We really don't know how well the children of immigrants did in school, especially in the Mahoning Valley. There was no method of keeping track, no annual school report card. And because of the strong steel and manufacturing industry, those children were able to walk from the classroom to the mill. Forty-plus years ago, college was considered a privilege for the wealthy sons (and maybe a few daughters) of white-collar workers, not a necessity for a living wage.
So in a way, yes, poverty made a difference back then as much as it does today. Poor kids just had more choices for decent work after high school. A big difference is that today, all high school graduates are expected to ready to enter college, not a factory. My mom graduated high school in the 70s without taking algebra, a foreign language, chemistry, or any other upper-division class. That is totally unacceptable today.
I'm not suggesting we return to those low expectations, but we also can't look at the past as some kind of educational utopia. Education served a different purpose then so it's not a fair basis of comparison for students' performance today.
I think the line between juvenile abuse victim and juvenile sexual abuse victim is far too fine to make a difference in how they are treated by media. For any media outlet to justify publishing this boy's name, saying that an 8-year-old abuse victim is somehow different than a 14-year-old rape victim is misguided, self-serving, and nigh unconscionable. We can't split hairs over the trauma suffered by children of violent crime -- which includes domestic abuse.
All that would be well and good, Mr. Franko, if some of your coverage had included the many residents who want to see Traficant fall off the face of the Earth. But we're not throwing a great big "Go Away Jim" party, so therefore, we're not "news," right? An investigative into the complex and very opposing opinions about Traficant might have been fair, but you chose to "report" only on those events that humiliate the Valley.
I'm sorry, but you can't hide behind the "we just report the news" excuse. Last winter at the YSU forum on media perception of the Valley, three nationally-recognized journalists talked very directly about ways the Vindy could frame news of Traficant's release so as not to make us a laughingstock. And you chose to completely ignore everything they said. They recognize that newspapers function as more than mirrors, so why don't you?
Yes newspapers do make a statement by what they choose to report, hence the difference between The New York Times and the National Enquirer. Although, come to think of it, it seems that a rather strong component of your case for running the story is that "inquiring minds want to know."
My point is, the idea that journalists and editors are exempt from any sort of subjectivity is both inaccurate and archaic. Editors make very subjective decisions everyday about what is news and what isn't. Yes, there are general guidelines, but those decisions are still influenced by other factors -- from effect on rack sales to the politics of those in charge to an editor's personal identity.
Yes, there were elements of the story that warranted coverage, i.e. the Scrappers homage. But as I wrote in response to Mark Sweetwood's defense of the coverage, the Vindicator decided to frame the story as "Valley Welcomes Jimbo Home" rather than "Dedicated Few Hype Traficant Release." And that's when you crossed the line between reporting the news and shaping it.
This really is demoralizing. Even though no address is given, the landmarks are enough to tell me this is my old neighborhood, which I still thought was among the safe ones in the city. There has got to be something more that can be done.
Nice try, Mr. Sweetwood, but newspapers regularly shape the news rather than simply report it. After all, a newspaper is a business. What you decide to cover and where it gets placed in the paper are editorial decisions shaped, at best, by subjective opinions of what is news, and at worst by the effect that news will have on advertising and sales.
Many newspapers get canned editorials from "upstairs" -- often at election time -- and are mandated to run them without any say in the content. Newpapers barely, if at all, cover events sponsored by their competitors, regardless of public interest. Likewise, when was the last time a newspaper ran a story about the increasing share of the news pie being eaten up by online media? Such a story is detrimental to newspapers and is therefore not run. And we all know about the gag rule on stories criticizing the car dealerships and other big-ticket advertisers for fear of losing revenue.
My point is, factors -- from the political bias of those in charge to kowtowing to advertisers -- regularly influence how, or if, a story is played. In this case, the prominence of the Traficant story gave a bullhorn to those who would like very much to pretend they represent the whole Valley on this. And it's real convenient that according to journalism's own credo, you can ignore the tens of thousands of us who aren't welcoming Jimbo with open arms because we're not generating news -- for the expressed purpose of not drawing attention to the event.
There wasn't one quote in that story from the tens of thousands of Valley residents who, like Tyler Clark, don't want to make a big deal of Traficant's return. There wasn't one quote from a resident embarrassed by all of this "hoopla." James Callen was the only spokesperson for the other side, and that 4-to-1 ratio is hardly sufficient.
The Vindicator deliberately decided to frame that story as "Valley Welcomes Jimbo Home" rather than "Dedicated Few Hype Traficant Release." And that makes all the difference in how the Valley's reaction to his release will be perceived locally, regionally, and nationally.
The Vindicator is the spokesperson for the Valley, and you can't cower behind the archaic myth that newspapers simply report the news. Tell that to Richard Nixon! Or better yet, Rupert Murdoch. Newpapers also help make the news, shape perception, and influence society. And in this case, you gave all those who are welcoming Traficant with open arms a free pass to speak on behalf of the entire region. Not too many j-school books would consider that responsible journalism.
How, in the same breath, can you say we need to offer unconditional obedience to our authority figures, and then attack EVERY SINGLE decision that comes out of the White House, from the selection of a Supreme Court nominee to bipartisan efforts to provide health care reform, to the way every last tax dollar is spent.
How can you say we need to give respect to anyone in a position of power, and then accuse the president of masterminding a conspiracy to hide his birth origins?
How can you say a police officer, acting in the best interest of the community, has the right to arrest me in my own home for yelling at him, but the President of the United States isn't capable of determining what is best for the effective operation of this country?
Don't we understand that facts don't matter? If someone disagrees with the outcome, well then, the facts were politically spun to preordain that outcome and are therefor open to interpretation. Anybody who's ever worked in public relations knows this.
If you believe Gates was right, then Crowley is a lying, racist cop who abused his power, and it wouldn't matter if we find a videotape of the confrontation that shows he did everything by the book.
And if you believe that Gates is just another black thug who's playing the race card to stir controversy and play the victim, then it wouldn't matter if Crowley branded him with a swastka.
We believe what we want to believe, many of us according to the dictates of our political party. And until we stop proselytizing long enough to give due credit to the indisputable facts of a case -- not the hyped-up, politicized interpretative facts -- we'll never move beyond shouting matches puppeteered by those whose interests are served by prolonging controversy rather than resolving it.
But in the U.S., people are not getting the best. People are denied health care all the time. They can't get the prescriptions they need, or they don't qualify for a new treatment, or they have a pre-existing condition and can't get coverage at all. My family was paying $250 a month out of pocket for health care, and still had to pay 20% of all our bills, plus co-pays every doctor visit and prescription. In the course of a year, we paid close to $5,000 in health care costs, and didn't even have anything major happen.
Meanwhile, insurance companies are raking in profits. While I'm not 100% sold on any of the proposed solutions, we do have a system in crisis. Decisions need to be made with people's health in mind, not the bottom line.
Posted on August 31 at 10:29 a.m.
We really don't know how well the children of immigrants did in school, especially in the Mahoning Valley. There was no method of keeping track, no annual school report card. And because of the strong steel and manufacturing industry, those children were able to walk from the classroom to the mill. Forty-plus years ago, college was considered a privilege for the wealthy sons (and maybe a few daughters) of white-collar workers, not a necessity for a living wage.
So in a way, yes, poverty made a difference back then as much as it does today. Poor kids just had more choices for decent work after high school. A big difference is that today, all high school graduates are expected to ready to enter college, not a factory. My mom graduated high school in the 70s without taking algebra, a foreign language, chemistry, or any other upper-division class. That is totally unacceptable today.
I'm not suggesting we return to those low expectations, but we also can't look at the past as some kind of educational utopia. Education served a different purpose then so it's not a fair basis of comparison for students' performance today.
Posted on August 30 at 10:49 a.m.
I think the line between juvenile abuse victim and juvenile sexual abuse victim is far too fine to make a difference in how they are treated by media. For any media outlet to justify publishing this boy's name, saying that an 8-year-old abuse victim is somehow different than a 14-year-old rape victim is misguided, self-serving, and nigh unconscionable. We can't split hairs over the trauma suffered by children of violent crime -- which includes domestic abuse.
Posted on August 12 at 12:06 p.m.
All that would be well and good, Mr. Franko, if some of your coverage had included the many residents who want to see Traficant fall off the face of the Earth. But we're not throwing a great big "Go Away Jim" party, so therefore, we're not "news," right? An investigative into the complex and very opposing opinions about Traficant might have been fair, but you chose to "report" only on those events that humiliate the Valley.
I'm sorry, but you can't hide behind the "we just report the news" excuse. Last winter at the YSU forum on media perception of the Valley, three nationally-recognized journalists talked very directly about ways the Vindy could frame news of Traficant's release so as not to make us a laughingstock. And you chose to completely ignore everything they said. They recognize that newspapers function as more than mirrors, so why don't you?
Yes newspapers do make a statement by what they choose to report, hence the difference between The New York Times and the National Enquirer. Although, come to think of it, it seems that a rather strong component of your case for running the story is that "inquiring minds want to know."
My point is, the idea that journalists and editors are exempt from any sort of subjectivity is both inaccurate and archaic. Editors make very subjective decisions everyday about what is news and what isn't. Yes, there are general guidelines, but those decisions are still influenced by other factors -- from effect on rack sales to the politics of those in charge to an editor's personal identity.
Yes, there were elements of the story that warranted coverage, i.e. the Scrappers homage. But as I wrote in response to Mark Sweetwood's defense of the coverage, the Vindicator decided to frame the story as "Valley Welcomes Jimbo Home" rather than "Dedicated Few Hype Traficant Release." And that's when you crossed the line between reporting the news and shaping it.
Posted on August 11 at 10:17 p.m.
This really is demoralizing. Even though no address is given, the landmarks are enough to tell me this is my old neighborhood, which I still thought was among the safe ones in the city. There has got to be something more that can be done.
Posted on August 11 at 3:27 p.m.
Nice try, Mr. Sweetwood, but newspapers regularly shape the news rather than simply report it. After all, a newspaper is a business. What you decide to cover and where it gets placed in the paper are editorial decisions shaped, at best, by subjective opinions of what is news, and at worst by the effect that news will have on advertising and sales.
Many newspapers get canned editorials from "upstairs" -- often at election time -- and are mandated to run them without any say in the content. Newpapers barely, if at all, cover events sponsored by their competitors, regardless of public interest. Likewise, when was the last time a newspaper ran a story about the increasing share of the news pie being eaten up by online media? Such a story is detrimental to newspapers and is therefore not run. And we all know about the gag rule on stories criticizing the car dealerships and other big-ticket advertisers for fear of losing revenue.
My point is, factors -- from the political bias of those in charge to kowtowing to advertisers -- regularly influence how, or if, a story is played. In this case, the prominence of the Traficant story gave a bullhorn to those who would like very much to pretend they represent the whole Valley on this. And it's real convenient that according to journalism's own credo, you can ignore the tens of thousands of us who aren't welcoming Jimbo with open arms because we're not generating news -- for the expressed purpose of not drawing attention to the event.
There wasn't one quote in that story from the tens of thousands of Valley residents who, like Tyler Clark, don't want to make a big deal of Traficant's return. There wasn't one quote from a resident embarrassed by all of this "hoopla." James Callen was the only spokesperson for the other side, and that 4-to-1 ratio is hardly sufficient.
The Vindicator deliberately decided to frame that story as "Valley Welcomes Jimbo Home" rather than "Dedicated Few Hype Traficant Release." And that makes all the difference in how the Valley's reaction to his release will be perceived locally, regionally, and nationally.
The Vindicator is the spokesperson for the Valley, and you can't cower behind the archaic myth that newspapers simply report the news. Tell that to Richard Nixon! Or better yet, Rupert Murdoch. Newpapers also help make the news, shape perception, and influence society. And in this case, you gave all those who are welcoming Traficant with open arms a free pass to speak on behalf of the entire region. Not too many j-school books would consider that responsible journalism.
Posted on August 11 at 8:24 a.m.
How, in the same breath, can you say we need to offer unconditional obedience to our authority figures, and then attack EVERY SINGLE decision that comes out of the White House, from the selection of a Supreme Court nominee to bipartisan efforts to provide health care reform, to the way every last tax dollar is spent.
How can you say we need to give respect to anyone in a position of power, and then accuse the president of masterminding a conspiracy to hide his birth origins?
How can you say a police officer, acting in the best interest of the community, has the right to arrest me in my own home for yelling at him, but the President of the United States isn't capable of determining what is best for the effective operation of this country?
Talk about hypocritical.
Posted on August 10 at 9:27 a.m.
Don't we understand that facts don't matter? If someone disagrees with the outcome, well then, the facts were politically spun to preordain that outcome and are therefor open to interpretation. Anybody who's ever worked in public relations knows this.
If you believe Gates was right, then Crowley is a lying, racist cop who abused his power, and it wouldn't matter if we find a videotape of the confrontation that shows he did everything by the book.
And if you believe that Gates is just another black thug who's playing the race card to stir controversy and play the victim, then it wouldn't matter if Crowley branded him with a swastka.
We believe what we want to believe, many of us according to the dictates of our political party. And until we stop proselytizing long enough to give due credit to the indisputable facts of a case -- not the hyped-up, politicized interpretative facts -- we'll never move beyond shouting matches puppeteered by those whose interests are served by prolonging controversy rather than resolving it.
Posted on August 7 at 5:45 p.m.
Only those who've worked in newsrooms can fully appreciate the beautiful, hilarious truth to these scenes!
Posted on July 28 at 9:33 a.m.
But in the U.S., people are not getting the best. People are denied health care all the time. They can't get the prescriptions they need, or they don't qualify for a new treatment, or they have a pre-existing condition and can't get coverage at all. My family was paying $250 a month out of pocket for health care, and still had to pay 20% of all our bills, plus co-pays every doctor visit and prescription. In the course of a year, we paid close to $5,000 in health care costs, and didn't even have anything major happen.
Meanwhile, insurance companies are raking in profits. While I'm not 100% sold on any of the proposed solutions, we do have a system in crisis. Decisions need to be made with people's health in mind, not the bottom line.
Posted on July 27 at 9:50 p.m.
Kinda like what Bush did with Roberts and Alito.