Kane was commenting on the violence that followed the Juneteenth Day festivities in Milwaukee.
Of course, it was that video of the merciless beating of Pat Kasthurirangaian, a motorist unlucky to be caught in the mob of thugs and picked to be their victim, that captured the attention of the nation and brought disgrace to Milwaukee.
So Kane gave his readers a glimpse into the thought processes of these ruthless thugs, these conscienceless brutes.
Kane writes:
The few who ruin it for everybody have been such a big part of activities in Milwaukee's black community for the past few years that, unfairly or not, they have come to define "black people" for many Milwaukeeans. As it happens, I recently managed to make contact with this shadowy group of miscreants in order to ask some important questions:
Me: Thanks to all of you for agreeing to an interview. First of all, I want to know if you young people realize the damage you are doing to the reputation of black people in Milwaukee.
The Few Who Ruin It for Everybody: "What do you mean?"
Q. When you act up after Juneteenth Day - like dragging a motorist out of his car and beating him senseless - that sends a scary message to everybody who sees it on the news. Don't you realize that?
A. "Yeah, we do. It's kinda cool, really. That means everybody is scared of us."
Q. Is that what you want, for people to be afraid of you?
A. "Sure. Why not?"
The question and answer session goes on.
It concludes dramatically:
Q. What is it going to take to reach out to you guys in order to be hopeful about the future?
A. "Why do you want to reach us? Like you said, we're the dropouts, the ones without good parents, the ones who don't really think much about the future beyond the next day. Plus, we can get all the guns we want. What good do you think reaching out to us is going to do?"
Q. So, it's hopeless?
A. "Not as long as we're the few. When we become the many, that's when you will really have problems."
How enlightening!
How powerful!
And as it turns out, how FAKE!
Charlie has an e-mail exchange between Kane and retired journalist Ray Py.
Py called Kane on his brand of journalism. He took issue with what he believed was a fraudulent interview presented as factual.
After Kane admitted to Py that he hadn't really "managed to make contact with this shadowy group of miscreants," Py replied:
As a retired journalist, I knew exactly what you were doing and that still doesn't make it right. If I were your editor and you handed me this drivel, I would have told you to get out from behind the computer, put your street shoes on and find these men. Learn what you can in a "real" interview instead of what you have put together in a fake one. Then you would be making a difference. Gene, we need to talk to these people and these people need to talk to us. We need dialog and we need it in a real sense. I thought briefly when I saw your column Sunday that you had that message. I think you owe us all an apology for not doing your job.
Ray PY
Kane playing loose with the facts is particularly noteworthy given his previous criticism of bloggers, attacking their lack of standards and dismissing their credibility.
In a column from January 2006, Kane took on bloggers in general as part of his feud with Jessica McBride.
After writing a column for almost 10 years, I've developed a pretty thick skin when it comes to personal attacks.
Reading negative blogs is no different from the talk radio squawkers in town who have attempted to paint me as a racist ideologue for years, even as they get tripped up with their own personal scandals involving hate speech suspensions and libel lawsuits.
The blogosphere has no sheriff to police most of the comments or statements. But I predict the legal system eventually will step in to restrain some of the more outrageous commentary sent out over the blogosphere.
Some of this stuff is just too ugly to let go unchecked.
Nobody checks your credentials - or your credibility - at the blogosphere door.
Blah, blah, blah.
Eugene Kane, the stellar journalist, the man of integrity.
Yeah, right.
He whines about no one checking the credentials or credibility of bloggers.
Apparently, no at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is too concerned about credibility, at least when it comes to Kane's stuff.
Kane did not clearly inform his readers that the interview was FAKE.
In fact, he went out of his way to mislead readers, saying that he "managed to make contact with this shadowy group of miscreants in order to ask some important questions."
Kane can interview his imaginary friends. He can write his questions and record the answers provided by the miscreants in his head.
What he can't do is pass it off as reality.
He failed to clarify that the interview was his creation. It was creative writing, not reporting.
What was that about the blogosphere having "no sheriff to police" it?
What was that about no one checking bloggers' credentials - or credibility - at the blogosphere door?
Kane does owe his readers an apology. His editor also owes the readers an apology.
I won't hold my breath.
__________________________
It took a week for the Journal Sentinel to get Kane to clarify, and express sympathy for the stupidity of his readers.
Tacked on to the end of his column yesterday, July 1:
The Few Who Ruin It for Everybody: Lots of readers thought last Sunday's column was a powerful statement on the troubles with disruptive young black people in Milwaukee. But some were confused about whether the column was written from an actual interview with a group of specific young people who talked about their viewpoints.
It wasn't.
The column - you can read it at www.jsonline.com/links - was my attempt to address the issue of young blacks who find creative ways to spoil positive events in the black community, such as the beating of an innocent motorist at Juneteenth Day. Although based on my experiences talking with young people about violence in the city, the dialogue was never meant to be taken literally as an actual interview.
I was surprised that some readers misinterpreted my writing device, which was admittedly more literary than journalistic. I apologize for any confusion.
It would have been nice for Kane to say he apologized for misleading his readers by stating unequivocally that he "recently managed to make contact with this shadowy group of miscreants in order to ask some important questions."
Instead, he preferred to diss his readers for failing to pick up on his use of a literary device.
At least Kane did take responsibility for the confusion.
With the Journal Sentinel's dramatic loss of subscribers, I guess it makes sense that the decision was made for Kane to clear up the confusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment