Intro. to Journalism

I hear that they actually have a "school" for journalists.  Theoretically, it takes a couple of years to finish journalism school, but students who are currently attending say the teachers spend most of the time whining about the future of the industry and bashing Fox News.

Maybe J school should be like McDonald's "Hamburger University" or Starbucks' Barrista school.  I mean, if you can teach a 17 year old kid with ear studs the size of quarters how to make a double decaf soy machiado, you can train anyone to do anything.

If J School adopted the trade school model and stopped all the whining and bashing, then perhaps their students wouldn't make the completely bone headed mistakes that you wouldn't even find at a high school newspaper. 

Republic reporter Scott Wong wrote this A1 story about the nine initiatives that will be on the November ballot.  Most of his descriptions are pretty fair; here's a good example.

This year's batch of ballot-bound initiatives appears to be a broad mix of tax and transportation issues, social matters, and protections for homeowners and businesses. One measure would revise the state's landmark employer-sanctions law to make it friendlier to businesses.

Then we get to the marriage initiative.

State lawmakers this year referred only one measure to the ballot: a divisive proposal to change the state Constitution to ban gay marriage in Arizona.

Divisive?  That pejorative description should have been eliminated in the first day of J school.  Even calling a initiative "controversial" exposes the reporter as an amateur--all the initiatives are "controversial" or they would have passed on a Legislative consent calendar.  But "divisive" combines the aspects of being controversial with the bad intent of the sponsor.  After all, Napolitano is trying to move the state forward; those nasty legislators are trying to drive us apart.

By way of contrast, here's how Wong described the TIME initiative.

Perhaps the initiative with the most to gain is the $42.6 billion transportation plan, championed by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano and the business community. The coalition, known as TIME, is seeking a 1 percentage-point statewide sales-tax increase to fund roadway, rail and other transit projects in Arizona.

Let's start with the fact that the sentence makes absolutely no sense.  What does he mean by the "initiative with the most to gain"?  I think he must mean "largest financial impact."  However, it's clear that Wong thinks it would be a good thing if the initiative passes, and he can't get away with saying "largest financial benefit" so he settled on the meaningless "most to gain."

Naturally, I think that raising the sales tax 18% to fund a hodgepodge of environmental remediation, light rail and freeways while exempting the entire $46 billion from the procurement code and rule making process is a bad thing. I would describe it as the "initiative with the most to lose." 

But I have an excuse.  After all, I didn't spend four years at Journalism school.

UPDATE

Howie Fischer provides a good example of how the initiative should be described:

One measure to constitutionally define marriage as between one man and one woman did not require signatures. It was put on the ballot by lawmakers.

By the way, readers thought I was being critical of Howie when I said that he would be the last reporter standing.  Not so.  Howie is a one-man wire service with an expertise in an important beat.  He can generate as much content as the Republic's constantly rotating team of newbies and do so  with more accuracy and sophistication at a fraction of the cost.   

Comments

[Dewey]

Unfortunately, my initiative doesn't show much initiative, and therefore has very little to gain. Some of my ideas which don't require much initiative, however, have very much to gain.

God Bless America! Happy 4th!

[SonoranSam]

Like it or not, the gay marriage ban is divisive. You may not like the description because it doesn't fit with your view of the world. But just look at what happened during the Senate debate.

If that ain't a clear sign of partisan divison, I don't know what else would qualify.

[ron]

I happn to know some Starbucks barristas and they are intelligent, hard-working people of all ages. Starbucks is now the desired resume item for anyone under 25 - comparable to what McDonald's was about 20 years ago. One of them just turned her one year experience at a local Starbucks into a very nice entry-level job at a private financial institition in that high rent community east of Phoenix. (Did you get a $5,000 bonus last Christmas after 6 months employment? She did, thank you.)

You characterization of Starbucks employess is not usual for you - you should have had another espresso this morning.

[North Valley Republican]

The Gay Marriage Amendment is not divisive. It is a challenge to a very small minority in our community who would rather we ignore the values we hold close. The Gay community has consistently separated itself - so, I find it strange that this statement of our beliefs would be considered additional divisiveness. Does the Marriage Amendment indicate a rebuke to Gays or is it more a statement of our convictions before God as to the sanctity of marriage? Sonoran Sam knows full well that the divisiveness in the Senate was caused by a gay senator, not by the conservatives.

[The Klute]

I'm sorry NVR...

"The Gay community has consistently separated itself..."

What? How, exactly, has the gay community "consistently separated" itself - as if they haven't constantly been forced underground by the unthinking and bigoted.

And this...

"...It is a challenge to a very small minority in our community who would rather we ignore the values we hold close."

Every civil rights movement exists because of a small minority that wants to challenge "the values" held close, just like desegregation challenged the "values" of those who believed separate was equal, and suffrage movement challenged the "values" of those who believe women didn't deserve the right to vote.

And believe me, there are going to be enough straight people like me who are going to see this thing wither and die at the ballot box, just like we did in 2006.

"...is it more a statement of our convictions before God as to the sanctity of marriage."

At least you're being honest about the unconstitutionality of it.

[North Valley Republican]

Well, you answered your own questions when you called us "bigoted" and "unthinking."

What could possibly make you call those of us who hold values such names?

And, for you to compare gay demands to the blight visited on Blacks and women, well, that is very telling. Yeah, some liberals beat this issue down in a prior election. We shall see how it goes this November.

The attacks hurled by a senator, and now by you, makes me wonder who is bigoted. Separation is not just because others treated gays badly - but, for fear of you calling me bigoted, I will not try to explain all the ways my gay friends separate themselves from me and their other straight friends. And, before you call me homophobic, I suggest you get to know me first.

[The Klute]

NVR,

See, I wasn't implying you were the moral equivalent of those who have forced gays underground due to their own prejudice... but if you want to lump yourself in with them, go right ahead.

And going back to "values", I suggest you read "Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery" and see how Christianity has been used to justify a stain on America's soul.

"Yeah, some liberals beat this issue down in a prior election."

Actually, I think you mean to say "a majority of Arizona voters" - however, if you'd like to cede Arizona to a liberal majority, I'm cool with that too.

"I will not try to explain all the ways my gay friends separate themselves from me and their other straight friends."

I'd wager it would be a laugh riot to hear said explanations.

"...makes me wonder who is bigoted."

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the meme were all going to be hearing for the next 4 months. Might want to adjust it to white noise now.

[todd]

North Valley Republican ,
I am curious how your gay friends separate themselves form you. Could you explain what you mean?

[Jamcool]

Those who support legalizing gay mairrage ignore the elephant in the room if it is legalized...

Polygamy. There would be no reason for judges to turn down multi-wife marriages. Polygamy has many years of history-gay marriage has none.

[Les]

Klute,

Gay marriage can't be compared to race & gender issues.

They aren't even close to the same issues.

Passing a gay marriage amendment is the endorsement of a lifestyle. The civil rights issues pertaining to race & gender is the acknowledgement that all people are created equal. There is a big difference.

And group marriage will be next. If you allow gay marriage you then will have no justification for forbidding polygamy or group marriages. What about marriages within a family? All of these would be legitimately in play.

As to Christianity's stain on our country. Just as we have judges who misinterperet our constitution based on what they feel is best as opposed to what our constitution intended there are people in & out of the church that misinterperet scripture all of the time. Just listen to Barrack Obama. The fact is that overall Christianity in its core is about loving God (Jesus Christ) & your Neighbor as yourself. Unfortunately people don't like the boundaries established by the bible & the fact that there are absolutes involved.

God of course gave us a free will to choose him or the world. Not so for the politically left. It is the left way or you are an (insert adjective hear)

Don't blame Christianity for the ills of the world or the United States when the ills of the world & this country come from people (most of whom spend a lot of time in D.C. & State Capitols. Individuals generally mess up their own lives and a few others. The politicians, lobbyist, self appointed "leaders" of causes mess things up for millions of people at a time in order to champion their cause or for some misguided viewpoint and of course for self preservation.)

Thanks to Greg for allowing open posting from different viewpoints.

[The Klute]

Les,

First off, let's quash this:

"As to Christianity's stain on our country."

Right now. I never said Christianity was a stain on this country. I was refering back to NVR's statement about "standing up for God" to defend our "values" - and the book "Noah's Curse" refers back to Christians using the Bible to justify slavery and later, Jim Crow. That's all. Saying the word "Christianity!" doesn't absolve anyone of anything.

Now, as to this:

"Unfortunately people don't like the boundaries established by the bible & the fact that there are absolutes involved."

The Bible says a lot of things we don't do. Rich man, camel, eye of needle, anyone? Anyone? Oh, that's right, we have Prosperity theology. How much of Leviticus do you follow there Les?

Fact of the matter is, Jesus didn't say word one about homosexuality, and the fact of the matter is the New Testament, most of anti-homosexuality bits came from St. Paul, who also thought slavery was A-OK (no chance for any Roman/Ceasar Augustus morality leaking into Paul's theology there, eh?)

"Passing a gay marriage amendment is the endorsement of a lifestyle."

No, it's not. How many gay people do you know, Les? Go ask them when they made the "choice" to be gay. What about you, Les? Do you remember the choice you made to be straight? I sure don't remember mine.

And even if it is legitimizing a choice, how does two dudes getting married disrespect marriage any more than Dennis Praeger's or Rush Limbaugh's or John McCain's multiple marriages? Matthew 19:3-9... If anything, the standard bearers of conservatism are disobeying God more publicly than us evil leftists.

And here's the meme again:

"Not so for the politically left. It is the left way or you are an (insert adjective hear)"

I want to give the same rights to gays and lesbians that I inalienably have myself, something that you, by your statements here, wish to deny them. What does it matter to you if two people of the same sex get married?

"God of course gave us a free will to choose him or the world."

He also gave us the grey matter in our skulls for a reason. He's not tempting Ted Haggard or Larry Craig with the hunky intern down the hall for giggles, or planting dinosaur bones in the fossil record just to be a jerk. One can live in the world and follow God - one can also do so without marginalizing people in the process.

And as for the whole polygamy dodge... so? As long as people go into a thing of their own free will and not an FLDS or Jonestown gig, what does it matter? Polygamy, polyandry, doesn't really matter to me (and before you bring up beastiality or pedophilia, neither a child or animal can consent - and incest brings up medical concerns). If the whole multiple partner thing bothers you, take it up with Abraham.

[Aaron]

I don't support the ballot measure defining marriage as between a man and a woman because that is already in Arizona Statutes. I think Greg's point is eliminating bias in written print and he is correct about that. I love the Capitol Times because it is not permeated with the crap we all have to read in the Republic. It just tells what happens. Give us details and let us surmise our own conclusions based on those details.

[Name:]

The argument that it's in statute and doesn't need to be in the constitution is a red herring. Statutes get overturned all the time, or are just plain ignored. I'd like to think that the definition of marriage is part of common sense. But I'd lose that argument.

To be fair, there is a difference between facts and news. I don't really care about the details of who said what in what debate of some legislative committee, unless there was a real whopper. I don't have time to read it all, and need someone with technical and political expertise who can omit the clutter and give me the news.

A story written with details and no interpretation of them is useless. It's like reading the box score of a baseball game and trying to explain what the game was like. Someone has to write the narrative and while you may disagree with it, it's helpful to have that point of view.

[nick]

Starbucks employess desired resumes at 600 locations are in play.

Close 600 shops at one time is a big deal.

[JohnC]

I agree on Name's point about Starbucks. So what if it's the "in" job title on the resume. It's just another low-level flunky job at a place with mediocre product and sub-mediocre customer service run by corporate groupthink that's both oversaturated its market and drifted off into tangents completely out of its core competencies. As a result, the backlash has hurt Starbucks and it is being forced to contract and retreat. Sounds a lot like another industry.

The point Greg makes is that writing at a latter-day newspaper isn't far off from working at a Starbucks. Like a surly barista, there aren't a lot of skills demanded in writing up slanted, regurgitated facts in a half-assed, half-hearted attempt at a newsstory.