Friday, July 18, 2014

Not to pick a fight, but SCPA leader's FOI commentary misses important context

Bill Rogers, head of the S.C. Press Association, has written a forceful and important column on two recent state Supreme Court rulings that have done major damage to freedom of information in the state.

Bill is good and valued friend, and I don't want to pick a fight. And I agree forcefully with his frustrations over both these court rulings and trying to get any changes to the FOI Act through the Legislature.

 But I think the order in which he presents his argument is important when read with the court' ruling.

Bill writes:

The public also lost a few weeks ago when the high court ruled that not only could public bodies change meeting agendas at the last minute without notifying the public, but that agendas for public meetings were not even required.

I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve got enough sense to read this part of the FOIA: “All public bodies shall notify persons or organizations, local news media, or such other news media as may request notification of the times, dates, places and agenda of all public meetings…”

Pretty clear to a layman. But the court chose to focus on the wording for notification of regularly scheduled meetings at the beginning of the calendar year, where the wording said that notice must include the agenda, “if any.” If you announce a meeting to be held in October at the start of the calendar year, I can’t imagine having a meaningful agenda prepared. The law made it clear later that agendas must be available 24 hours in advance.

Problem is, the way the law is worded (poorly as it turns out), there is an entirely plausible other reading -- the one the court took.

Bill has structured his argument by moving the order of key points in the law.

Here is my reading of the law the way I understand the court to have read it. First, the law:
SECTION 30-4-80. Notice of meetings of public bodies.

(a) All public bodies, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, must give written public notice of their regular meetings at the beginning of each calendar year. The notice must include the dates, times, and places of such meetings. Agenda, if any, for regularly scheduled meetings must be posted on a bulletin board at the office or meeting place of the public body at least twenty-four hours prior to such meetings. All public bodies must post on such bulletin board public notice for any called, special, or rescheduled meetings. Such notice must be posted as early as is practicable but not later than twenty-four hours before the meeting. The notice must include the agenda, date, time, and place of the meeting. This requirement does not apply to emergency meetings of public bodies.

(b) Legislative committees must post their meeting times during weeks of the regular session of the General Assembly and must comply with the provisions for notice of special meetings during those weeks when the General Assembly is not in session. Subcommittees of standing legislative committees must give notice during weeks of the legislative session only if it is practicable to do so.

(c) Subcommittees, other than legislative subcommittees, of committees required to give notice under subsection (a), must make reasonable and timely efforts to give notice of their meetings.

(d) Written public notice must include but need not be limited to posting a copy of the notice at the principal office of the public body holding the meeting or, if no such office exists, at the building in which the meeting is to be held.

(e) All public bodies shall notify persons or organizations, local news media, or such other news media as may request notification of the times, dates, places, and agenda of all public meetings, whether scheduled, rescheduled, or called, and the efforts made to comply with this requirement must be noted in the minutes of the meetings.  

The order in which those items is presented is important when courts start dissecting things. The section that Bill excerpts first actually comes last in the law. And there's the rub.

Here's another plain reading version of the  key points of the law that the court took:
  • If you're a covered public body, you have to put out a list of your regular meeting dates and times at the beginning of the year.
  • As you get closer to each of those regular meetings, you have to put up an agenda, if any, 24 hours ahead of the meeting.
  • This is different from special meetings, where the law clearly says you must post an agenda.
  • And if anyone asks you ahead of time to be notified you have to send them that information, including the agenda (if there is any) of any regular meetings and definitely the agenda of any special meetings.
The order of things is important because the court basically said that once the phrase "if any" appeared with "agenda" in regard to regular meetings, it modified that term subsequently throughout the law. That would include the passage Bill moved to the front of his argument.

Bill also argues, "But the court chose to focus on the wording for notification of regularly scheduled meetings at the beginning of the calendar year, where the wording said that notice must include the agenda, 'if any.'" He then sets up a logical straw man that no reasonable person could expect there to be agendas that far out and concludes, "The law made it clear later that agendas must be available 24 hours in advance."

But that's also a debatable argument. (In fact, were it that clear, this ruling probably would have gone the other way. The court helpfully included citations from several other states with clearer wording.)

If you look at the law, "if any" does not appear to apply at all to the yearly notice. In the opinion, the court parsed the next sentence to effectively distance it somewhat from the yearly notice requirement and focus on the 24-hour requirement. (In fact, the opinion went so far as to split the single paragraph into two "for readability," but I think there's a bit more to be read into the fact the justices felt they needed to make that emphasis.)

As a result, they concluded:

However, we agree with the circuit court and the dissent that the plain language of the words "if any" can mean only that an agenda is not required for regularly scheduled meetings.  To conclude otherwise would be to read the words "if any" completely out of the statute.  In plain terms, written public notice of regularly scheduled meetings must be given at the beginning of each calendar year and must include the dates, times, and places of the meetings. An agenda, if there is one, must be posted at least twenty-four hours before the meeting.
Bill doesn't like the ruling. Neither do I. But rearranging the law's language in making the argument drops context that was central to the court's ruling and leaves an otherwise important argument open to attack.

Ultimately, this is all folderol for readers who don't get into the legal niceties of all this. But in our anger, we produce things like this headline from the Kingstree News -- When is the next council meeting? I have no idea! -- that patently misrepresents what the court ruled (governmental bodies still must produce times and locations for their meetings). Or we denounce the court's decision denying access to autopsy reports as "irrational" and filed with "all sorts of legalese." Nothing was irrational in that decision and, yes, legalese is what court decisions are written in by definition. And if you have a problem with "legalese," let's discuss any number of court and crime stories in papers throughout the state almost daily.

The important thing is to reframe the debate, consistently and forcefully, so that we have some chance at building public opinion. That, of course, is the only thing we as journalists have in our quiver. It's all we ever had -- the ability, or at least the perception of the ability, to form opinion (this is not the same as a Fox or MSNBC bias - simply repeatedly uncovering public corruption using FOI laws, for instance, hopefully helps form the opinion to bring about change).

The reality for journalists, of course (and the thing too many still seem to be grappling with somewhere between stages two and four on the five stages of grief) is that, frankly, we're just not all that important anymore. Politicians and other public figures can easily go around us on social media or other channels. PR people can spread their version of things directly online. Our readers can find all sorts of things elsewhere.

This makes it all the more important that we stop framing this as primarily a one-week-a-year awareness thing in March. And that we stop just trying to play the clubby insiders' game at the State House (and at others around the nation where similar laws are under attack).

If we continue primarily down that path, the "house" (and Senate) always wins.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Body blow two to S.C. FOI

A few weeks ago, it was a ruling by South Carolina's Supreme Court saying that public bodies were not required to post meeting agendas that punched a hole in South Carolina's FOI law.

Now it has ruled that autopsy reports are medical records not subject to disclosure. (PDF of ruling.) While I felt the last ruling was defensible because of a poorly worded law, this one is just bad public policy. As reported in the Sumter case in question, the autopsy report the newspaper eventually got elsewhere seemed to contradict the police explanation in a man's shooting.

This is one where I think Justice Costa Pleiconas got it right in dissent -- that other parts of state law indicate the intent is that these be public.

As Justice Kay Hearn said, it's a matter for the Legislature. And maybe two in a row will persuade newsrooms in the state that it's poor strategy to do most of the FOI drum beating largely one week a year. As the tough road to change the law in other areas the past two years shows, this is a battle of attrition.

For starters, every newsroom should include specific FOI questions on every candidate questionnaires going out to legislative candidates this election season. They should include these two FOI issues. Don't give any room to vapidly prevaricate.

And then work with the press association to assemble a short weekly roundup of FOI issues in the state. It already has the info in its newsletter -- every paper and news website in the state should run it, perhaps under a suitably in your face head like Where you were denied vital information this week.

Broadcasters have tended not to be as involved in these issues just because for many, if it bleeds, it leads, and press release journalism or the quick official statement is the M.O. (Though it's nice to see that changing a bit as some consultants see an opening in positioning stations as "investigating for you" -- for a few ratings books at least.)

Newspapers have tended to try to play the clubby game at the Statehouse. On one hand, they do push for more openness. On the other, they are deathly scared the Legislature will take away their sales tax exemption.

But it's time to be more aggressive. The FOI, despite its vaunted opening language, is being hacked to bits from rulings like this and from open defiance from agencies like Columbia police who refuse to make copies of reports available for inspection, as the law allows. (That's another situation where I fear the court might overbroadly interpret the law's limited privacy exemption.)

If you believe in public information, it's time to put up or shut up.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, July 02, 2014

Journalism Education: If you teach reporting, especially public affairs, you must download this financial guide

If you teach public affairs reporting -- or are a journalist who has to deal with local government -- you really should download Governing magazine's "A Public Official's Guide to Financial Literacy."

Fantastic teaching tool.

Plain English.

Any guide that gives your students (or you) a fighting chance of understanding GO vs. the types of revenue bonds; or cash, accrual and modified accrual accounting (gotta know that to be able to read the financials) is worth every minute you spend with it (and that won't be many because it's only 34 easy-to-digest pages).

(I should warn you, you will be asked for copious info (name, phone, employer) as many of these marketing things do. But I can say without hesitation that I have never been spammed by Governing. I get an occasional entreaty to a conference, but that is minor at best in return for a free subscription to the magazine and access to things like this. (Personally, I think every reporter or editor covering the city or county should be getting a copy of Governing or at least its daily email of top stories.) )

Labels: , , ,

Monday, June 23, 2014

The promise -- and peril -- in Atlanta editor's words

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's managing editor, Bert Roughton Jr., told Poynter last week: I can’t have people stuck on beats that may or may not have audiences all the time.

In that simple sentence lies the complicated tale of the current state of the news industry, at once fraught with promise and peril.

Roughton said those words in the context of trying to, as he put it, "smartly" manage what has been one of the more decimated staffs, having gone from about 500 people to about 180 in a bit more than a decade.

The AJC was one of the first to go "digital first," in 2007 moving its spot news online and creating a system designed to separate content creation from production.

Now, among other things, there will be 10 topic teams. There is a lot to like here:
  • Each team will include "audience specialists" that had been in a separate digital department.
  • Those specialists will help journalists still a bit tentative about this digital thing discover new tools and other ways to tell stories. That, in 2014, there still is nervousness in the newsroom about digital is worth taking a minute alone to ponder. (From Poynter: Roughton told me some traditional reporters are “still a little nervous about this whole Internet thing.” So having a digital specialist “in the family,” so to speak, gives reporters intimidated about digital a go-to person for help. “The truth is, I think most reporters are dying to be good at this,” Roughton said.)
  • There will be broader attention to audience research (trying to pay attention to your audience is always a good thing)
  • Based on that, and with echoes of Clayton Christensen's model that people don't buy products as such but hire "jobs to be done," Roughton promises a lot of deeper thinking about what to cover and how to do it. (From his memo as quoted by Poynter: Each topic team must develop a guiding statement of what they cover based on audience metrics, research and judgment. Instead of a collection of beats, each team will have a coherent theme against which to work. The topic statements should evolve as audience demands and circumstances change. For example; instead of covering a bunch of individual companies, the Economy team might focus around a topic such as “Metro Atlanta’s recovery from the Great Recession and how that is reshaping the economy for our audiences.”
But this highlights the stresses on the modern news organization because some of the truly important "beats" don't have audiences to start. In many cases, our job as journalists is to create those audiences for things that otherwise might go unnoticed but turn out to be hugely important.

The idea of  breaking away from the "beat" that produces isolated, incremental coverage is not new. Gil Thelen, as editor of The State in Columbia, S.C., for instance, was one of those pioneering coverage "circles" in the 1990s. There are several other examples, such as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that was studied in depth (here's the PDF link if you can, through your library, get to the full study, which is paywalled) and Minneapolis (again, the full paywalled PDF).

But the stakes have been raised in the current digital age and business climate.

Some of those beats with low or no audience are critical to actually discovering those stories that have the elusive audience we seek. I already see around the country stories about significant lawsuits or court decisions days or weeks late on news organization sites. (As any "traditional" reporter will tell you, the reason you checked those filings regularly was because they were the quickest way to discover an area's underbelly, reveal its interlocking connections, and turn up some darn good stories.)

Yes, it's good to get out of the press release processing business when it comes to covering local companies, but the contacts made by a follow-up call and short story from one of those can often lead to sources for better stories and a much better understanding of the background needed to cover such organizations.

The turn-of-the-screw stories from City Hall definitely need to be a thing of the past, but if we are left to rely on agendas and other handouts, even if we deeply report "advancers" and the like, then what? I spent a fine summer trailing Andrea Mitchell around Philadelphia City Hall during the Rizzo administration as she ran the beat. There was a lot of incremental work there, but like a mosaic, when you stepped back it created a larger, more significant picture.

And we know how most State House bureaus have been gutted as more power is being shifted to the states and when people's lives arguably are more affected, on balance, by what happens at the State House than in Congress or City Hall. Covering state government effectively is a contact sport, bar none.

I wish I had the answer to a question that has gnawed at me for years, back to the "circles" days: How do we balance the journalism of relevance, for lack of a better term (we'd hope it's all relevant, right?), with the journalism needed to discover those sometimes disparate threads that require the kind of institutional knowledge and sometimes mind-numbing amassing of detail that allow you to realize the thread is there and not just fuzz?

No newsroom has ever been able to do it all, of course, and many stayed too long exclusively in the bricks-and-mortar beats mode. Digital tools can make some of this transformation a bit easier, but they can be gamed by those producing the info fed into them (yes, regular personal contacts can be gamed too, but it's harder when they have to look you in the eyes).

We are gaining, I think, some smarter journalism. But it will take journalists, especially newsroom leaders, of strong constitution and unusual enlightenment to try to keep things balanced. We also are losing something in this process.

Fifty years ago this month, three civil rights workers were killed. Less than a year earlier, four girls were killed in the Birmingham church bombing. In 1965, the world watched as civil rights marchers were beaten in Selma, Ala.

Thanks to Eugene Patterson, the AJC had one of the outstanding records among Southern papers of that time. But it was 15 years earlier when much of journalism really needed to be paying close attention.

If it were today, would the civil rights beat at that critical time -- before things exploded -- really have the "audience"?

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, June 19, 2014

FOI: A problematic S.C. ruling

South Carolina's Supreme Court has come down with a Freedom of Information Act ruling (PDF) that is problematic.

I choose that word carefully over "troubling" because I don't think the ruling is wrong. But I think it outlines starkly the reality of the "official" attitude toward conducting public business and the confrontational situation that we often find ourselves in -- as journalists and the public -- with governmental bodies.

A Saluda County resident challenged that county council's amending of a meeting agenda during a meeting. The Circuit Court said there was no violation -- that no agendas were even required for regular meetings.

The state Appeals Court overturned that, but the Supreme Court has now ruled the circuit judge was right.

I agree with the ruling from a legal standpoint. There is a problematic phrase in South Carolina's FOI law: Agenda, if any, for regularly scheduled meetings must be posted on a bulletin board ... 

Those two words, "if any," allow for lots of mischief. They are a reminder that little phrases in complicated laws can come back to bite you on the butt.

But there is a greater philosophical backdrop here, one that contrasts what seems to be a prevalent view once people get into office versus this gauzy ideal we have of government acting for the public and under public scrutiny.

The Supreme Court helpfully reminds us in its decision that there is no common-law right to attend the meetings of government bodies. Put simply, you are let in only if the governmental body wants you there.

This goes against what I think a lot of people (and journalists) hold as "common wisdom" -- that they have a right to watch their government in action. No such thing.

Were there a common-law right, then there would be the presumption of openness, and any closures would have to be specifically legislated. Instead, as the court noted, the state and federal governments have had to legislate specific instances of openness through FOI laws. No matter how much such laws may declare that it is the intent of the legislators to have open government, as South Carolina's does, there is that reality always in the background that there is no right.

When you need specific legislation, the devil is in the specifics, and thus the case that little phrases like "if any" can come back to cause big problems.

Here's what I tell my students when I send them off to cover their first city or county council or board of education meeting: Keep in mind that this council or board is not meeting for your benefit. They are suffering your being there. You are merely being allowed to watch as you would a play. It's kabuki.

The problem, of course, is that without an agenda, it's hard to follow the action. It's like watching a play without a playbill: It can be tough to follow the characters and even the plot. That might be acceptable in the theater; it should not be acceptable in a country that at least gives lip service to the idea of a democratic society.


Having regular meetings without an agenda or where agendas can be changed at will just invites mischief or worse.

Journalists are fond of revving up their PR engines once a year during Sunshine Week, and maybe occasionally at other times, to point out that FOI laws are there for the public's, not just journalists', benefit. But the education must go deeper than that.

 Sometimes I think people find us weird: Of course we live in a democratic society, so why are you making such a big deal about things being "open"?

That "public" we like to refer to (unfortunately, sometimes condescendingly, if you've ever been in a newsroom) has to understand that the default position is not open but closed government.


The law may be an arse, but we are bigger ones if we don't make it a full-time job getting that message across.

Labels:

The nonstatement statment - Lexington County Sheriff's edition

With the indictment this week of longtime Lexington County (S.C.) Sheriff Jim Metts and then the upheaval in the department with the arrival of Acting Sheriff Lewis McCarthy (and his tossing out several top deputies), you'd imagine the media would like to chat with him and the public might like to hear a bit more about his philosophy, temperament, etc.

Hold that thought.

In our latest example of the nonstatement statement, I offer this that was sent out by the department this morning:
Ladies and gentlemen of the media:

I am deeply humbled and overwhelmed by the support and welcome I have received from the fine staff at the Lexington County Sheriff’s Department.  Their professionalism is beyond reproach.  Each and every one of them understand that we all have a job to do during this time, and completing our mission is priority one.

As you can imagine, a number of very important decisions need to be made, and a number of difficult tasks need to be completed in order to ensure that the excellent service that has become the hallmark of the Lexington County Sheriff’s Department goes uninterrupted.  At this time, my staff and I will need to focus on the most important mission we have which is providing a level of unparalleled law enforcement services that the citizens of Lexington County deserve.  I will be granting interviews with the media at a later time when our department has successfully weathered the winds of change.  Thank you all for your continued support and confidence in the fine men and women of the Lexington County Sheriff’s Department.

Sincerely,
Sheriff A. Lewis McCarty
Nice to see the new sheriff's getting off to a good start.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Vote on legislative pay can be mined for interesting insight

Everyone was so rushed yesterday about the House's overturning Gov. Nikki Haley's vetoes, especially the one effectively granting legislators a $12,000-a-year-pay raise, that the Statehouse press corps missed a good chance to provide some insight into what actually happened.

The House initially sustained the veto at 6:09 p.m., 73-39, with 11 abstentions and one excused absence. Twenty minutes later, the House overrode the veto, 73-29, with 19 abstentions and three excused absences. (This is a long list of the roll-call votes; you'll have to pick your way through by time or look for "Governor's Veto 76.")

In the Post and Courier in Charleston, it was summed up this way:
Haley had wanted the pay increase to go to state voters for approval by way of the ballot box. Rep. Jim Merrill R-Charleston, took to the floor to explain the effects of the pay raise, answering questions. He did not recommend to override or sustain the veto when it went up for a vote. He also said that the districts lawmakers represent are more populous and more pay would go a long way toward making the job of serving more desirable and competitive. Lawmakers' current yearly salary is $10,400.

Though the House initially voted on sustaining Haley's veto, members later returned to the measure and 73 members voted in favor of overriding it.
That might well lead a reader to think that somehow House leaders were able to round up more votes to reach 73 the second time. But the number of "yes" votes remained the same -- the real story may be that in 20 minutes, enough pressure was brought to bear so that eight to 10 (depending on how you want to count it) House members took a walk. That's a much different dynamic (and well worth a follow-up).

Meanwhile, The State, whose story was picked up widely, got the initial vote total wrong, listing it as 73-29 each time.


The paper has now corrected it online (though without any note of a correction nor, as of 6/19, a correction in the paper). My pointing this out is not to ridicule but because of a deep concern that such things burrow into databases (and that all those versions picked up elsewhere probably won't be corrected), thus distorting the historical record. Online has raised the bar for being careful even more.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Journalism Education: The Convergence Change Game

While doing a massive cleanout of my office, I rediscovered this game I used to play with folks who attended the Newsplex seminars here at the University of South Carolina.

Since we're still discussing many of these issues a decade later (though we don't really call them "convergence" anymore), I thought it might be fun to post for your enjoyment:


Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 04, 2014

Cox Dayton convergence - an important look

Netnewscheck has an important series this week about convergence in Cox's operations in Dayton.

(I have a certain fondness for Dayton, its having been a stop twice in my journalism career -- once in radio and once for the AP.)

There are echoes of many of the early studies done when Media General tried to converge its Tampa newsrooms. But it's important to revisit this topic now that the industry in general seems more open to considering such operations.

Part 1 of the series is your basic overview, but to me the most interesting are part 2, which goes deeply into the workflow challenges and tomorrows part 4, which will profile an "all media" journalist.

Part 3 recounts what many of us who work in or with newsrooms know - the content management systems and their lack of integration are as much to blame for many of this industry's silo woes as anything else. (This isn't a new concept, but the first really good look at it that I know of was in the Tow Center's "Post Industrial Journalism" report.)

I highly recommend you read the series about Cox Dayton, either as a professional who may have to wrestle with these issues more fully in the future or as an educator who already is likely to be dealing with the questions of what and how to teach.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, May 16, 2014

A report you should read: Why newsrooms don't embrace digital tools

I've spent more than a little time working with smaller newsrooms, trying to show them easy, low cost or free ways to get into the digital age.

I've had my share of speaking gigs at press associations and other news groups doing the same thing.

And I usually come away with the feeling that while they are impressed and really, really want to do this, the reality is that mostly it will be the same old, same old, with the reality being to do more and more but not smarter and smarter.

Students who report back from their new jobs often tell me they aren't really being allowed to use the digital skills I've tried to teach them.

Now, a new report from Duke's newsroom project tends to confirm all this. It's got a catchy title, "The Goat Must Be Fed." And you should read it and take it to heart, especially if you manage a smaller newsroom.

Too many small newsrooms seem determined to follow Einstein's observation that doing the same thing and expecting a different result is insanity. Time to stop.

(Related: NY Times report raises alarms about newsroom's digital future.)

Labels: , ,

Crash Blossom: Why would it melt a car to get a sunshade?

On an AP story today in my local paper:

UK tower accused of melting car to get sunshade

One might wonder whether the accused tower will get community service or a stronger sentence for melting that car to get its sunshade. Seems it would have been easier just to go down to the local Tesco to buy one, eh?

The actual story, of course, is that the reflective glare from the concave face of the glass office building in London is so strong it is blistering paint, and one Jaguar owner said it melted part of his car. So the owners are going to put horizontal aluminum fins on the building to absorb and diffuse the light.

Labels:

Thursday, May 08, 2014

Latest in trend study of journalists - why this one point bothers me

I had a chance the other day to read Indiana University's (I'm an alum, BTW) summary of the latest in its long series of studies of journalists, this one called "The American Journalist in the Digital Age." (PDF)

The full book is due out next year and follows on the last one, "The American Journalist in the 21st Century."

I was surprised by a few things, such as less emphasis on getting the news out quickly, in an age when the hamster wheel seems to be spinning ever faster. As I thought about it, however, it made some sense (or I was able to rationalize it) -- journalists are an ornery bunch, so it shouldn't be surprising that when the business seems to be putting more and more emphasis on getting it out now - and damn the verification in too many cases -- they'd answer that it wasn't so important to them anymore.

But there is one point that really bothers me. It's under the "controversial practices" section, lumped in with things like using personal photos and documents without authorization, using hidden cameras, paying people for information and pretending to be someone else.

That measure is "using confidential business or government documents without authorization." And those saying it "may be justified" has gone from 81.8 percent in 1992 to 57.7 percent today. (A good summary is at The Wire.)

Maybe that's "controversial." Count me in the camp that says it should be "de rigueur."

From the Pentagon Papers to Glenn Greenwald, with many people like Eric Nalder in between, some of the most important journalism of our time has been done only by getting those confidential papers and exposing them.

(Even Nalder's excellent "Breaking and Entering: How to dissect an organization," while it largely outlines public sources, has this nugget : Whether you are using FOIA with a government agency, or a mole at a private company, get your hands on the memo traffic.)

While I applaud the much greater use of the FOIA and data techniques, it remains reality that much of the "truth" that we seek remains buried in locked (now-digital) file cabinets.

I'm not sure why this is. But I see it among some of my students, too -- a corruption, if you will, of being in the age of vast information and data. That can lull journalists into thinking all that is great and good is just a few mouse clicks away and blind them into thinking that somehow it is "improper" to dig further.

It's hard, after all, to do those things Momma told you not do to -- be impertinent, ask hard questions, talk about politics and religion, ask a person's age, tell me how you know that. But that's our job description.

And so the IU results bother me greatly.


Labels: , , ,