Upton Sinclair made me do it.
After his best-selling expose The Jungle had made him a household name in America, Upton Sinclair set out to document his travails with mainstream journalism. His famous investigation of the meat packing industry in Chicago had shocked the nation, and led the passage of federal legislation designed to improve the disgusting conditions he had documented. However, during his investigated he had struggled with newspapers and magazines who hesitated to print his reporting. Mainstream media outlets, many worried about lost advertising revenue, had censored or otherwise refused to publish follow-up investigations that revealed not only had the much-celebrated law been largely ineffective, but little change had been seen by workers in Chicago one year after Sinclair's book was published.
Frustrated by his battles with the newspaper magnates of his day, Upton Sinclair self-published a damning tell-all about the American journalism, The Brass Check. Meticulously documented, the book pulled no punches, naming names and quoting from the guilty. He documented cases where important information was distorted and censored by the media, and chronicled how individual newspapers had launched smear campaigns against union organizers and political activists.
It heartened me to think that someone who I admire so greatly - a man of energy, compassion, and conviction, who for many defines true investigative reporting - could himself had had so much trouble with the newspaper world. His book is part of a long history of media criticism in America. During the progressive era, of which Sinclair was part, a number of mass-circulation magazines and well-respected authors and journalists published many critiques of the American media, which at the time had reached a high-water mark of centralization. This is the era where newspaper magnate William Randolf Hearst famously told a photographer in Cuba "You supply the pictures, I'll supply the war," and utilized his vast newspaper holdings to encourage the Spanish-American war.
More recently, magazines such as the Nation and Mother Jones have chronicled the concentrated patterns of media ownership, and activists and intellectuals of all stripes have turned to the internet as a supplementary source of information, whether reading foreign press, indymedia websites, or blogs for information otherwise unavailable in their local newspapers or the evening television news. Also, a flurry of books have been published analyzing the media's role in the sexual scandals surrounding President Clinton and whether or not mainstream media is "Biased" towards the right or left.
That being said, although I am certainly no
Sinclair - and the Michigan Daily certainly no New York Herald. What
follows is both my experiences as a reporter for the Michigan Daily, and
an account of the problems I believe that paper faces. I believe the
Daily largely escapes the larger issues of concentrated media ownership
and pro-business bias facing mainstream American media outlets, but
faces a set of problems unique to daily student newspapers.
Before I embark on our little odyssey, a couple
caveats. While much of the staff, certainly including some of my former
editors, would vigorously disagree with my contention the newspaper has
serious flaws, I would hope that circumstantial and concrete evidence I
will cite can prove otherwise. (See Part
1: "The Symptoms") Throughout the 1990s, the quality of the
Michigan Daily has been uneven - generally poor, but with moments of
brilliance. Even as late as the 1980s, the amount and quality of
information in the newspaper was noticeably better, and today the
newspaper sometimes seems to limp along on a day-to-day basis, their
offices a mess.
There are, howeverr, many important areas of
overlap among the problems faced by the national media and the Daily.
For months the New York Times eagerly reported what sources in the
White House told them about Iraqi weapons that now seem never to have
existed. Similarly, the Daily seems only eager to report what people,
especially people of authority, say, losing track of what really
matters - the truth. (See Part 2, "A Crisis
of Truth")
I believe in newspapers, and I believed in the Michigan Daily. For three years at Michigan I worked to improve the Michigan Daily, and the University, as an editorial staff member and news reporter. Some of my best friends and memories of my time at Michigan are connected with the Daily. Although I like to think I improved the newspaper from the inside, something went wrong my junior year. A student of journalism, I increasingly became disappointed with the conduct of the senior editors over a boycott led by the Black Student Union. I, like many staffers at the newspaper, thought some of their requests were reasonable - but the senior editors stonewalled, refused to negotiate, and didn't cover their own boycott fully and truthfully. The situation was made worse by the declining quality of the editorial page, which went so far as printing lies in a controversial editorial they were forced to retract. Many writers, myself included, were understandably upset by these events. However, my insistence the newspaper should fully publish the boycotter's demands with a full response and apologize for printing lies rubbed many the wrong way, for whom "defending the Daily" from "attacks" came first. After disagreeing with editor-in-chief Jon Schwartz on an email list, he fired me. I appealed to the group of senior editors known as "M-Desk", and was allowed to re-join the staff on the editorial staff. I went to editorial board meetings for a couple of months, even writing a couple editorials, although other priorities in my life took more of my time. Then, the new editor-in-chief, Louie Meizlish, told me I must remove a few innocuous comments from this website (one to the effect of "why didn't they report this rape sooner?" since I had been crime beat reporter before). He claimed it violated a line in the Michigan Daily Bylaws that forbid staffers from "Daily Bashing." I refused, and submitted a letter of resignation.
Whether it was my uncompromising belief a
newspaper must always publish the truth and work to be responsive to the
concerns of the community it serves, or a few bad editors, my time
trying
to improve the Daily from the inside had ended. (See Part
3: My Story at the Daily)
I believe the shoddy journalism and controversy
swirling about the newspaper in recent years can be traced to systemic
flaws within the organization. Secrecy and a rigid hierarchy allows
incompetence to flourish, and fills the editors with an over-inflated
sense of importance. As someone who has been involved at different
levels with literally dozens of student and community organizations
including the notorious Michigan Student Assembly, I was shocked by the
levels of arrogance and authoritarianism I found in some editors at the
Michigan Daily. This is not necessary, and in fact hurts the newspaper
by hindering self-criticism and improvement, and creating an atmosphere
where nothing of substance can be questioned - an irony at a newspaper,
an institution supposedly dedicated to discussion and tolerance to all
views. (See Part
4: "An Agenda for Change")
Finally, throughout it's history, the Daily has
had what could be called an independence issue. Althouogh technically
without editorial control, the Daily's building, telephone and computer
systems, and business decisions are all intimately connected to the
University. In addition, because of poor journalism by nieve reporters,
the University's public relations office can use the Daily as a tool,
while grassroots organizing, labor conflicts, and decisions that impact
students' lives like the re-organization of the residence hall
libraries, changes in the dining halls, or important decisions by the
Ann Arbor city government goes ignored or underreported. (Se Part 5: "On the Independence of the Daily")
In this five-day series, I've tried to summarize
observations and suggestions about the Daily I've been collecting for
the better part of three years. Following each post will be a space for
anyone to post responses, which, unlike the Daily's feedback function,
will be open to all relevant comments, anonymous or not. Also, I will
post any letters to the editor the authors wish to be public on my main
website, regardless their content.
I believe that open, truthful discussion is an indispensable cornerstone to our society. Whether I am heard or not, here's my final attempt to improve the Daily, this time from the outside. The first installment will appear on Monday, September 1, and continue, one each day, the rest of that week.
Comments? Post them here:Letters or private feedback: rob @ goodspeedupdate.com