Tomahawk Job

We are seeing a classic example of Mainstream Media Herd Mentality in the bizarre and unconscionable treatment of ASU Law professor Kevin Gover. 

Even a cursory analysis of the Tribune's version of the story shows that it is a badly researched hatchet job. 

(I'm not writing this piece because I think you care about Kevin Gover.  I'm writing this piece because it's a great example of the media taking someone apart based on faulty logic and flimsy evidence.  This is an example of how journalistic sloppiness destroys careers and lives.  It was stories like these that caused me to start writing espresso pundit.  I urge you to follow the analysis, learn the techniques and be on guard for this type of MSM behavior.)

Here's the first few paragraphs of the story. 

American Indian leaders are speaking against the hiring of an ASU law professor to lead a museum on the history of the nation’s tribes.

Last week, the Smithsonian Institute named Kevin Gover the next director of the National Museum of the American Indian. Gover, a Pawnee from Oklahoma, has taught classes on federal regulation and Indian law at Arizona State University since 2003.

Some critics point to Gover’s work as director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs from 1997 to 2000 as the reason he shouldn’t head the museum.

Gover has never worked for a museum.

“An appointment such as Gover’s, laden with political baggage, raises its own questions,” said an editorial in Indian Country Today, a national weekly newspaper.

Much of the opposition, however, is aimed at Smithsonian officials, who chose Gover without consulting the museum’s board of trustees. The Washington Post reported on the dispute Wednesday.

Let's examine the Trib's points one by one.

Gover has never worked for a museum. 

This is a classic fallacy.  Notice that the sentence stands alone?  It is a self-contained argument so the reader is forced to assume that museum experience is a job requirement and that Gover is somehow unqualified because he has never worked at a museum.

But Gover is being appointed Director not Curator of the Museum.  He isn't building exhibits, he's setting policy and raising money--a task for which he is perfectly qualified.

Gover is a Native American Lawyer from Oklahoma who is an expert in Indian and Regulatory law and has extensive experience in Washington and connections to the Democratic Congress.  These are the EXACT qualifications of the previous museum Director.

Gover was a member of the Clinton Administration and founded American Indians for Clinton/Gore.  With Democrats firmly in control of Congress, Gover is an ideal candidate to Direct the museum. 

The other objections fall into three categories. 1) Gover's tenure at BIA was rocky.  2) Some Indian leaders oppose his appointment and 3) some members of the Museum's Board are unhappy with the process. 

These objections don't hold up to even cursory examination. 

1) Gover's BIA tenure was Rocky. 

The BIA is a mess.  It has a 100 year history of screwing up the accounts that it maintains for Native Americans.  In the early 90s, a woman named Elouise Cobell sued the BIA over the accounts and Judge Lamberth placed Interior Secretary Babbitt, Treasury Secretary Rubin and BIA Director Gover in contempt.  When Bush became President, judge Lamberth also held Secretary Gale Norton and her BIA Director in contempt.  As the tone of Judge Lamberth's orders got more shrill, he was removed from the case.  The Accounts are still screwed up, but no one claims that it was Gover who messed them up.

2) Some Indian Leaders Oppose Gover. 

This is where it gets interesting.  The point about Indian Leader opposition comes from two sources:  an editorial in the influential newspaper called Indian Country, and the Washington Post.  But further examination shows that the editorial in Indian Country was based on an OP Ed piece written by none other than Elouise Cobell--the woman who sued Gover when he was BIA director.

And the Washington Post piece?  It was based on a press release by--you guessed it--Elouise Cobell.

In fact, Cobell's attack on Gover was immediate and effective.  Here's how Indian Country described it. 

The day after the Smithsonian Institution announced the hiring of one-time BIA chief Kevin Gover as the next director of the National Museum of the American Indian (a so-called unit museum of the Smithsonian), trust funds lawsuit lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell reeled off a tempestuous condemnation of his integrity, reputation and commitment to Indians.

''Kevin Gover was held in contempt of court in the class action lawsuit over the federal government's admitted mishandling of Indian trust accounts,'' Cobell stated in a Sept. 12 media release.

3) some members of the Museum's Board are unhappy with the process

Indeed there is a small faction of the Museum's Board that are unhappy with the way Gover was chosen.  Incredibly, that faction is led by... Elouise Cobell.  Here's the letter to the editor that she published in the Washington Post.

One woman is responsible for the suit, the opinion of "Indian Leaders" and the objections by the Board.  All of this information is readily available yet none of it is disclosed in the articles.

So of the four charges, one is based on a fallacy and three are based on the complaints of one person.  In fact, Gover seems to enjoy widespread support in the Native American Community.  The Tribune article lists several supporters yet finds no criticism other than those generated by Cobell.

The proper way to write the article would have been to point out Gover's wide support and high qualifications and then mention that the support is not unanimous because a woman named Elouise Cobell is really ticked off at him.

Instead of analyis, research and fairness, the Mainstream Media defaults to personal attacks, fallacy, and herd mentality.

Forget law, Gover should start a blog. 

 

Comments

[AZ Guy]

Great detective work Greg.

[Josh Bailey]

seriously. Great work.

[Dan]

Reminds me of the Holocaust Museum. There's a book, Preserving Memory, by Edward Linenthal, that tells the whole bloody political story of that museum's founding.

You're exactly right:

Museum Director is a political job, not curatorial at all. He has people for that. (Actually, his people have people who have people for that.)

Every BIA director's tenure is rocky. Word of advice: Don't become BIA Director. Probably ought to avoid being Secretary of the Interior, too.

These museums exist because there are interest groups minutely interested in them. Some interest group, and some faction on the board, will always oppose a new senior appointment.

What's absurd in this case is that the opposition is all coming from the same blowhard.

[Peoria Pundit]

Explain to me how, exactly, the nation's largest Indian paper writing an editorial opposing his appointment doesn't qualify as Indian leaders opposing it. Regardless of whether or not their arguments are based on the complaints of a woman who has an axe to grind, the paper still took a public stand opposing the appointment.

Same goes for the board: even if this lady leads the faction, the other board members are still upset and voicing their opinions.

I don't think the opposition can be simply dismissed out of hand because one person is leading the charge.

[jdleslie]

Peoria Pundit has a point, but only to point. It's probably legitimate to report that there's been this backlash, but without ever referencing that the one woman is leading the charge in these many areas, it lacks important context. Greg did the extra elbow grease to bring that to light, so props to him. The reporter needed to do that.

[Grace]

I think it also ought to be brought to the world's attention that one of the runners up for the job was Tim Johnson, currently at NMAI.

It would be interesting if the reporter had noted that Tim Johnson used to serve on the editorial board of Indian Country Today and still has many friends there. Could be a good reason why ICT so strongly opposes Gover getting the job.

[Mia]

Bravo to the Espresso Pundit. I worked for two years on Indian Trust issues, and tried the whole while to get the media to look at another view other than Elouise's. Most often, reporters covering the case seemed to feel that the very idea that there was another story, and even perhaps another viewpoint, was fairly impossible. The truth, as so often, lies in the middle. Get this: Interior is actually doing something about the Indian Trust (and yes, its slow going... for many reasons). And, Kevin Gover helped those reforms along.

[Native G.]

I don't know Gover or Cobell, or have a position on Gover's appointment, but as a Native journalist familiar with the hatred, jealousy, and non-stop feuding among tribal members everywhere (crabs in the bucket mentality!) I agree Gover is getting a hatchet job by the press. What's ironic here is that the Washington Post, above all papers, will just follow the lead of the largest Native paper in the country without looking at the facts as you've presented. The reason why Indian country is messed up is that everytime one of us tries to make it out, the others pull us down. Great work looking in between the lines and shoddy reporting. I completely agree with your assessment, point-by-point, 100%. I'm from Arizona and you guys have consistently exposed the media double standards. Please continue fishing the hypocrisy in the media - even among tribal publications.