Beat writer reflects on Michael Jordan’s brief dance with baseball

Apparently a lot of sports fans around the country discovered Sunday night that Michael Jordan’s manager during his 13-month minor-league baseball career was Terry Francona.  Birmingham sports fans – at least those of a certain age – have known that forever.

PHOTO FROM NATIONAL BASEBALL HALL OF FAME AND MUSEUM

Francona, the manager who ended the infamous World Series drought of the Boston Red Sox, began trending on social media after the most recent installment of ESPN’s 10-part documentary “The Last Dance,” which chronicles the 1990s dynasty of the Chicago Bulls and its superstar. Sunday’s segment included an interview with Francona as it explored Jordan’s stunning decision to leave the NBA and try his hand at playing baseball for the Double-A Birmingham Barons in 1994.

I remember it well. I had been the sports editor of The Birmingham News for maybe one month (translation: clueless) when our Barons beat writer, Wayne Martin, informed me that the world’s most famous person was coming to Birmingham. Oh gosh. What do I do with this?

Some national media at the time dubbed Jordan’s decision as a public relations stunt that was embarrassing the sport. In fact, the 31-year-old Jordan had every intention of legitimately earning his way to the major leagues.

“The Last Dance” has prompted a number of interesting reflections on Jordan’s flight of adventure. I wanted some from one of the reporters who was there for every home game, Martin.

Martin, who covered the Barons for 20 years, agrees with Francona that were it not for the 1994 players’ strike that cut the season short in August and delayed the start of the next season, Jordan would have made it to the majors with the Chicago White Sox. Considering he hadn’t played baseball since high school and was learning the game at the Double-A level, some of his stats were remarkable, Martin said. That included 51 runs batted in and 30 stolen bases. Even a .202 average in Year One was impressive, in Martin’s view. Jordan began the season with a 13-game hitting streak. “Then they started throwing him curveballs,” Martin said. But Jordan was undaunted, constantly taking extra batting practice.

Wayne Martin, RETIRED FROM THE Birmingham News

The White Sox assigned Jordan to Double-A, rather than the easier Single-A, partly because the Hoover Met provided less public access and greater security than other minor-league stadiums in the Sox organization, Martin said.

Still, Jordan didn’t act as if he were special. Same locker setup, same hotels, same bus (albeit a new, luxury bus). Knowing he put his teammates through the “hardship” of unprecedented media attention – “(Reporters) were almost going with him into the shower,” Martin said – he occasionally bought meals on the road for them. He spent considerable time in the manager’s office playing Yahtzee with Francona, and true to the player’s well-known competitive streak, they kept score all season.

Martin met Jordan for the first time in an empty locker room in Sarasota, Florida, during spring training. One of the world’s greatest athletes was eating a McDonald’s Big Mac. “McDonald’s pays me a lot of money,” he told Martin. “People who pay me, I use their products.”

Despite tense relations with the Chicago media, including questions about Jordan’s gambling-related activities, that wasn’t the case with Martin and the other local beat reporter, Rubin Grant of The Birmingham Post-Herald. “He said, ‘You are the local media. You have access to me when nobody else does,’” Martin recalled. “And he stuck by it all year.”

He’d sometimes get annoyed, though. Martin’s editor (that would be me) required at least a short Jordan-focused story after every home game. So Martin routinely approached him. “He would say ‘Don’t come to me. I didn’t do anything tonight. Go talk to (a teammate).’”

Martin recalled Jordan getting angry only once. The News published a story by sports writer Doug Segrest on how Jordan spent his free time in Birmingham, including occasional visits to a pool hall and Sammy’s Gentlemen’s Club. Grant wrote a commentary that Jordan should spend less time in places like those and more time interacting with people in Birmingham’s inner neighborhoods. Jordan didn’t like that criticism and summoned for Grant before that night’s game. “He chewed him out a little bit,” Martin said.

Jordan could be kindhearted too. During a pre-game “Field of Dreams” promotion, Jordan stood next to a young special-needs player in a wheelchair in right field during the National Anthem.  The boy’s mother later asked the Barons organization if she could send an enlarged print for Jordan to sign, but was told no because all such requests had to go to Jordan’s agent. So, at the team’s suggestion, she came to a later game and stood along the right-field wall, holding up the enlarged photo while Jordan shagged pre-game flyballs. He returned to the dugout, with the mother thinking he hadn’t noticed her. But soon, at Jordan’s request, a clubhouse attendant found her in the stands and took the photo for Jordan to autograph.   

“It’s things like that that made me pull for him,” Martin said. “If he wanted to be a major leaguer, I pulled for him to do it.”

Amid downturn from COVID-19, Alabama Media Group tries a new tactic

First came one wave of devastation. Then swiftly came another.

That’s not the precise story of the coronavirus, though in the end it may turn out to be. But it is the story of newsrooms getting piled on by adverse conditions.

Lost advertising put the journalism industry into a decade-long spiral of closures, layoffs and diminished products that was still happening at the time of the virus outbreak. COVID-19 halted events, shut down businesses, and savaged advertising even further. News companies around the nation responded as they always had, with yet more slashing of expenses in the forms of  permanent layoffs, temporary furloughs, and pay cuts that they present as temporary but which are likely to become permanent. 

Some sad examples from around Alabama, all within the past few weeks:

• The Tuscaloosa News (owned by Gannett) laid off its executive editor and sports editor.

• The Gadsden Times (also Gannett) laid off three people, according to poynter.org.

• The Anniston Star lost three journalists, including its immensely respected executive editor (and a former colleague of mine) Anthony Cook, who volunteered to leave because he said the community needed reporters on the street more than it did managers in an office.

• The North Jefferson News (owned by CNHI) essentially folded by merging with the Cullman Times.

• Alabama Media Group (owned by Advance Local) implemented one-week furloughs and temporary pay cuts from 2% to 20%, with higher salaried personnel taking the higher percentage reductions. Other Advance Local properties took similar steps.

In mid-April Advance Local took another step that I found remarkable. The company that has resisted the industry trend of requiring a paid subscription to access online content launched a campaign asking readers to voluntarily buy a digital subscription for $10 per month. No extra content comes with that. In Alabama, all the content on AL.com remains free to everyone. The company is in essence asking willing individuals to help sponsor the cost of its journalism. It’s a wise time to ask, as the need for pandemic news has spiked online readership around the country.

Alabama Media Group (full disclosure: I used to work there) believes its content, especially during the pandemic, offers value that’s worth paying for. That’s a reader by reader judgment, of course. I bought a voluntary subscription for multiple reasons, only one of which is that they do some good work. I’m also highly empathetic to the idea of, in essence, donating money to sustain a vital civic purpose, especially knowing that some people who need news would never be able to afford it if it became for paying subscribers only.

On the other hand, there’s a legitimate, more hard-ass view that any seller of anything just needs to make its product so indispensable that people will pay without any element of civic charity thrown in. AMG’s ask of its audience, I think, is a tough one, partly because money is tight for some people right now. It also still matters that corporate HQ did a disservice to its local communities (Birmingham, Mobile and Huntsville) in 2012 by changing daily newspaper publication to three days a week. Further, at least in Birmingham, a substantial decline in neighborhood coverage and some other kinds of grassroots coverage sacrificed a measure of community good will that might have translated into voluntary subscriptions today. Social media reaction following AMG’s subscription launch in mid-April was generally unkind, for reasons both fair and unfair.

Kelly Scott, Vice President of content, alabama media group

Kelly Scott, AMG vice president of content, told me in an email that she couldn’t discuss the number of subscriptions purchased so far (Advance Local is a private company) but “we are grateful for the response.”

I don’t know for sure, but my inclination is that Advance Local’s push for voluntary digital subscriptions is a precursor to mandatory subscriptions that will put most content behind a soft paywall. A “soft” paywall means readers get a certain number of free articles but must buy a subscription to get more than that. Advance Local began doing this in one market, Syracuse, New York, in late 2018. The company often tests ideas in one market before deciding whether to expand them elsewhere. In the rollout of its subscription campaign, two words stood out in a Frequently Asked Questions post: “For now, your support of AL.com is voluntary” (italics are mine).

Scott cautioned, however, that Advance Local’s voluntary subscription effort “was a different decision than one day moving to a paywall business model.”

Subscriptions mean more money but they run the danger that a chunk of audience will refuse to pay and instead seek their information from other, free online news sources. Reducing “traffic” to websites and social media channels cuts at the heart of any revenue strategy that relies on advertising. Advertisers insist on eyeballs and they pay according to the numbers.

AMG has done remarkably well with this kind of strategy. Not well enough to avoid sending more than half a newsroom of talent out the door in recent years, but still relatively successful.  An investment in video – and not just news video – has helped, as have other revenue sources such as books, events and marketing consultation. And crucially for advertisers, AL.com is “one of the largest local websites in the country,” Scott pointed out, referring to traffic metrics.

But the bulk of the evidence nationwide has been and will continue to be that any news company leaning too much on advertising is going to topple over. Google and Facebook pose too much competition. Ad rates are too low. Website visitors hate ads (unsurprisingly, AL.com denies access to content if you have an ad blocker). And advertising is too subject to the whims of economic downturns and viruses.

Advance Local may be figuring out that it’s going to need another revenue source in its collection. Then we will see who among us thinks AL.com is worth paying for. 

Students should enjoy pass/fail grading option while they can

On the scale of life disruption caused by COVID-19, the effect upon college students and professors ranks only moderately high. Still, banishment from campus and conversion to online learning represent a difficult and unexpected challenge.

One controversial way that many universities have responded is to offer students a choice of having all or selected courses graded by pass/fail rather than by letter grades. Public arguments ensued over whether this is appropriate and compassionate help for students who may struggle under new conditions or another case of sparing fragile minds the burden of dealing with adversity.

Colleges have implemented different versions. The University of Alabama and UAB give all students an irreversible, course-by-course choice by the last day of classes (but before final exams). A course grade of 60 or higher (a D-minus) qualifies for “pass” and counts as credit hours toward graduation and the requirements of a student’s major. A “P” does not affect grade-point average. An “F” does.

Auburn University does it differently. It lets students decide after professors post final grades and offers three choices: “SP,” which is a passing grade for a C or better; “SS,” which is a passing grade for a D; and “UU,” which is a failing grade. Unlike UA, none of those ratings count in GPA calculations, and also unlike UA, an “SS” does not count toward major requirements if a department already required at least a C.

Some universities – Stanford and MIT, for instance – eliminated letter grades and require students to accept pass/fail. That’s nuts, if you ask me. Some colleges haven’t changed their grading at all. Big University of Georgia didn’t. Little Simpson College in Indianola, Iowa didn’t. “It is the intent that the same learning outcomes will be achieved, thus not requiring a different approach to grading,” says an email from Simpson’s president to students.

Plenty of compelling reasons exist to give students a relief valve this semester. Personal stresses that fade to the background while on campus re-emerge upon a return home: family tensions, the burden of caring for other family members, the need for income. I know one student who had to bail out on a very good letter grade because being at home with two young children and a wife working from home was too chaotic of an environment to keep up with school obligations.

“Students who are split up among time zones, without reliable internet access, saddled with home responsibilities and new expenses, and without in-person office hours are at a severe disadvantage, and going through emotional and physical distress.”

— Online petition seeking pass/fail grading at Samford

Some students face obstacles with resources. Library references and professors are reachable online, but it’s just not the same as on campus. Try doing your best work with an unreliable internet connection or having to wait while someone else uses the only family computer. On-campus education masks a lot of socioeconomic disparities.

Universities that expanded pass/fail grading know that some students just don’t learn well online. Many students need the structure of face-to-face education. On their own, some of them lose track of assignment deadlines and online class times. My Blackboard Grade Center proves that. And I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that some professors – who, me? – are just not as effective teaching online as in a classroom, especially if it’s an emergency conversion.

Many students around the country demanded that universities provide a broader pass/fail option in the wake of campus shutdowns. A Samford University student, for instance, got over 1,400 signatures on an online petition. (Samford did broaden its pass/fail policy for this semester.) Some students elsewhere even argued that all students should pass all classes automatically. Really. Also nuts, in my book.

The pass/fail option intends to help students whose ability to achieve has been set back by circumstances. But those are not the only students taking advantage of it. One professor in another department said 65 percent of his students in one of his courses registered for pass/fail. In all of my courses, 12 percent did. A few students who have done “D” level work all semester in a course required for their major will now pass and move on to more advanced courses. Previously, that level of work was insufficient to pass. I worry about how those students will fare.

“We are confident our students will rise to the challenge, and the (University System of Georgia) will do everything in its power to help them do so. We trust our faculty to teach and grade students effectively. In times of adversity, we should reach higher, not lower. ”

— March 30 statement on not offering pass/fail grading

I also know that some students opted for pass/fail to protect a very high GPA. Fourteen students of mine would have scored 80 or higher but chose pass/fail. Can you blame them? Graduate school programs, professional programs, scholarship and award selectors, and hiring managers all make GPA a big deal.

My moments of exasperation aside, I see more benefit than harm to the pass/fail option in our virus-addled educational environment. It’s an empathetic action. (Avoiding a lot of formal grade appeals may have weighed on some administrators’ minds, too.)

But I hope students will remember one thing: The real world isn’t pass/fail. When adversity strikes out there – a business in an economic downturn, or journalists and essential workers in a disaster, or whatever – your future job won’t become pass/fail. Bosses, customers, audience and community will all expect you not just to pass, but also to excel in the face of calamity.

We need pandemic wisdom. Because so much is at steak.

In a pandemic, our gravest danger besides the virus itself comes from the avalanche of politically motivated mis-informers, fact deniers, conspiracy theorists and simple idiots. To find truth and level-headedness, we must seek the wisest, most credible sources. We should all turn to ….

The social media account of a frozen beef product.

In the past two weeks, the social media account of Steak-umm, maker of frozen steak products such as Philly cheesesteaks, has gone viral with a collection of Twitter threads about the dire need for factual accuracy, human compassion and resistance to bad actors in the midst of the coronavirus crisis. Its initial thread on April 6 has surpassed 68,000 likes and 18,000 retweets. Multiple commenters said they found greater intelligence in the thread than in some of the government leaders dealing with the outbreak.

On the importance of accurate information:

On bad actors:

On the need for social harmony in a pandemic:

On appreciation for essential workers:

On how individuals can help:

On the credibility of journalism:

The account even used its spike in fame to help raise money for Feeding America.

Tweeters responded favorably:

• “Who’d of thought frozen meat would be smarter than half of the US population….”

• “Steak-umm offering the sensible, rational defense of truth, repudiation of opportunism, and call to humanity that we all need right now.”

• “Whatever they are paying you, SteakUmm dude, tell them I said to double it.”

That dude is Nathan Allebach. He’s a millennial who works for Allebach Communications, a food marketing company in Souderton, Pennsylvania, that is owned by his father and has Steak-umm as a client. His age and who he works for are relevant because, according to a 2018 profile on melmagazine.com, millennial disaffection and a feeling of isolation lie at the heart of Allebach’s history of unconventional topics for a commercial marketing social media account (with the obvious blessing of Steak-umm corporate HQ). Such accounts inherently involve some degree of embellishment, for no one’s product is completely as good as they say it is. The twist that Steak-umm is now crusading against misinformation isn’t lost on Allebach: “We’re a frozen meat brand posting ads inevitably made to misdirect people and generate sales, so this is peak irony,” he tweeted.

It’s a fully formed circle of irony, in fact. Allebach refers to his approach as “anti-marketing,” but social media comments suggest that Steak-umm now has a lot of new customers.

It’s interesting that Allebach chose to make his posts on the brand’s account rather than a personal one. Anticipated benefit to his client was no doubt one reason, but he also made this observation: “For some reason people are more inclined to listen when it’s coming from a brand rather than a person which is pretty unfortunate.”

In a politicized pandemic, social media can do enormous damage to truth and to proper response. But they can also offer an oasis of sanity, even if you have to look in an unexpected place.

COVID-19: The past is the past, but we still need to know everything about it

New York Times, April 11

Never more than Monday have I worried that Donald Trump spends too much time trying to defend his past actions and not enough on forging a plan to eradicate the coronavirus and return the country to normal.

While crucial decisions remain – about massive testing, about massive contact tracing – Trump spent Monday’s press briefing deflecting and lambasting reporters’ questions. He reached a new level of defensiveness with a jaw dropping, tax funded, musically enhanced propaganda video. The whole thing was enough to cause CNN’s chyron writer to go bonkers.

But really, can we blame Trump for this? He is responding to two recent, eviscerating pieces of in-depth reporting on how Trump ignored multiple warnings about the dangers posed by the virus, one on April 4 by The Washington Post and the other on Saturday by The New York Times. So, where’s the logic in criticizing Trump for too much looking backward when the press is looking in that direction, too? CNN’s Brian Stelter, chief media correspondent and host of the excellent Reliable Sources show, tweeted Monday night: “Every minute Trump spends talking about the past, he's not talking about the present or future. He's not talking about the pathway out of this.” That correct sentiment was met with some support but mostly with pot-and-kettle accusations from thread commenters.

 But looking backward is exactly what the news media need to do. For many reasons:

Washington Post, April 4

• This pandemic is the top story of a generation. It is essential to know as much about how it happened as possible, and as soon as possible.

• Today’s reporting is the foundation of the vital historical analysis to come.

• The president is trying to permanently rewrite events. That can’t happen.

• Stories such as these can bring pressure to bear – from the public, from other elected leaders, from administrative advisers – to address failings and respond differently going forward.

• The idea that such retrospection can wait for resolution is wrong. The insiders who can tell the story have clear recollections now. They may have motive to get the story out now -- if not to bring change then to clear their names. Plus, telltale documents and emails are available now, rather than hidden as they someday will be. 

• There’s an election in November. Voters need to know everything possible about the performance and fitness of their president in a catastrophe, because this one isn’t the last one.

The media can walk and chew gum at the same time. They can, and must, dissect the past, paint the present, and explore all paths for the future. It remains to be seen whether anyone can make the president do the same.

As virus swirls, President Trump is too dangerous for live TV

Bringing change to ingrained practices of the news media is slow and difficult, especially if it’s the fundamental premise that journalists should report all the news and let the audience do with it as they wish. But occasionally, when evidence of significant public harm begins to pile up, change can happen.

• Example: National TV networks eventually came to agree that on presidential election nights, immediate, sample-based declarations of state winners before polls closed could affect subsequent voter turnout. Now, they wait.

• Example: A growing number of editors have concluded that repeated and high-profile attention to the names and viewpoints of mass shooters may contribute to the motives of copycats. Now, more organizations practice restraint.

It’s time for another change.  TV networks should no longer show live broadcasts of presidential press conferences about the coronavirus. I am not alone in concluding this. 

No kind of misinformation from any government official is acceptable. But the news media can blunt some of it with aggressive follow-up questions, prominent fact checking and pointed criticism by designated commentators. With the coronavirus, though, the danger of distortion and inaccuracy is so great that normal journalistic counterbalances are not fast enough or effective enough. President Donald Trump puts some people’s health and even lives at risk when he downplays the spread of the disease, offers premature hope for drugs whose effectiveness and side effects are unproved, and overstates the availability of tests. This nationally broadcast behavior is why some people do not participate in social distancing. Why a doctor had to take to Twitter to warn of the potential danger of using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin together without a doctor’s consent. Why lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients who need hydroxychloroquine are having more trouble getting it. Why, in part, health officials in hard-hit areas have to ward off non-symptomatic test seekers in order to conserve tests and protective equipment.

Trump also suggested in a March 4 phone interview with Fox News that people with the coronavirus are able to go to work, demonstrating that he’s reckless in any live forum, not just press briefings.

That much of the nation is at home and watching increases the urgency for TV media to think about their ethical obligations and respond. They have other options:

• Show excerpts, even misleading ones, later, with introductions and elaborations that counter the bad information.

• Post full video online, with visitors having to click through a fact-laden disclaimer to access it.

• Consider emerging artificial intelligence technology that allows live or brief tape-delayed broadcast with instant fact checking in an on-screen side panel.

Offering any amplification whatsoever to Trump’s most mortifying statements is increasingly controversial among media professionals and independent commentators. But journalists should not deprive citizens of evidence they need – such as conduct in a crisis – to evaluate the fitness of this or any president.

I hold little hope, alas, that all major national TV networks will change. This is especially the case with Fox News, which uses multiple shows to advocate, seemingly conscience free, for Trump, including its journalistic malpractice during the first two months of the virus crisis. And that’s especially alarming, for those viewers are the ones most likely to believe Trump’s words and suffer the harm that may come from them.

Web comments: You know it’s bad when even Advance has had enough

Thursday’s action by Advance Local news websites, including AL.com, to eliminate readers’ ability to post comments beneath site stories was so jaw dropping that it reminded me of Playboy magazine’s decision to eliminate fully nude photos of women. Take what was once a cornerstone of your brand and business model and throw it away.

How well I remember, when I worked at AL.com in the 2000s, the emphasis on posting stories that would generate comments and other forms of reader “engagement.” Reporters were required to engage in a certain number of daily interactions with posters. This really wasn’t a bad thing, as it offered new and valuable chances for direct public feedback, a wider diversity of voices engaged in civic conversation, and even an occasional story tip. But then the lofty ideals got rained on by reality and washed away into a heap of mud and muck.

Website commentary deteriorated into a cesspool of misinformation, viciousness, physical threats, racism, misogyny and other forms of harm and ugliness that made me think some humans should not be allowed to reproduce. Efforts to moderate – meaning to remove comments that violated user agreements – were too inadequate to keep up with the volume of problems. Some Advance employees complained, but engagement was the priority of the corporate office.

Remarkably, Advance finally decided it had had enough. It cited multiple reasons:

• Some commenters have created a “toxic atmosphere” by engaging in “personal attacks and other undesirable behavior.” The influence of this factor is seen in Advance’s decision to also remove all comments from previously published stories.

• Only a “tiny fraction” of website visitors actually post comments. NJ.com reported its fraction as 0.03 percent. Cleveland.com reported 0.0005 percent, and so did AL.com -- during football season.

• Few registered users read the comments, which Advance attributed partly to the negativity of comment threads. NJ.com estimated 2 percent of its audience does so.

• More and more commenters prefer social media as the best forum, especially Facebook.

• The time and money spent on website moderation could be better used for news gathering. Advance used a combination of human moderators and algorithms. It employed an outside moderating company and I suspect Advance paid a lot of money for that company to serve an ever-dwindling piece of the chain’s websites. It likely didn’t make any financial sense anymore.

Advance is not alone in facing these issues or in trying to fight the problem with different moderation tactics such as algorithms, muting, flagging and up/down voting. And it’s not alone in making the ultimate decision that it did. A few notable others include the Buffalo News (2010), the Miami Herald (2013), Reuters (2014), the Chicago Sun-Times (2014), CNN (2014), NPR (2016) and the Atlantic (2018). All of these sought to steer reader comments to social media channels or required a social media channel log-in for site access.

The crucial difference with this new approach: the loss of poster anonymity. Anonymity allows a user with vital but sensitive information to share it without repercussions. More likely, though, anonymity brings out a poster’s inner troll. One 2019 study ($) showed that anonymous commenters not only were more likely to post uncivil statements than named commenters were, but also were less likely to show any of the defined traits of quality dialogue.

The negativity allowed by anonymity and encouraged by an inflammatory culture has consequences. Research published in 2015 ($) concluded that readers’ exposure to prejudiced comments caused them to post more prejudiced comments of their own and increased their negative attitudes toward the targeted group. A 2017 study ($) co-authored by my UA department colleague Chris Roberts, as well as a study in 2019, showed that uncivil comment streams tainted reader perceptions of the credibility of the news organization itself.

Online negativity also affects the journalists who create the original stories. It is common for them (and for the subjects of stories) to vow, “I don’t read the comments.” It’s a matter of self-well-being. Sometimes the impact of the most extreme online anger is highly alarming. Read, for instance, this powerful 2018 personal commentary by Alecia Archibald, wife of AL.com columnist John Archibald. Social media in the wake of Advance’s announcement made it clear that many of Advance’s journalists welcomed the end of site comments. They are not alone in the industry in their disdain.

Still, for all the horrors, news organizations carry an ethical obligation to provide avenues for citizens to talk to journalists. That’s why Advance and other outlets point to other options, such as email. Cleveland.com’s editor communicates with registered users by text message. But ethical practices and the community service mission demand places for public discussion as well, and news outlets’ social media platforms are increasingly becoming those forums. The funny thing is, though, these days some social media commenters, even with names attached, can act just as vilely as those anonymous posters in their basements.

By the way, about a year later Playboy changed its mind. I don’t think Advance Local will.

“At their best, the NJ.com comments were a place to learn more about a story, add or correct information that we missed and engage in a meaningful, respectful debate. At their worst, our comments were a place none of us would want to spend time. They were a place for racism, misogyny and hatred — a place to perpetuate the worst stereotypes about our state, our neighborhoods and our people. It was never our intent, but we ultimately gave a small number of people a license to say things they would never say in their workplace or at their dinner table without the cloak of anonymity.”

— Kevin Whitmer, senior vice president of NJ Advance Media

Mourning a tragic death doesn’t mean whitewashing a contradictory life

The question posed to two classes of college journalism, film and public relations students was this: If you’re the editor of the Los Angeles Times, and you’re directing first-day, deadline coverage of the shocking death of former LA Lakers superstar Kobe Bryant and eight others, do you mention the rape case?

I got a yes – after 10 minutes of noes. The majority view was that discussion of Bryant’s 2003 felony sexual assault charge would be warranted in a few days – after a respectful period had passed to allow the family, the local community and adoring fans to grieve and pay tribute. I didn’t feel then, or now, that I should criticize as journalistically irresponsible any attempt to think ethically and compassionately about a publication decision and who might be harmed by it. We need more of that in media. And it certainly seems out of proportion to brand such a decision as irresponsible after some far more egregious examples of irresponsibility by professional media outlets reporting on the story. 

Still, the decision of some news organizations to initially omit this chapter of Bryant’s life, or to give it a mention so brief that it smacked of forced obligation, seems like a failure. (Another example of skittishness: Before reversing itself, the Washington Post suspended a reporter who tweeted a link to an old article about the rape case. The Post has not been forthcoming as to reasons, but my belief is that Post management decided the reporter’s unilateral actions called a greater degree of attention to the case than the editors had agreed on in their carefully calibrated editorial judgment.)

It is certainly good and necessary to think of all the people who might be harmed or angered by dredging up 17-year-old history. Many media caught flak, including death threats, on social media for even brief references, which is not surprising considering society’s habit of glorifying sports stars and absolving them of their misdeeds. It’s easy to overlook, though, that not presenting a complete picture has repercussions, too. In seeing all the unmitigated adoration for Bryant, don’t the victim in this case and all sexual assault victims feel as if their trauma has been ignored or belittled? Nancy Armour of USA Today, for one, makes that point persuasively.

There are also repercussions for any news organization that paints a partial picture, even if that decision is made with reason and good intentions. While many readers and viewers expect a hero portrait, some others will ask: If you are protecting Kobe Bryant’s reputation, what other powerful figure’s reputation are you protecting? Other sports stars and celebrities? Politicians whose views you like? Business people who buy ads? The answer may be no one, but it’s the mere wondering by the audience that does the damage to a news organization’s integrity.

Of course, the black marks in any person’s history need to be evaluated for relevance and severity to know how much of a place they warrant in a biography, be it an obituary or not. In this case, there is no question that Bryant’s actions in that Colorado hotel room in 2003 were serious and remained impactful on his life until the end. This was not a case of confused communications; the victim suffered significant physical injury. In legal proceedings, Bryant’s attorneys engaged in aggressive victim blaming. The 19-year-old woman had to be hospitalized and eventually decided not to testify, leading prosecutors to drop the case. Bryant never changed his stance that he thought the encounter was consensual, acknowledging only that he eventually came to understand why the victim did not view it that way.

The case helped to create the person the world eulogized last week. He created the Black Mamba nickname in response, because the name Kobe Bryant had become too tainted. His advocacy for many good social causes sprang from multiple motives; desire for a rehabilitated image was one of them. Though some commentators did, I do not doubt the impact and sincerity of his charitable work. He advocated for women’s athletics, LGBTQ rights and other causes. He was a sincere campaigner for healthy environments for youth athletes, working with the Project Play program sponsored by the Aspen Institute, whose editorial director is my friend and former colleague Jon Solomon. 

Some of the more extreme social media commentators argued that Bryant was a rapist and so deserved no accolades in last week’s press coverage. That unconscionable episode of his life shouldn’t cancel the acknowledgments of his athletic achievements and good works. It just needed a whole lot more attention, reminding us bluntly that this was a man who made many people’s lives better, and ruined others’. Even in death, as kind as it seems, to neglect the whole portrait of a newsmaker or other person of prominence is a disservice to journalism, to the truth and to the usually mixed reality of the human story.

“We must include the totality of Bryant’s life if we seek to remember him as a person and not just a resume.”

— Sarah Spain, ESPN

A journalist's obituary that you'll be glad you read

Early in my journalism career, I wanted nothing more than to work for the Des Moines Register. Such was the worldview of a young reporter who attended college in Iowa and landed a few early jobs there. That aspiration sprung also from the stature of the Register. As geographically implausible as this might seem, the newspaper was nationally recognized for its work, highlighted by Pulitzer Prizes, its highly regarded Washington, D.C., bureau, and especially the clout gained from the outsized influence of the Iowa political caucuses every four years. During a presidential election cycle, there was no political reporter in America more important than the Register’s David Yepsen.

 I read the Register faithfully and exhaustively (including the sports section that was strangely but famously printed on peach-colored paper) because reading good journalism is essential to learning how to do it. I didn’t know at the time that a decline was coming a few years later when the Cowles family sold the paper to Gannett.

 One day, I spotted a rare, new byline. It belonged to a reporter named Ken Fuson. I had to read only a few more Fuson feature stories to realize the Register pulled its talent from a different stratosphere. He was a terrifically gifted storyteller. And that’s what everyone is affirming, sadly, in their eulogies. Ken Fuson’s funeral was Saturday. He was only 63.

 He ended his second tenure with the Register in 2008. A year ago, he learned he had liver disease. Knowing the prognosis, Fuson wrote his own obit, and the Register published it. You can read it here. It’s poignant. It’s hilarious. And it’s honest, as Fuson talks about the gambling addiction that he escaped only in the final decade of this life. If there’s one good thing about the industry shift from free to paid obits – another sacrifice of community service for money – it’s that courageous families who wish to do so can talk candidly about the demons of life that too often lead to destruction or tragedy. It’s not Too Much Information. If full disclosure motivates even one person to change, or even one family to intervene, then it’s a public service.

 Once again, the Des Moines Register offers inspiration, this time in a much more meaningful way.

Some hopefulness for local news. No, really.

Local journalism in America is in “crisis,” according to a report last month from the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy and research organization in Washington, D.C. Pen America, a nonprofit free-speech advocacy group in New York, followed a week later with its report that local news across the country faces “decimation.”

photo by susan lesch

I’d like to offer some optimism, please.

First, though, let’s be clear that U.S. communities do have a serious problem on their hands when it comes to sufficiency of local news reporting. Since 2004, 1,800 daily and weekly newspapers – that’s one out of every five – have gone out of business, according to a 2018 study by the University of North Carolina. At least 200 counties, including 91 counties in the South, have no newspaper to serve them. More significantly, many of the newspapers that remain, especially in urban areas, have abandoned or diminished their coverage of news in individual communities. It’s part of a broader shrinkage that includes reduced geography, fewer pages and publication dates, and especially destruction of newsroom staffs. In the past 15 years, according to Pen America, the number of newspaper newsroom jobs has shrunk by 47 percent. With so many fewer people to report and write, organizations gravitate toward stories of broad audience appeal. Working all day to produce a story of interest to only a single suburb is economically inefficient.

The result of closures and intentional neglect is “news deserts.” But do not imagine these deserts are only rural communities with two streets and one stoplight. Pen America and other researchers say underserved communities are urban as well, with many of them being minority, low-income communities where problems and issues cry out for attention.

Why does it matter that local news is diminishing? Because civic involvement and good governance diminish with it. Studying cities where local news outlets have closed or shrunk, researchers have reported numerous harmful effects, including lower voter turnout and fewer candidates for public office. Clara Hendrickson of Brookings wrote: “When important stories are not told, community members lack the information they need to participate in the political process and hold government and powerful private actors accountable.” In other words, local government officials and other local leaders who are corrupt, self-serving or merely inept are loving every minute of this.

Amid the direness, though, are hopeful signs and avenues for citizens to get the local news they need. Across the country, independent journalists with an entrepreneurial spirit are launching small, online news sites intended to fill the local coverage gaps created by the financial troubles of traditionally dominant dailies. They produce stories ranging from basic government meetings to in-depth investigations. Some choose topic niches, such as education. Some are for-profit, some are nonprofit (such as Birmingham Watch). Revenue sources include subscription sales, business sponsorships, public event hosting, investment money, and donations from journalism foundations and civic-minded individuals. (Ad sales? Not so much.) High-profile success stories include the Texas Tribune, the Voice of San Diego and the VT Digger in Vermont. Some have tried and failed, and no one claims that these ambitious startups have successfully replaced everything lost among legacy media. But it’s a promising development -- one that needs the readership and financial support of respective communities.

Other avenues to local news exist. Some resourceful college journalism schools are teaching students by letting them cover communities or statehouses, then syndicating those stories to professional media. Yes, students make mistakes, but I know first hand that many of them are highly capable. Citizens can report news, too. I know what’s going on in my municipal district because a citizen activist attends city meetings and writes a free email newsletter. Yes, there may be greater issues of accuracy or bias in news that’s not from professional journalists, but benefits outweigh risks.

“As local journalism declines, government officials conduct themselves with less integrity, efficiency and effectiveness, and corporate malfeasance goes unchecked.”

— Excerpt from Pen America report, "Losing the News: The decimation of local news and the search for solutions"

Local newspapers, particularly those owned by large public chains or hedge funds, deserve fault for neglect of local obligations. Occasional high-profile investigations, as praiseworthy as they are, do not nullify the need to report the daily functions of governments and other institutions that affect so many lives. Still, commendably, some newspapers are trying to support local news gathering in new ways.

Some (not all!) report increasing success with digital subscriptions, with the key being quality local news worth paying for. In general, though, that revenue hasn’t replaced money lost in print advertising, and the verdict remains unsettled on how much a paywall can support journalism at outlets that aren’t national. Some newspapers are soliciting philanthropy — either for a general fund or for specific reporting initiatives. Local partnerships are promising, too. Former media competitors can and should work together to accomplish reporting projects that would be tougher or impossible if done alone. Partnerships can connect local and national organizations, as well. The Alabama Media Group, for instance, formed a productive partnership with the ProPublica Local Reporting Network. One of my students this semester studied coverage of rural issues by selected local newspapers. All showed a dismal lack of attention except one. Why the strange aberration? It had formed a partnership with Report for America to embed a reporter who focused exclusively on covering the area’s neglected rural communities.

These and other new ideas are encouraging. But sometimes newness isn’t required. Sometimes a local audience just has to look around a little more. At least in large and medium sized communities, the market usually supports a host of local news sources, even if their scope of coverage and frequency of publication are less than that of the dominant daily. Let’s consider metro Birmingham. The Alabama Media Group’s coverage of the basic events of area governments has gradually become – how shall I put this? – highly selective. But there are other places to turn if you wish. I’ll focus on print and digital media because of their ability to offer more breadth than broadcast media (though WBHM public radio does very well at local news). I’m aware of the Birmingham Times, the Starnes newspapers (downtown, Homewood, Hoover, Mountain Brook, Vestavia, Trussville area, northern Shelby), the Over-the-Mountain Journal, the Trussville Tribune, the Leeds Tribune, the North Jefferson News, the Western Star, the Shelby County Reporter, Birmingham Watch and one that some people may not be familiar with: Patch.

The revitalized Patch local news network opened a “patch” in Birmingham in August 2017. It currently focuses on Hoover, Mountain Brook, Vestavia, Trussville and Pelham, with plans to expand to at least Irondale and Homewood. Its platforms include a website, an email newsletter and social media. The mission, according to Birmingham editor Michael Seale, is to report “hyperlocal” news. “That type of news has been gradually neglected over the years,” he said.

Looking over the totality of Birmingham media – geography, resources, commitment -- can every individual community feel informed and attended to? No, absolutely not. The answer would be the same elsewhere too. Just read those latest reports. But if news organizations both new and old deem it as important as they should, and if audiences respond with readership and money, local news coverage in America can avert crisis and decimation.

(UPDATED 1:37 p.m., Dec. 20, to add the North Jefferson News to the list of community news options in the Birmingham area.)