a good writer. He will be a strong asset to any publication which scoops him up, and I will be proud to see him thrive.
Matthew, Saying your writing has appeared in a publication puts you in the same boat as letters to the editor and guest editorials. I applaud the fact you have an education but none of those things make you a journalist. As good as your intentions may be, you're a lobbyist, and APN is a trade journal marketed to people who want to read what they already believe. It's Fox News in bizarro world.
Cardinale should go back to Louisiana. He's been nothing but a pompous and arrogant prick since he settled in Atlanta. He's nothing more than a know-it-all transplant. As the old saying goes in Atlanta, "Delta is ready when you are." Perhaps in your case Cardinale, Greyhound might better suit your style or lack thereof.
I'll remain silent on APN, but it's right on to identify the ever-shittier Creative Loafing rag as a tool of the so-called "corporate interests" that its loyalists despise. What are "corporate" interests versus "independent" interests? In this economic system practically every new business venture starts out as a seemingly independent, small effort. Then they grow and become entangled in the web of finance, or die. So called "counter cultural" options - like movies produced by the niche wing of major hollywood companies and screened by the corporate distributor landmark, or hip musicians working on a similar model, or the disgusting opulence of $100 restaurant meals that CL always promotes - fit neatly within the same system as Disney, Miley Cyrus and McDonald's. The flow of money, control of power, and fundamental interests are the same if you care to get beneath the superficial. Most heinous is Creative Loafing's operation as, basically, the mouthpiece of gentrification in Atlanta. The authorial voice even in so-called news is that of the city's naive white minority that believes it's bringing "cultural options" to the city, rather than being the front-line tools of real estate interests. For example, why isn't there a "blotter" investigating the truly nefarious and destructive crimes of the rich? Because this paper and its intended audience prefer the sycophantic relationship of a younger sibling, desperately eager to not really offend Atlanta's masters. Add that together with Andisheh's vapid cynical international "news" which I guess is supposed to appeal to the above mentioned myopic readership. The fact that there's a nearly identical "independent news weekly" in every major US city might clue us in to the reality that "alternative" is just another market share.
Some of the comments in this thread amaze me. "I’m mildly amused at the notion of Atlanta’s Creative Loafing being considered a part of the “corporate bourgeois.” Is there an actual question as to whether corporate owned media cannot be part of the "corporate bourgeois"? Speak of delusion. Isaac's comment is right on - if you consider articles like the disgusting article Creative Loafing published months (maybe even a year ago) ago praising the downfall of the "whole in the doughnut" they considered to be un-gentrified old Fourth Ward in any way progressive then we're in trouble.
"To be frank, I believe that if more journalists came from sociology and policy backgrounds the world would be a better place!" Please! Journalism is a calling and a profession in which one "should" enjoy years of training before practice. Cardinale might have a background in policy, but he has no business making editorial policy for any publication or any readership, no matter how small.
It takes serious cohones to first assert that there is no objective reality that can be reported objectively and then assert that any reporting you do is factual. George Orwell just turned over in his grave.
It is amazing that a so-called journalist can deny that good reporting is anything more than an "objective reality that [is] reported objectively." Just the facts. That's what you are supposed to report if you adhere to anything resembling ethics in the craft of journalism. When those objective facts are skewed to fit one's predetermined point of view, the reporting is subjective and therefore tainted. Tainted reporting should not be trusted as truth. That's because it simply isn't. I wonder, does Matthew Cardinale think his readers are too stupid to arrive at the point of view he holds? Or is he incapable of accepting that there are different viewpoints on any issue? I think both.
I love the “Progressive news is news that brings us closer to universal health care, living wages, affordable housing, peace, a healthy environment, and voting systems we can trust." 'Universal health-care' is always a race to the bottom (everyone gets it, but no one wants it); 'living wages' aren't; 'affordable housing' means slums; 'peace' means subjection; 'a healthy environment' is something that no socialist/communist/progressive government has ever created; and 'voting systems we can trust', to a progressive, means a permanently stuffed ballot box ensuring the vote goes their way and only their way. Do progressives take their teeth out before they speak?
APN, on the other hand, does not pretend to be objective. We believe that our news coverage is fair and that our progressive principles are fairHow can one be subjective and fair? By it's very nature, subjectivity means someone's making a decision against someone else. Or are you depending on the fallacy of "there's always two sides", when in many cases that's just flat out wrong.
Cardinale believes anyone who disagrees with him is corporate. His attempt at exalting his ideals by insulting Springston was limp and pathetic. Anyone who has to tear down someone to build themselves up isn't worth respect. And PLEASE, anyone who throws the term "bourgeois" at someone is hopelessly mediocre themselves. It just doesn't have the impact you think it does.
And this: gawker.com/5473057/reporter-fired-for-belief-in-reality and this: twitter.com/Slate/status/9195115631 and this: twitter.com/romenesko/status/9194134637
Guess what I just unsubscribed from? I'll give you a hint, they just fired one of their best reporters. I have to admit I saw this as a "he said, she said" kind of deal until I saw the venomous stuff pouring out of APNeditor's mouth. Thanks for clearing that up pal, now I don't have to spend another cent with you.
Jonathan's blog at APN has been removed, but the Google cache version is still available. Search string = site:www.atlantaprogressiveblog.com "jonathan-springston"
Any time the word "reify" is used anent news providers, it's over. If the person who used it was an editor, you're left with birdcage liner.
I read Mr. Cardinale's (or is that Comrade Cardinale's) with great amusement. I fail to see how his degrees in sociology and public administration lend themselves to his assertion that they help him "to see the interconnection between social policy and people’s lives, and to have a comprehensive social and political theoretical perspective that has shaped for APN a consistent editorial platform and a multi-level analytical framework" any more than my degrees in engineering mechanics and human resources management. You, sir, are a self-important jackass.
Like Mr. T said up above, "I cannot tell you how much I am enjoying this." For all the editor's complaints about the so-called corporate media in Atlanta, Atlanta Progressive "News" is registered with the Secretary of State as a for-profit corporation. In fact, an individual could purchase shares of Atlanta Progressive News, Inc. Their corporate bylaws state that shares of APN, Inc. can be bought for $0.01 per share; with the number of shares of stock limited to 100,000. I wonder what the shareholders of Atlanta Progressive News have to say of this firing. I am tempted to buy some shares of APN, Inc. just to control a majority stake in the company and remove Matthew Cardinale from his much-coveted position of editor-in-chief.
Congratulations for this blog post featured on Fark.com's home page! Now there's some objective reality for you... http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=5030996
Nobel, or destructive our motives we are all creatures of want, and desire. I believe we're that simple. When someone, say a celebrity, or a journalist reflects our weakness, it stirs us up. I believe that the duty of a journalist is as close to something that can be labeled sacred or holy as any prophet. I feel that anyone whom can reflect truth instead of creating their own is the bane of others, by sympathy, or by hostility. I worry for truth, because I can't know it. I yearn for absolute truth. Yet we can never hold, or own truth. Merely reflect it, then it's gone. Facts are the victor's story. Foolishly I'm none too worried about facts, only the people behind them. Like an old man's pair of glasses; I understand through the prism of others. A great argument for the importance of journalism. Recently I've been reading up, and digging into Andy Warhol, so naturally I'm going to see a correlation between him, and any subject that I'm currently dwelling on. I could do this with anyone, and I do, do* this with anyone. Whether such connections are factual, or imagined, they bring me understanding. Andy was constantly searching for ideas, not creating them. I say a journalist should do the same. On a separate thought, I wish to take this moment, the only thing truly absolute, the moment, this moment, to announce my proposal of marriage, to, the, comma (,) I, dearly love you comma, for all that you have done for me, and continue to do for me. Why should a sentence end, when it could go on, and on, and on, 'till death do us part,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, *heh I said/typed "do-do".
So APN doesn't deliberately make stuff up - it only deliberately conceals every scintilla of factual evidence that conflicts with its pre-determined position. As a matter of editorial policy. Anyone who ever quotes the APN from hereon in can be rebutted just by quoting this policy. It's a propaganda sheet, not a news source.
Perhaps they could change the name of their publication to "Atlanta Progressive Opinions", since they seem to no interest in facts, objective or otherwise.
Without "Objective Reality" you have no epistemological basis for knowing or deciding what is "fair" or even what 'is'. Thus your editorial, news, or views is/are meaningless and incomprehensible just as this brief paragraph would be without "objective reality".
This probably disqualifies him from working in any communication field at all. http://graciouslivingdaybyday.com/
As promised, we have released the following statement explaining our views on objectivity and news. Some of the questions and comments on here were intriguing enough that we addressed them in the process of writing this. This should basically respond to many of the above comments without having to do so individually: http://atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0600.html Editorial: Notes on Objectivity and News By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, The Atlanta Progressive News (February 17, 2010) (APN) ATLANTA -- From time to time, Atlanta Progressive News has received questions from readers and other interested parties questioning the "objectivity" of our reporting. To be sure, we published several statements on our Frequently Asked Questions page over four years ago making it very clear that (1) we believe objectivity in news reporting does not exist, and that (2) we report news from a progressive perspective. In addition, we have made a number of statements responding to various blog posts and commenters on other websites as well. In anticipation of APN's major website redesign--currently in progress--Atlanta Progressive News has released the following Editorial to readers refining and expanding upon our position in reference to issues of objectivity, inter-subjectivity, and the news media. This programmatic statement will likely be the first of several essays on these subjects, and will serve as a more detailed reference point for our readers and others with related questions. BASIC STATEMENTS FROM OUR FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS PAGE The following statements appear on APN's original Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Page: "Our goal is providing news of concern to the working people and working families of Atlanta." "Progressive news is news that brings us closer to universal health care, living wages, affordable housing, peace, a healthy environment, and voting systems we can trust." "We provide news of concern to working families, and therefore, our writing is geared toward a specific audience. Fortunately, our audience--working families--comprises a majority of people in the United States who are largely ignored by corporate media sources." "We believe there is no such thing as objective news. Typically, mainstream media presents itself as objective but is actually skewed towards promoting the corporate agenda of the ultra-wealthy. APN, on the other hand, does not pretend to be objective. We believe that our news coverage is fair and that our progressive principles are fair. We aim when possible to give voice to all sides, but aim to provide something different than what is already provided by corporate sources." NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVITY IN NEWS "You can't be neutral on a moving train." - Howard Zinn So, the first point is, as already stated on our FAQs page, there's no such thing as objectivity in news. The premise of objectivity is literally to remove the observer from what it is that is being observed and simply to report what "is." However, that is an impossibility. It cannot be done. In fact, there is nothing that "is," separate from the observer or multiple observers who construct and interpret what that reality is. One could argue that the only one who's really objective is God, and that's because God is omniscient or all-knowing (that is, if you believe in God). This talk of the observer and the observed may sound philosophical and abstract, but it will become much clearer as we consider examples. Now, the first way we know that there is no such thing as objective media is that we have no evidence, no examples, of objective media outlets. (if you find one, let us know right away!) Every publication has an editorial perspective which shapes and constrains the way its reporters cover the news, which in turn affects the way its readers view reality. However, the difference between APN and most publications is that most publications pretend to be objective--and maybe even convince themselves that they are--while we have never pretended to be objective. Take the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper, for example. AJC reporters might consider themselves objective, and there may be some readers whose worldviews are so much in line with that of the AJC that the publication seems objective to them. But take note- many Atlantans on the left consider the AJC to be the newsletter of corporate and real estate interests, while many Atlantans on the right consider the AJC to be a liberal rag. How can that be if there's an objective reality and the AJC is objective? And who is correct? Who gets to decide who is correct? We could create a panel called the Committee on Objectivity to judge who is objective and who isn't, but undoubtedly there would be disagreement with their decisions (and who gets to sit on the panel, who gets to vote for who sits on the panel, etc.)! Nor is Creative Loafing objective. Even less, they are constantly mixing facts and opinions in the same articles. For example: "What is Michael Bond smoking these days? Since he rejoined the Atlanta City Council last month after an eight-year hiatus, Bond has seemingly been trying to make up for lost time by churning out attention-getting resolutions — to create a penny sales tax for public safety, to apologize to the victims of the Atlanta Eagle raid, etc." How is that objective? Again, objective means removing the observer. So you mean to tell me that anybody looking at Michael Julian Bond's legislative record would also inevitably question whether the Councilman was smoking? No, that is a clear opinion. Most publications--including APN--do not regularly mix facts and opinions in the same articles. However, the perspectives of APN and other publications come through in other ways: (1) the choices of what stories to cover and what not to cover, (2) defining what a story is or is not in the first place, (3) deciding how to cover the story, (4) assessing what the "sides" are to be balanced, (5) deciding how the "sides" should be balanced, (6) deciding what facts to include and what not facts to include, etc. At Atlanta Progressive News, we have a transparent editorial perspective that shapes which facts get included and which facts are given priority over others. Most other publications--on the other hand--have a hidden, sometimes insidious editorial perspective that shapes the same. My point regarding the non-existence of objectivity in news has to do with which facts get included and which don’t– which “sides” get included and which don’t. Every publication has to make choices about this, which are unique to each publication and to each situation being written about. Now most people's basic understanding of objectivity is: balancing the sides. Okay, let's talk about the sides for a minute. How many sides are there? Well, there are approximately six billion people in the world, and to the extent that everyone's perspective is slightly different, there could be potentially six billion sides. So what journalists do is construct what they see as key themes or narratives that seem to define the major sides. Well, again, how many sides are there? What if paper A includes two sides, but paper B includes three? What if paper C includes five, but doesn't include one of the sides paper A included? What it means is, again, that there is no such thing as objective reality or objective news, and all news stories are constructed. Here's an example: the Grady Hospital dialysis treatment scandal. As APN has reported, several patients were left without life-essential treatment options after Grady closed its dialysis clinic. You could do a content analysis and you will find that APN gave much higher priority to the views of the patients and their advocates than we did to Grady officials, while the AJC did just the opposite. In part, our mission is shaped by the void left by other media outlets. Some publications did not even cover the Grady dialysis scandal. Well, if there's an objective reality and the Grady situation is part of it, surely all news agencies would see it as newsworthy? Now, if we at APN wanted to, we could have sought out some activists in Marietta who believe that immigrants do not have a right to dialysis care in the US and deserve to die. But that's not a view that we would validate at APN. It's a view they might include at the AJC, but to us it is so inhumane that is outside the realm of what we would consider reasonable or even worth mentioning. Before I get to other examples, I want to clarify- this is not the same as saying there are not facts. Everyone can look at the Grady situation and see that there are dialysis patients, that they are undocumented, that the clinic has closed, etc. (Yes, there are facts within a socially constructed, inter-subjective reality; not quite objective facts.) However, beyond those basic facts, people have very different opinions. Some look at the Grady situation and see a human rights crisis, others see an economic question. But that doesn't mean one view is objective and the other is not, or that one is true and one is false. It means there are different perspectives. And each publication has to decide which perspectives to include or exclude, and those decisions are based on the editorial perspectives and priorities of that publication. Okay, another example: nuclear power. Atlanta Progressive News conducted extensive research on nuclear power, including literally weeks of reading the US government's environmental impact statement on proposed Plants Vogtle 3 and 4, in addition to conducting interviews and reviewing secondary data, to determine that (a) nuclear power plants appear to be correlated with increased cancer rates in nearby areas, and (b) nuclear power plants are draining our water supplies at extreme rates, contributing to drought. Now, once we came to those conclusions, that influenced everything we reported about nuclear power ever since. So, again, back to the sides- what are the sides? Read AJC articles on Plant Vogtle and you'll barely, if at all, see any concerns about health, the environment, and water usage. If you read the AJC you would think nuclear power is simply an economic issue that affects our electric bills. However, at APN, we found many activists who see nuclear power very differently- they see it as a grave threat to our health and safety. So, if reality is so objective--and if reality will always be seen the same way no matter who the observer is--then why didn't the AJC interview any of those people? Oh, that's right: there is no such thing as objectivity. But even more than that, after all our reporting and research on nuclear power, our editorial position at APN is: nuclear power is bad, there's too many questions about it, and we shouldn't continue to take these risks. We don't take stands on every issue we cover, but this has certainly been one of them. (more on this in the next section) Why shouldn't all the facts and research add up to a conclusion? We, the APN Staff and Board, live on this Earth too. We want clean air and water too. So, we're supposed to just say, well, some people say nuclear power is good, others say it's bad; the jury's still out? Well, no, the jury is not still out! Another example: public housing demolitions in Atlanta. At APN, we brought you the residents' perspectives, updates on residents and advocates' efforts to prevent the demolitions, and again, did extensive research including FOIA requests and struggles for public documents--where very little or none of this was available in any other media outlet. Does it mean the residents didn't have perspectives? No, just that they were largely ignored by most other publications. Does it mean the residents didn't undertake advocacy efforts? No, just that we were the only ones who cared enough about them to report about it. But, again, that doesn't mean the other news agencies were objective. What it really means is that the reporters and editors were so convinced that the demolitions were a good thing that they didn't see the need to include very much of the other sides. And if you don't think other news outlets had an opinion on the demolitions, take our word for it. Some of them were quite open about it. Also, the majority of Atlanta publications make very different decisions about which facts or positions to include based on the readership they serve. Atlanta has several Black papers, Hispanic papers, and GLBT papers. The business community has a paper; the legal community has a paper. Creative Loafing is an "alternative" paper, which implies some perspective. Each makes very different decisions about what to include, because they're each operating under the notion that they're serving an under-served community. For example, the Black papers will include Black people's perspectives and discuss Black community issues more, because they believe they are being under-represented elsewhere. Many of these publications continue to believe that they're objective, though; and that's the mistake. We can strive for balance and inclusion but we all have different audiences and priorities, and values that shape what "sides" are included or even recognized. So, to review, there is no such thing as objectivity. Some publications pretend to be objective, but they're not. Moreover, in our experience, objective reporting has really been used as a synonym for being sure to give priority to the corporate, bourgeois ideology and making sure not to offend the powers that be. Seriously: most reporters seem to think the best way to show they're objective is to marginalize the populist view and, again, give priority to the view of the power elite. The subjective slant of the vast majority of media outlets in Atlanta tends to be so inline with the bourgeois, corporate ideology, that all of these media outlets--from the AJC, to corporate TV news, to Creative Loafing--kind of reinforce and reify each other to the point where one can easily become deluded that this corporate ideology they propagate is somehow an objective truth. But it's not. Who knows why media outlets gravitate to the right? Some of it may be a capitalist conspiracy- and if you don't believe in conspiracies, please revisit your US history. A lot of it has to do with the belief that progressive news content will sit poorly with advertisers. A lot of it has to do with these same outlets wanting journalistic access to the powers that be; often that means not publishing negative information about someone in power to ensure access to them later. So most corporate media outlets are in a tenuous position. They have to low the line the majority of the time, and in return they get to occasionally dish the dirt. Also, many people, when they think of objective reporting in their mind, conjure up the notion that there is a "left" and a "right" and that objective reality must be somewhere in between. Well, most issues that are covered are more complicated than left and right, but let's address it for a minute. The "left" and the "right" don't exist in objective reality either. These are socially constructed, historical context-specific "viewpoints" that seem to make a lot of sense but in fact condense many, many issues into two sides. Even so, even if the goal of objective reporting was to balance left and right, each publication has to determine what the left and right positions are in relation to the issue they're covering. Well, while many in the US have come to believe that the Democratic and Republican parties are the respective representatives of left and right, that is only a small part of the spectrum of ideas. APN, for example, frequently finds itself to the left of both the Republican and Democratic Parties. And in most of the world, the mainstream US notion of left and right is, again, a small part of the spectrum, particularly a center-right part of that spectrum. Think about how CNN reports the news quite differently to its US and international audiences. What has happened is that the "balance" has drifted further and further to the right to the point where the progressive point of view has become almost completely left out of the majority of corporate news outlets. This trend may give the impression that progressive thought exists outside the realm of objective reality, but that's only because so many journalists see their job as balancing the two sides, left and right, which when seen from a wider perspective, are really just center-right and right. In the next section, we will discuss more thoroughly APN's mission. ATLANTA PROGRESSIVE NEWS OPENLY REPORTS FROM A PROGRESSIVE, WORKING FAMILIES PERSPECTIVE "We exist because we want to make society better, not because we want to 'objectively' document it all as society goes to hell in a hand-basket." - Atlanta Progressive News So the second part of this is, we take a progressive perspective. Sometimes that means taking stands on issues. One cluster of issues we take stands on frequently are issues involving democracy, free speech, open records, open meetings, open government, public input, public consultation, and public comment. We previously challenged the Atlanta Housing Authority on open meetings issues, and we may soon be doing the same with another entity. Many of you know about the impromptu rap song performed recently by APN's News Editor before the City Council of Atlanta in opposition to public comment restrictions. To be sure, the rap format was a bit out-of-the-box and that was the intention. But some have raised the question, why should a reporter or editor be testifying before City Council anyway? Well, that's how we're doing things. As to why, the short answer is, life's too short to be boxed in by a socially constructed role and be silent, when issues are at stake that affect people's lives and our communities. Make no mistake: we exist because we want to make society better, not because we want to 'objectively' document it all as society goes to hell in a hand-basket. We've tried to be as transparent and consistent about this as possible since our founding, but I just want to make sure that people don't misunderstand our mission. When we said we report news that brings us closer to "universal health care, living wages, affordable housing, peace, a healthy environment, and voting systems we can trust," we really mean it. These are goals we have as a publication and we think they are not progressive, but basic, reasonable foundations for humanity. And we want to achieve them in our lifetime, not later. And we worry that if we keep messing around with nuclear power and unrenewable fuels and an unsustainable economic system, there may not be a later. The issues that come across our pages are serious, much more serious than objectivity. When APN's Editor made public presentations to City Council on the public housing demolitions, it was because our publication had done so much research, why shouldn't we share it with concerned elected officials? We also shared our research with residents, involved residents in our coverage, and worked with residents to come up with constructive ways to address their concerns. We made presentations to resident association meetings and very much helped shape their effort to preserve their communities. And we also had an opinion. We had so many concerns about the lack of housing opportunities, and the apparent fraud and fabrication by AHA, that we definitely believed the demolitions were wrong, and we told people this. How can we get closer to having affordable housing while demolishing public housing? It's inconsistent with our stated principles. Now, it's fine to report on AHA's side, but not as if their side is unproblematic. AHA continues to mislead people when they say 97% of residents want to move. That is based on a misleading one question survey to residents asking if they want a voucher--after telling them they plan to demolish the buildings. What were they supposed to say, no, I don't want a voucher? So we reported their side but also reported that their side was misleading. No other publication in Atlanta examined their claims that deeply, and of course we had a public records struggle to even review the evidence. It's fine to balance one side with another. But you don't balance the truth with lies. And part of what we do is ask difficult questions about the assertions made by those in power. Objectivity doesn't exist, but even if you accept that balancing sides is a worthy goal, too many corporate media reporters present one side and then another as if both are equally valid; sometimes, they're not. And there is a larger point. There is a connection between media on one hand and society and social institutions on the other. The difference between APN and most other publications is that we acknowledge and embrace that difference. When a media outlet--any media outlet--reports on something, it has an effect. That effect influences the next article written, which also has an effect. Some of the tell-tale signs of good journalism are policy and practice changes as a result of an article. My point is that we at APN are a part of the community we serve. We may not fit people's preconceived notions of what news agencies are or should be, but what we are is what we are. We will continue to fill a void that was left by the corporate media, and we will do it as an active, subjective part of Atlanta's progressive community. (END/2010)
So basically "progressive news" is not news, it's opinion. Why don't they just say that? This journalist should be happy to move on. Michele
So Cardinale thinks CL is part of the right wing media? He is either the funniest person I have ever read or the craziest. If he represents the Progressive movement, may we hope they NEVER gain power.
DaleC... I assure you he does not represent anyone but himself as evidenced by recent actions. There are many progressive voices, and as progressives we hardly ever speak with just one voice. APN had been one of those many and with Jonathan writing it was certinly better for it. Now it appears to simply be a vanity production for the APN Editors ego.
Well, props to Cardinale for being honest, anyhow, even if it's honest idiocy. I've rarely seen his point written with such clarity, presumably because most sensible people know when they've hit the end stage of reductio ad absurdum. Thank goodness he's had enough grad school to be trained away from that. In some ways, he has a point: the wire service version of "objective" is weak sauce. Quote two opposing sides and you're done! But that doesn't mean that there isn't an objective reality, or that we have to wallow in our subjectivity. As an actual San Francisco liberal, people like Cardinale make me crazy: unwilling to do the hard work of understanding reality, they base their actions purely on their vaporous ideals, dooming themselves to being perpetually ineffective. And dooming the people they could actually help to suffer further. One might almost think they're in it for feelings of righteousness, rather than any actual result.
As a journalist myself, I can say your publication violates every single tenant of what Journalism is supposed to be. You are not a news organization, but a propaganda piece...to market yourself as anything else is a lie.
Dear APN Editor: I reject your opinions, disseminated as news, and prefer facts, as many as can be obtained, with which one can test hypotheses. The purpose of the use of facts to test hypotheses, or ideas, is to determine whether a specific idea best describes the situation at hand, or whether a different idea best describes it. For example, you state that you want some things that you call "fair." I believe you want them, I believe you think them fair, but how can I test that they actually are fair? I cannot test your ideas by using information you provide, since you openly state you will only provide information that supports your agenda. So goodbye to you.
I agree with Susan, propaganda is not the same things as news. I have covered events over the years that in my personal life I wouldn't be caught dead attending. As a journalist I put aside my beliefs and cover news with objectivity, because that is the whole purpose of my job. Wikipedia states that: "Objectivity is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism." The publisher of Atlantic Progressive might be wise to spend some time reading The Principals of Journalism- http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles...but maybe they aren't really going for the whole " Excellence in Journalism' bit. So there is that.
". . . you don’t balance the truth with lies." For someone who believes there's no such thing as objective reality, that's an entirely oxymoronic assertion. Or is truth subjective as well? Even if it is, surely a journalist should hold himself to a higher standard than you outline here. In other words, an open mind and a belief in objectivity are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite. Of course, that's just MY opinion. What do I know? I'm just a former Creative Loafing Managing Editor.
Guys, stop screaming at the odd duck Cardinale, and think about actual examples. Here's one. The NYT has been front-paging articles by Jackie Calmes promoting deficit hysteria during the worst slump in 70 or 80 years. Is that objective journalism? I'm sure Calmes only reports facts, like telling us the Peterson Institute thinks the deficit is our number one challenge and we should stop everything and deal with it. Lots of stats, albeit out of economic context, and lots of quotes, though mostly slanting away from insight and toward deficit hysteria. Are you seriously telling me that there isn't a whole lot of value judgment in selecting what issues to highlight with big front page stories, and what tone and content and 'expert' comment to favor in such stories? Have you forgotten the MSM's collusion with Bush in the run-up to the Iraq invasion? Total dissing of the Shinseki estimate of what it would take to control the place, no questions asked about the plan to run the place, no skepticism of the WMD claims etc.? To pretend that Cardinale is the only one doing this is a sign that critical thinking is in short supply around here.
nothing is less interesting than personal beef between reporters. unless it is personal disagreements between foodies. either way, i'm not interested. talk about your mental masturbation circle jerks...
I'm not from Atlanta nor do I have ties with any party engaged in this diatribe. I merely wanted to point out something I've found to be quite absurdest, as I'm the quiet observer. Why would anyone in an editorial position at any news agency take to responding to digs on a comments page like a common troll? There's a place for that kind of behavior and it's over at 4chan where anonymous reigns and the hentai runs like water.
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
Feds give Plant Vogtle's new nukes the green light 2
Yes, those reactors we've all been paying for since last year
-
First Slice 2/10/12: It's a race to the bottom
Georgia ranks dead last when it comes to residents' financial security
-
5 things today: Lust List, State of the Union
Our annual Lust List party, the real state of the union, and more
- More »
Author Archives
-
What can we learn from the 9/11 anniversary? 37
Ten years later, a TV terrorpalooza rings hollow
- More »
