[Sosfbay-discuss] [usgp-media] Re: SF Chronicle editors explain why they barGreens from debates

Sat Oct 21 08:27:11 PDT 2006

Thank you Andy, Cres, and Scott for sharing your experience!  I'm
really appreciating the quality of discussion that y'all are
contributing.  

I've also been a reporter and editor, and PR person so I judge that my
experience and view point will provide similar value.

To a large degree I believe we need to play our hand quite differently
than we would if we were representing a Dem or Repub.  I think we are
not succeeding in getting the coverage we need with our present
strategy.  We are churning out marvelous press releases, but are they
getting written into stories and published?  No, I'm not seeing it
happen currently.

I think we need to operate in a very 'guerilla marketing' sort of way
to get media coverage.  I think we need to stir up the muck, create
some positive (for us) controversy that really throws a cold light on
the fixed nature of this political game.   Our conventional approach is
not getting us where we want to go IMO.  

I suggest we would do well to define ourselves as the scrappy, bold,
irreverent party with a sense of humor.  Think of combining the early
and highly successful direct actions of Green Peace and the extremely
successful, highly influential current reign of the kings of political
humor, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.  I think we really need to
tweek the noses of some political sacred cows here.  I think we need to
be a little outrageous and a LOT creative to get coverage.  Playing it
safe is not working for us IMO.

So with that in mind if I get the chance in the next few days I'll
initiate "JamBoi's Anti-democratic Hall of Shame" (or some such title)
soon and try to stir up some blogospheric thunder and lightning v the
Chron on this incident.

A Million Votes for Peace!

Drew

--- Andy Parx <parx at midpac.net> wrote:

> Cres is right and we'd all be well advised to understand the
> phenomena
> completely to gain an insight as to how reporters and editors think.
> 
> When I taught J-151, the entry-level course for future journalists,
> the first
> lesson on  first day began with writing "What is News?" on the
> blackboard. And
> after writing a dozen or so responses from the students under that,
> the real
> answer was "News is what "we" say it is- we, being you, the now
> student, soon
> to be reporter. (Actually you're supposed to use this to get to the
> whole
> "objectivity" stuff but I usually ended with "there's no such thing
> as
> objectivity" ... which is one reason I no longer teach ;>) )
> 
> The :gatekeeper: mentality is not just some unconscious result that
> reporters
> have without thinking. The first time you actually make news by
> covering the
> news you quickly learn of your power as such. And when you  "you take
> that
> responsibility seriously" it leads you to see everything in
> government as
> two-sided politics and every election as a horse race because
> describing  black
> or white is easy and do-able while describing all the shades of gray
> isn't.
> 
> As an editor you make news "the" news just by the placement of a
> story or
> whether it's included at all. And with the unavoidable string of
> criticism you
> (and your coworkers, who commiserate with you) tend to take on a
> "they just
> don't understand" type arrogance that is found in few other
> professions. For
> all the "we print what the reader wants" bleatings, J-people see
> balanced
> criticism (like when they say both lefties and righties thought we
> were biased
> in the "X" story) as exculpatory of their arrogance and proof they
> are allowed
> to be so.
> 
> How many times do you hear "we have to cover BOTH sides"? Every time.
> And how
> many times do you hear "we have to cover ALL sides"? Virtually never.
> It breeds
> the two sides, black and white view of news which makes sense for the
> editor
> since you could never cover all the nuances in the small, limited
> news-hole, so
> why try?
> 
> This leads to the horse race coverage of elections and, of course, 
> reporters
> and editors are looking at the two horses at the front of the pack-
> they don't
> think it's news that a horse is running last at the same moment that 
> the first
> two are coming up on the finish line.
> 
> And when you attack them for thinking this way, their natural
> response is to
> not give your criticisms any credence at all. The best way to get
> reporters and
> editors- particularly if they've been at it a long time, is to
> commiserate with
> them, puff them up by telling them what a hard job they have and then
> trying to
> get your candidate- or hair spray for that matter- on their radar
> screen
> 
> Then, when they're listening, we need to keep reminding them of how
> the
> self-fulfilling, circular-reasoning, spiraling cause-and-effect of
> not covering
> those lower in the polls (or letting them into debates) not only
> perpetuates
> the lack of standing but eventually creates it as the  "campaign"-
> political or
> advertising progresses.
> 
> Reporters will recognize that argument if you present that to them in
> a
> non-confrontational, respectful way...
> 
> Remember- they ARE the gatekeepers and the first thing we need to do
> to get
> past that gate is get them to talk to you.
> 
> PR is a slimy job. And getting pissed off and calling them names
> doesn't get
> you the coverage you want.
> 
> I thought I had a point here but maybe I'm just ranting and
> rambling...
> 
> -----------A
> 
> civillib at cwnet.com wrote:
> 
> > The truth is that in the news media - remember I was one of those
> editors
> > for years at a wire service and big daily - we're taught that we
> ARE the
> > gatekeepers and that we, more than anyone else, have the right and
> > responsibility to decide what is news and what is now. Hey, I think
> I had a
> > class on arrogance in college (kidding. I think).
> >
> > The problem today is that although then news media generally could
> never be
> > trusted, it is now more than ever controlled by spin doctors who
> very often
> > are former reporters. I learned to be "independent" of the system,
> and
> > suspicious of it. Not today. Reporters are increasingly just
> everyday
> > people - not the mavericks protrayed in the movies - who are
> influenced by
> > "strategic voting" and lesser of 2 evil voting. Of course,
> influenced by
> > the 2 big parties. And it is sad that, at least in CA, if you'e a
> smaller
> > party candidate you're ignored. Two years ago, it wasn't as much
> the case.
> > But the panic has set in.
> >
> > Sigh.
> >
> > More pressure can't hurt, as Drew suggests. There was a time I'd
> say
> > nothing good could come out of targeting mainstream news folks -
> they'd
> > only get even. Not now. We have little to lose....
> >
> > Cres
> >  At 07:44 AM 10/19/2006 -0700, JamBoi wrote:
> > >I think Rebecca's on to something here.  We need to continue to
> press
> > >this point nationally, and why not use the Chron to do it.  How
> about
> > >let's do a release where we really skewer the Chron and make a
> stink
> > >about how they are operating as the 'Gatekeepers' as to what is
> 'safe'
> > >for Americans to choose from?  If we played our cards right we
> could
> > >stir up some controversy and maybe even get some press coverage
> from
> > >rival media!
> > >
> > >After all here in California the legislature and Schwartzenegger
> just
> > >worked out an initiative on global warming -- in other words the
> > >Grope-inator is playing to the green crowd and trying to remake
> himself
> > >in the Green image!  What better time to call to task the Chron
> for
> > >excluding the Green Party candidates!!!
> > >
> > >A Million Votes for Peace!
> > >
> > >Drew
> > >
> > >--- Rebecca Rotzler <rrrotzler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Wow!  So a couple of editorial staffers are deciding what is
> best for
> > >> all
> > >> Californians, do we not smell corporate media censorship?   I
> think
> > >> the
> > >> below would be wonderful to quote in a release:
> > >> So the question comes
> > >> down to whether Californians would be better
> > >> served by a more focused and extensive comparison
> > >> of the two major-party candidates - one of whom
> > >> will be secretary of state for the next four
> > >> years - or a forum that also included the Green,
> > >> Libertarian, American Independent and Peace and
> > >> Freedom party candidates. Our judgment is that
> > >> Californians need this chance to directly compare
> > >> Bowen and McPherson.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, let us not waste the precious time of those Californians,
> the
> > >> judgement
> > >> is that they should not hear from any but two voices, and they
> must
> > >> be
> > >> spared from muddling their brains with anything but those two,
> we
> > >> don't want
> > >> to confuse them in the absolute need to compare only two, and
> nothing
> > >> but
> > >> two.  Two, got it?
> > >>
> > >> Rebecca
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 10/19/06, Julia Willebrand <julia.willebrand at verizon.net>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Re: "Second, it mentions the US Senate race, but says that
> "John"
> > >> > interviewed the Gree candidate "because she stood a a chance
> > >> (mistake: it
> > >> > is
> > >> > a "he," Todd Chretien)...And, third, "not of beating Pelosi"
> > >> (mistake: the
> > >> > incumbent is Feinstein)."
> > >> >
> > >> > The mistake is that the comment more likely refers to Green
> > >> congressional
> > >> > candidate Krissy Keefer who is running against Nancy Pelosi.
> Krissy
> > >> is a
> > >> > very public performer/celebrity in SF and I think she is the
> only
> > >> > candidate
> > >> > running against Pelosi.
> > >> > Julia
> > >> >
> > >> > On 10/19/06 3:24 AM, "civillib at cwnet.com" <civillib at cwnet.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Thanks for this...I guess the Chronicle felt a little heat.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Just a side note, but I'm not sure who wrote - but it
> appears to
> > >> be
> > >> > someone
> > >> > > from the Chron and might explain how the know very little
> about
> > >> Greens
> > >> > > surprisingly - the message below that starts with ""Hello
> > >> Larry..." but
> > >> > it
> > >> > > is very much in error.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > First, the email refers to a "Green (Matt) Gonzalez who
> "made the
> > >> > runoff."
> > >> > > Played down just a bit. Matt entered the race very late, was
> > >> outspent
> > >> > 10-1,
> > >> > > the GOP and Dems sent big guns (from Clinton to Feinstein)
> in to
> > >> back
> > >> > > Newsom, and yet Newsom won by just a couple of percentage
> points.
> > >> A
> > >> > little
> > >> > > better than just making the runoff.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Second, it mentions the US Senate race, but says that "John"
> > >> interviewed
> > >> > > the Gree candidate "because she stood a a chance (mistake:
> it is
> > >> a "he,"
> > >> > > Todd Chretien)...And, third, "not of beating Pelosi"
> (mistake:
> > >> the
> > >> > > incumbent is Feinstein).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Yikes, makes me wonder if the Chronicle has any idea of
> what's
> > >> up. As a
> > >> > > former mainstream reporter for big dailies, let me say there
> was
> > >> a
> > >> > reason
> > >> > > reporters tried to stay far away from editorial board types.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Cres
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > At 10:19 PM 10/18/2006 -0700, Scott McLarty wrote:
> > >> > >> (Courtesy of Larry Gross; forwarded to me by
> > >> > >> Scott Tucker.  Note that SF Chronicle editor John
> > >> > >> Diaz, in providing these explanations, writes
> > >> > >> "Feel free to forward to Larry or Bob or anyone
> > >> > >> else who inquires." -- Scott)
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> SF Chronicle and candidates:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Hello Larry (and Bob),
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Here is the explanation from John Diaz, our
> > >> > >> editorial page editor, who made the decision to
> > >> > >> exclude all four third party candidates from the
> > >> > >> debate, for the reasons expressed below. Let me
> > >> > >> add that in local races, the editorial board
> > >> > >> always includes Green candidates along with Dems
> > >> > >> and Repubicans because in the Bay Area, they make
> > >> > >> a strong showing and actually have a chance of
> > >> > >> winning (witness the last mayor's race where a
> > >> > >> Dem -- Newsom -- and a Green - Gonzalez, made the
> > >> > >> runoff. In the race for US Senate, John
> > >> > >> interviewed the Green candidate because she stood
> > >> > >> a chance, not of beating Pelosi, but of getting
> > >> > >> as many votes statewide as the Republican.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Here are John's thoughts:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> > >> From: Diaz, John
> > >> > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:20 AM
> > >> > >> To: Zacchino, Narda
> > >> > >> Subject: RE: What's the Chronicle up to?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Hello Narda: Here is my thinking. Feel free to
> > >> > >> forward to Larry or Bob or anyone else who
> > >> > >> inquires. It really is the perpetual question we
> > >> > >> face in the media: Whether to provide "equal"
> > >> > >> coverage to minor party candidates and thus
> > >> > >> dilute the resources & attention we apply to the
> > >> > >> major party candidates. Neither Forrest Hill nor
> > >> > >> any of the minor-party candidates for secretary
> > >> > >> of state has shown any sign of becoming a factor
> > >> > >> in the race. I have been meeting, and will
> > >> > >> continue to meet, with Green Party candidates for
> > >> > >> various offices, but on a live Webcast, our time
> > >> > >> is inherently limited.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> FYI, here's the statement I'm putting out for any
> > >> > >> media inquiries ...
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> There are six certified candidates for secretary
> > >> > >> of state. Two of them - Republican incumbent
> > >> > >> Bruce McPherson and Democrat Debra Bowen - have a
> > >> > >> plausible chance of winning. All indications are
> > >> > >> that this is an extremely close race and the two
> > >> > >> major-party candidates have two distinctly
> > >> > >> different visions about the role of secretary of
> > >> > >> state. This is their first - and only scheduled -
> > >> > >> debate of the campaign. So the question comes
> > >> > >> down to whether Californians would be better
> > >> > >> served by a more focused and extensive comparison
> > >> > >> of the two major-party candidates - one of whom
> > >> > >> will be secretary of state for the next four
> > >> > >> years - or a forum that also included the Green,
> > >> > >> Libertarian, American Independent and Peace and
> > >> > >> Freedom party candidates. Our judgment is that
> > >> > >> Californians need this chance to directly compare
> > >> > >> Bowen and McPherson.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> -John
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> > >> From: Zacchino, Narda
> > >> > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:12 AM
> > >> > >> To: Diaz, John
> > >> > >> Subject: FW: What's the Chronicle up to?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> This is the chair of the communications
> > >> > >> department at usc
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> > >> From: Larry Gross [mailto:lpgross at usc.edu]
> > >> > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:00 AM
> > >> > >> To: Robert Scheer
> > >> > >> Subject: What's the Chronicle up to?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Bob,
> > >> > >> what's this all about? What was Narda think about
> > >> > >> this exclusionary, anti-democratic decision by
> > >> > >> the Chronicle? Who decided to do this anyway, and
> > >> > >> why? Larry
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > >> > >> Larry Gross
> > >> > >> Professor and Director
> > >> > >> School of Communication
> > >> > >> Annenberg School
> > >> > >> University of Southern California
> > >> > >> Los Angeles, CA 90089-0281
> > >> > >> [213] 740-3770
> > >> > >> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>> To: info at voteforrest.org
> > >> > >>> Subject: Weds. 1 pm: Debate Protest
> > >> > >>> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:01:02 -0700
> > >> > >>> From: Forrest Hill for Secretary of State
> > >> > >> <info at voteforrest.org>
> > >> > >>> Reply-to: Forrest Hill for Secretary of State
> > >> > >> <info at voteforrest.org>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> PLEASE FORWARD
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Protest Forrest's exclusion from SF Debates
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Forrest has called a press conference for
> > >> > >> tomorrow
> > >> > >> (Weds.) at 1 pm to
> > >> > >>> protect his exclusion from the San Francisco
> > >> > >> Chronicle's
> > >> > >> debate.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> We need your support to let the media know that
> > >> > >> it is no
> > >> > >> longer
> > >> > >>> accepted to discriminate against third party
> > >> > >> candidates.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> If you live in the Bay Area please come down to
> > >> > >> KPIX-TV,
> > >> > >> 855 Battery
> > >> > >>> St. San Francisco, at 1 p.m. and help us make
> > >> > >> some noise.
> > >> > >> We will have
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>> signs, but feel free to bring your own.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> See press release below for details.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> URGENT NEWS ADVISORY
> > >> > >>> Tuesday October 17, 2006
> > >> > >>> Contact: Cres Vellucci, press secretary,
> > >> > >> 916.996-9170
> > >> > >>> civillib at cwnet.com
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> ATTN: Daybook/Assignment Desk
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Chronicle called undemocratic by candidate
> > >> > >>> excluded from Secretary of State debate;
> > >> > >> Pickets
> > >> > >>> expected at campaign forum Wednesday
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> SAN FRANCISCO - Green Party Secretary of State
> > >> > >> candidate
> > >> > >> Dr. Forrest
> > >> > >>> Hill charged today that the San Francisco
> > >> > >> Chronicle may
> > >> > >> have excluded
> > >> > >>> him from a televised debate on Wednesday either
> > >> > >> because
> > >> > >> the paper
> > >> > >>> "does not believe in democracy (or) because I
> > >> > >> am the only
> > >> > >> openly gay
> > >> > >>> candidate running for statewide office."
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Hill has called a news conference - and a
> > >> > >> picket of the
> > >> > >> debate -
> > >> > >>> WEDNESDAY,at KPIX-TV, 855 Battery St., at 1
> > >> > >> p.m., shortly
> > >> > >> before the
> > >> > >>> debate is due to begin.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> The debate will feature incumbent Republican
> > >> > >> Bruce
> > >> > >> McPherson and
> > >> > >>> Democrat Debra Bowen, but the Chronicle
> > >> > >> excluded Hill,
> > >> > >> who has a
> > >> > >>> doctorate from the Massachusetts Institute of
> > >> > >> Technology
> > >> > >> and is a
> > >> > >>> former campaign advisor to Ralph Nader.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> In a letter to the Chronicle, Hill said he
> > >> > >> found it
> > >> > >> "simply
> > >> > >>> irresponsible for a powerful news outlet like
> > >> > >> the
> > >> > >> Chronicle to limit
> > >> > >>> voter choices by promoting only two points of
> > >> > >> view...in a
> > >> > >> city where
> > >> > >>> Greens often out poll Republicans.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> "The Chronicle has an opportunity to take the
> > >> > >> high road
> > >> > >> by opening up
> > >> > >>> the debate to candidates running outside the
> > >> > >> two
> > >> > >> mainstream parties.
> > >> > >>> (The Chronicle) can play an important role in
> > >> > >> rebuilding
> > >> > >> confidence in
> > >> > >> our Democratic system by allowing me to take part
> > >> > >> in
> > >> > >> Wednesday's
> > >> > >> Secretary of State debate," said Hill.
> > >> > >>> -30-
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> __________________________________________________
> > >> > >> Do You Yahoo!?
> > >> > >> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
> around
> > >> > >> http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > usgp-media mailing list
> > >> > > usgp-media at lists.gp-us.org
> > >> > > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-media
> > >> >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > usgp-media mailing list
> > >> > usgp-media at lists.gp-us.org
> > >> > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-media
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >JamBoi
> > >Jammy The Sacred Cow Slayer
> > >
> > >"Live humbly, laugh often and love unconditionally" (anon)
> > >http://dailyJam.blogspot.com
> > >
> > >__________________________________________________
> > >Do You Yahoo!?
> > >Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > >http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >usgp-media mailing list
> > >usgp-media at lists.gp-us.org
> > >http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-media
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > usgp-media mailing list
> > usgp-media at lists.gp-us.org
> > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-media
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> usgp-media mailing list
> usgp-media at lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-media
> 

JamBoi
Jammy The Sacred Cow Slayer

"Live humbly, laugh often and love unconditionally" (anon)
http://dailyJam.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 