A continuation of our ever-interesting discussion about what constitutes journalism. Cambridge Mayor Ken Reeves appears to feel that Cambridge Chronicle reports are not journalists. In a letter published yesterday on the paper’s excellent WickedLocal, er, blog, he wrote:
[T]he Cambridge Chronicle has left the cannon of journalism and editorial practice, has lost all objectivity and seeks only to defame and malign. No one should be asked to collaborate in his/her character assassination.
This subject was discussed a few days ago here on BMG: “Chronicle Continues Ahab-ian Pursuit of Reeves.” Chronicle Editor in Chief Greg Reibman offered some illuminating details about the backstory in the comments. One wonders if noted etymologist Phil Balboni will weigh in on this latest phase of the blogger/journalist debate, and in particular on the $11 car wash issue:
[W]hat base of reasoning in Erin’s mind caused her to ask if the $11 for a car wash was for the city car or for a personal car? I do not possess a personal car. I am amazed at the lack of knowledge that the Cambridge Chronicle and their reporters have about the city of Cambridge and the function of city government.
Ouch!
When membership in the cannon is being decided…
What is the range on this cannon? What kind of targets is the cannon effective against? What other ammunition does the cannon take besides the Cambridge Chronicle? Maybe bar shot? Or hot shot?
<
p>
Frankly, I’m intrigued. I may want a cannon of journalism for my very own.
Here is a picture, in case you want to get one:
<
p>
<
p>
According to its description, “This tabletop cannon from Zizzle actually fires a cannon ball, and can be used in a mock battle with the action figures from the movie. What makes the cannon authentic is the puff of smoke which emits from the mouth of the cannon after it is fired.” Credit: About.com
Great idea Bob. We usually bring a notebook and a video camera to public meetings. But I think it will be more effective if we arm each reporter with one of these nifty journalism cannons.
The mayor is given a car by the city of Cambridge, but I would agree that while the other questions of conflict of interest are valid they have taken it too far. $11 is chump change and frankly if it is the citys car it should look clean.
Personally, I think that the mayor has better things to do than go to the DSW during business hours to get the city’s car washed. Or have a secretary do it for him. Honestly, I don’t see any serious problems here. He could be wasting some money, but going on witch hunts to find it isn’t a good way to practice journalism and convince people.
Would it also have been journalism if that tidbit had only been published on WickedLocal? How about if on BMG? What if Phil Balboni had written it on a signboard and stood in Central Square in front of Mayor Reeves’ office for an hour? How about if he stood there for five years, would it stop being journalism at some point?
… out Scott Gant’s book?
<
p>
I heard him on cspan and found it very interesting. He tackles all of these issues. I don’t remember the particulars but I remember that in particular he has some interesting ideas on the questions of ‘do you really want someone defining what a journalist is?’ ‘If so, who gets to do that?’ ‘What kinds of criteria should there be?’
<
p>
Seriously, if you get the time after the election, give it a stream.
Yes.
<
p>
Why? Because they write for a newspaper. (insert TV station, blog, magazine or radio station in other cases) No other qualification is needed. See the first amendment if you like.
<
p>
Sorry if they hurt poor Mayor Reeves’ feelings. Maybe he should look for another line of work if he doesn’t like public criticism.
I agree with you 100%. Their job is to fill the media with “space” so that the reader will notice the advertising. Some outlets do this with a higher quality than others. In New England I’ve seen the Providence Journal as a print leader in getting real local “news” out. Maybe they have more raw material to work with.
<
p>
Blogs, although their quality is all over the place, seem to be less inhibited about the news. Maybe they have the zeal which is the product of poverty, as I can’t see them making serious money. But, they cover a whole spectrum of news unavailable in the standard media. For example, I’ve not seen any news of the voting machine scandal in print newspaper, although blogs of all kinds of political persuasion cover this story. The standards of journalism tend to cover the more mundane; they know that covering Brittany and Paris will get them a certain number of readers so they cover the dear girls 24/7.
<
p>
Is the Chronicle’s story journalism? Sure. It is silly? Sure.
“are they journalists”
<
p>
or
<
p>
“are they bad journalists”?
…would be taking the car to the carwash, but, two questions.
<
p>
One, is the car actually leased by the city? (I would presume that it is.)
<
p>
And two, if the car is leased, what are the terms of the lease? (The lease may require the city to have the car regularly washed at a car wash approved by the lessor.)
<
p>
Irrespective of the foregoing, US$11 for a carwash is a tempest in a teapot. Go to any public carwash, and you’ll be hard-pressed to find a complete wash (including under-carriage) at much less.
Actually the car wash is a red herring. This story was never about the car wash. The car wash was mentioned briefly as an example of some of the small items Reeves’ charged to his city issued card.
<
p>
The real story is about a public official who has spent thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money dining with people who he will not name.
<
p>
It’s also about how it appears that he may have, on occasion, dined alone and charged taxpayers for that as well.
that keeps going unanswered here. Has the paper asked each councilmember (or whoever the mayor says he ate with) whether they dined with him on those occasions? If not, why not?
We have been asking City Council members specifically about a Washington D.C. meal ($548.92 at Ruth’s Steakhouse for seven people) because they were in D.C. at the time of the meal. We will report on it when we’ve contacted everyone.
<
p>
I can tell you that at least one council member has declined to answer.
<
p>
We’ve also asked the mayor’s spokesman if he was at any of the meals and he declined to answer.
<
p>
As for asking anyone else, I’m not sure how we do that since Reeves’ isn’t naming names.
i’m glad to see that you’re doing due diligence. this is what bothered me about teh story so far, that allegations were being made before the fact-finding was even partially complete. certainly you can’t be expected to ask question of people you don’t know the identity of, but if you released the story before making a reasonable effort at questioning those potentially involved or observers, well, that is how you earn a label of vindictive.