I've just been catching up on the Left-Right drama taking place among some Wisconsin bloggers, specifically the vile attacks on Jessica McBride by Illusory Tenant and Jim Bouman.
There's debate about which side is uglier.
Are the liberal bloggers more offensive? Do conservatives go over the line more often?
Each side can cite examples of foul cyber-behavior. Others have done that already so I won't bother to add to the list.
Naturally, I'm biased about which side stoops lower. I've been the target of some horrible attacks. I've experienced really hateful stuff, some from anonymous sources and some from sources that I could hold accountable.
If I feel myself becoming desensitized to the vitriol that too often passes for discourse on the Internet, I will leave and not return.
I refuse to accept terribly degrading names, particularly demeaning insults, extremely vulgar language, cyberstalking, and physical threats as typical, everyday Internet behavior.
I see that stuff as a really disturbing social trend, the coarsening of the culture.
It's as if some people find it acceptable to check their consciences at the door when they enter cyberspace.
The comfort of supposed anonymity brings out the worst in some people. There's nothing about the Internet in itself that creates their detestable behavior. But I think it provides some really sick people with an opportunity to express a side of their true selves that might otherwise remain hidden.
Illusory Tenant's use of the C-word to refer to Jessica McBride is an example.
After Illusory Tenant issued an apology of sorts, JIM BOUMAN goes beyond using vulgarities and strikes at McBrides's family, her children. That speaks volumes about Jim Bouman the person, not Jim Bouman as an Internet personality.
(Note: Bouman has also apologized to McBride.)
I can empathize with her. One's family, especially one's children, should be strictly off limits. Debates can become heated. There can be bad feelings; but the feuding should stop with the parties involved and not ensnare innocents.
What troubles me most is the complete absence of shame, the "I can say what I want and no one will ever find out" attitude.
I don't care whether one's real identity is a secret to most. Only a bad person would spew insults and mercilessly harass another human being rather than dealing with disagreements in a civil fashion.
When ADULTS act like junior high school bullies, there's a problem, a serious lack of maturity and character and decency.
Just because one is tapping away at a keyboard and staring at a monitor rather than speaking while looking into someone's eyes does NOT permit one to chuck one's values.
Things are said and done online that probably wouldn't happen in face to face interaction. Hate seems to come too easily.
I think the ugliness flows because of a sense of detachment. There's a type of dehumanization that occurs in the absence of flesh and blood.
Never forget you're interacting with real people.
Showing posts with label Jessica McBride. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jessica McBride. Show all posts
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Mark Belling Slams WTMJ
Mark Belling waited until the last half hour of his three hour show to address the WTMJ shakeup.
He gave his audience a tease at the beginning of his show that he would be discussing the matter in the final hour.
I guess the firing of Jessica McBride and the local talk radio wars must interest a lot of people.
Basically, Belling charged WTMJ with lying.
He said that WTMJ general manager Jon Schweitzer was backtracking from previous comments about the firing of Jessica McBride, citing an email.
Belling charged that Schweitzer was trying to make it appear that a now controversial segment McBride did last week had nothing to do with her firing.
He believes that WTMJ was going to fire her anyway, but that the station used the incident as an excuse to take her off the air, that it did factor into the timing of her dismissal.
Belling claimed that now the management was sanitizing the reason that McBride was fired.
He went on to say that McBride had emailed him. She told Belling that she was asked by WTMJ management to talk less about conservative issues (President Bush, Jim Doyle, taxes) and more about lifestyle issues.
Supposedly, WTMJ's focus group research has shown people want less conservative talk.
Really? I wonder about the makeup of that focus group.
I haven't listened to Dennis Miller, but I'm guessing that his show is conservative. How does the change in personnel play into WTMJ's desire to diversify the content of its programming?
Belling did address the comments that Charlie Sykes made this morning.
Belling said that when he discussed the McBride matter last week, he didn't want to be too critical of Sykes, given his recent personal loss. However, today he would not cut Sykes slack for failing to strongly criticize WTMJ management. He said that Sykes has enough clout at the station to throw his weight around.
As far as Sykes' suggestion that Belling should convince WISN to hire McBride, Belling disregarded that completely. He didn't address it all.
In sum, Belling accused WTMJ of silencing conservative voices, a trend in radio that he fears. He claimed the station was lying about its reasons for letting McBride go.
Again, that's a difficult case to make, since Dennis Miller can't be doing a Gordon Hinckley "Ask your Neighbor" sort of show. And Miller isn't a Clark Howard type. I'm sure Miller will be talking about Bush.
Belling said that he's not afraid to criticize his management when he disagrees and he chastised on-air personalities at WTMJ for being afraid to do the same.
To be continued?
He gave his audience a tease at the beginning of his show that he would be discussing the matter in the final hour.
I guess the firing of Jessica McBride and the local talk radio wars must interest a lot of people.
Basically, Belling charged WTMJ with lying.
He said that WTMJ general manager Jon Schweitzer was backtracking from previous comments about the firing of Jessica McBride, citing an email.
Belling charged that Schweitzer was trying to make it appear that a now controversial segment McBride did last week had nothing to do with her firing.
He believes that WTMJ was going to fire her anyway, but that the station used the incident as an excuse to take her off the air, that it did factor into the timing of her dismissal.
Belling claimed that now the management was sanitizing the reason that McBride was fired.
He went on to say that McBride had emailed him. She told Belling that she was asked by WTMJ management to talk less about conservative issues (President Bush, Jim Doyle, taxes) and more about lifestyle issues.
Supposedly, WTMJ's focus group research has shown people want less conservative talk.
Really? I wonder about the makeup of that focus group.
I haven't listened to Dennis Miller, but I'm guessing that his show is conservative. How does the change in personnel play into WTMJ's desire to diversify the content of its programming?
Belling did address the comments that Charlie Sykes made this morning.
Belling said that when he discussed the McBride matter last week, he didn't want to be too critical of Sykes, given his recent personal loss. However, today he would not cut Sykes slack for failing to strongly criticize WTMJ management. He said that Sykes has enough clout at the station to throw his weight around.
As far as Sykes' suggestion that Belling should convince WISN to hire McBride, Belling disregarded that completely. He didn't address it all.
In sum, Belling accused WTMJ of silencing conservative voices, a trend in radio that he fears. He claimed the station was lying about its reasons for letting McBride go.
Again, that's a difficult case to make, since Dennis Miller can't be doing a Gordon Hinckley "Ask your Neighbor" sort of show. And Miller isn't a Clark Howard type. I'm sure Miller will be talking about Bush.
Belling said that he's not afraid to criticize his management when he disagrees and he chastised on-air personalities at WTMJ for being afraid to do the same.
To be continued?
Jessica McBride, Charlie Sykes, and Mark Belling: As the Radio Dial Turns
UPDATE, June 19, 2009: Ed Flynn and Jessica McBride
_________________
Milwaukee's Newsradio 620 WTMJ-AM and FM station WKTI had a massive personnel shakeup last week.
Gene Mueller of WKTI left the morning post that he's held for 25 years to join John Jagler as the morning guy on WTMJ.
He replaced Ken Herrera. Ken was axed.
The changes didn't stop there. Jessica McBride, nighttime talker in WTMJ's 8:00 to 11:00 PM slot when no sports broadcasts were aired, also was canned.
Her replacement? Dennis Miller.
Many listeners weren't happy.
Read some of their reactions.
Lefty bloggers, on the other hand, celebrated McBride's departure.
They had stalked her, dissecting her every word. They went after her with an almost religious zealotry. They declared virtual Jihad.
Read these positively obsessive rantings.
Really creepy.
Some anti-McBride bloggers created a controversy, the Jasmine Owens matter.
Read more.
My opinion on that: There's no question that McBride was unfairly accused of mocking 4-year-old Owens' death.
On the personnel side of things, I think WTMJ made a mistake by taking McBride off the air.
As much as I like Dennis Miller in general (I haven't heard his radio show), it was good to have a LOCAL talker and a woman's voice at the station.
A syndicated show, particularly at that hour, is just a regurgitation of the stuff that talk radio listeners have heard all day. McBride offered a live, fresh, LOCAL perspective.
This story doesn't stop there.
Last week, Mark Belling spoke out about the firing of McBride. (He had also noted that some in the Hispanic community weren't happy with the firing of Ken Herrera.)
Belling had sharp words for WTMJ talker Charlie Sykes. He belittled Sykes for not defending Jessica McBride.
Today, Sykes fired back, and threw the ball in Belling's court.
Listen to Sykes' response.
He challenges Belling to "demand that the management of WISN radio hire Jessica McBride."
Sykes said that if Belling really feels so strongly about McBride being removed from the air, then he should use his weight to get her back on Milwaukee radio and put her on his show.
Will Belling respond to Sykes or will he avoid the challenge, claiming ignorance?
I've heard him say that he doesn't listen to WTMJ, which is quite surprising given that he's so quick to criticize the station and mock its personalities.
We'll have to see what happens next.
Will Belling be a man and walk the walk; or will he cower?
The bottom line:
Whenever Milwaukee radio loses a LOCAL voice, that's bad for the community -- metro Milwaukee and beyond.
I suspect that Jessica McBride will continue to influence local media and raise issues that matter to the community, whether she's on the radio or not.
That's good for Milwaukee.
_________________
Milwaukee's Newsradio 620 WTMJ-AM and FM station WKTI had a massive personnel shakeup last week.
Gene Mueller of WKTI left the morning post that he's held for 25 years to join John Jagler as the morning guy on WTMJ.
He replaced Ken Herrera. Ken was axed.
The changes didn't stop there. Jessica McBride, nighttime talker in WTMJ's 8:00 to 11:00 PM slot when no sports broadcasts were aired, also was canned.
Her replacement? Dennis Miller.
Many listeners weren't happy.
Read some of their reactions.
Lefty bloggers, on the other hand, celebrated McBride's departure.
They had stalked her, dissecting her every word. They went after her with an almost religious zealotry. They declared virtual Jihad.
Read these positively obsessive rantings.
Really creepy.
Some anti-McBride bloggers created a controversy, the Jasmine Owens matter.
Read more.
My opinion on that: There's no question that McBride was unfairly accused of mocking 4-year-old Owens' death.
On the personnel side of things, I think WTMJ made a mistake by taking McBride off the air.
As much as I like Dennis Miller in general (I haven't heard his radio show), it was good to have a LOCAL talker and a woman's voice at the station.
A syndicated show, particularly at that hour, is just a regurgitation of the stuff that talk radio listeners have heard all day. McBride offered a live, fresh, LOCAL perspective.
This story doesn't stop there.
Last week, Mark Belling spoke out about the firing of McBride. (He had also noted that some in the Hispanic community weren't happy with the firing of Ken Herrera.)
Belling had sharp words for WTMJ talker Charlie Sykes. He belittled Sykes for not defending Jessica McBride.
Today, Sykes fired back, and threw the ball in Belling's court.
Listen to Sykes' response.
He challenges Belling to "demand that the management of WISN radio hire Jessica McBride."
Sykes said that if Belling really feels so strongly about McBride being removed from the air, then he should use his weight to get her back on Milwaukee radio and put her on his show.
Will Belling respond to Sykes or will he avoid the challenge, claiming ignorance?
I've heard him say that he doesn't listen to WTMJ, which is quite surprising given that he's so quick to criticize the station and mock its personalities.
We'll have to see what happens next.
Will Belling be a man and walk the walk; or will he cower?
The bottom line:
Whenever Milwaukee radio loses a LOCAL voice, that's bad for the community -- metro Milwaukee and beyond.
I suspect that Jessica McBride will continue to influence local media and raise issues that matter to the community, whether she's on the radio or not.
That's good for Milwaukee.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Mentors, Saviors
Eugene Kane wrote a nice column about how important it is to not give up on kids that have made poor choices.
He points out, "Even if they've been in trouble with the law, hopefully they are still young enough to learn from their mistakes."
Kane detailed his participation in a Black History Month program.
Kane makes a compelling case for responsible adults to serve as mentors to at risk kids in the African-American community.
If only Kane would put his words into action.
About a year ago, Jessica McBride blew the whistle on Kane's hypocrisy.
I wonder. Since then, did he have a change of heart and become a mentor himself?
These kids need far more than a Black History Month program. They need the presence of adults in their lives, to care for them and help them to succeed.
I hope Kane is now practicing what he preaches.
He points out, "Even if they've been in trouble with the law, hopefully they are still young enough to learn from their mistakes."
Kane detailed his participation in a Black History Month program.
The room where I went to speak Tuesday was filled with approximately 60 kids - mostly African-American - exhibiting that time-honored look of boredom that young people everywhere get whenever adults are trying to jam some sense into their heads.
But attendance at this Black History Month program was required. The location was a juvenile corrections center on the north side; most of the youths have been in serious trouble for incidents that landed them in facilities like Ethan Allen for boys or Southern Oaks for girls.
...Patricia Bridges, a parole officer who has coordinated the Black History Month program for the Milwaukee juvenile corrections division for eight years, thinks these young black people needed - and deserved - better direction from the adults in their lives.
..."You have to show them someone cares," she insisted. "They need something to hold on to daily. Some of them want to do right, but they get swayed by other people who don't want to do right."
That's why this particular Black History Month program was something the kids in the room needed to sit through, even if they wanted to be somewhere else. At least in this room, there were adults who cared for them and wanted them to succeed.
Kane makes a compelling case for responsible adults to serve as mentors to at risk kids in the African-American community.
If only Kane would put his words into action.
About a year ago, Jessica McBride blew the whistle on Kane's hypocrisy.
I wonder. Since then, did he have a change of heart and become a mentor himself?
These kids need far more than a Black History Month program. They need the presence of adults in their lives, to care for them and help them to succeed.
I hope Kane is now practicing what he preaches.
Monday, January 9, 2006
Update: BLOG WARS
The latest on the Milwaukee Blog Wars can be found at McBride's Media Matters.
Jessica McBride has asked the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to print a retraction for the comments Eugene Kane made about her yesterday in his column.
In addition, the two exchanged e-mails today.
From Kane:
Jessica
Seriously, did you really think you could take a pretty harsh shot at me and my integrity and expect me not to respond?
You HAVE changed, don’t deny it. That’s your right. Maybe it is a sign of your personal growth.
But understand, you threw the first punch. (Actually, you slammed me before in your blog but I decided to let it slide. Not this time.)
I’m from North Philly; nobody gets a free shot at me without getting smacked right back.
Feel free to post it if you want.
Eugene Kane
Columnist
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Although Kane gave McBride the green light to post his message, I feel like I'm eavesdropping on a personal matter here.
Most likely that's because, to a certain extent, it is a personal matter between the former Journal Sentinel colleagues.
However, when public figures have squabbles, they carry more weight, particurlarly when the personal integrity and character of the individuals are the issue. They each have an interest in maintaining and defending the persona on which they've built their careers.
At least Kane is acknowledging that he gave McBride quite a hit. Unfortunately, he makes no apologies. He justifies his column slamming McBride, conservative talk radio, and conservative bloggers by pointing out that he's from North Philly.
Apparently, in North Philly, unfounded personal attacks are proper etiquette when one has been admonished for questionable behavior.
Kane's "you did it first" line comes off as childish. It makes me wonder whether he would have made a good mentor for "Sam."
As McBride points out, we'll never know if Kane could have been a positive influence in the teen's life. Could he have helped to steer "Sam" off the path that led him to prison?
It's the tragedy of what might have been.
McBride's reply to Kane's e-mail:
Gene,
You made a good point about my not knowing if you've mentored other youths. If you have, good for you, that's a great thing. But I feel like it could have made a real difference to "Sam" had a professional black male taken any interest in him. I was disappointed no one would.
And it bothered me alot that you didn't confine your criticism to me, but rather implied that Sam was destined to fail and not the "type" who could be helped. I don't believe that was the case at all. I do not believe he was a person not worthy of spending time on. You said you were right and point out he ended up in prison almost as if to say, See I was right! I don't think that's fair.
Secondly, you stated in the paper that I said something - or "agreed" to something - that I never did. I never agreed that talk radio were "ridiculous social provocateurs" nor did I ever say or think that...
Those two things are what bother me.
Jessica
I'm glad that Kane and McBride are communicating. She responded honestly, with substance and respect, as opposed to Kane's juvenile approach.
(I hope Dr. Phil doesn't get wind of this and schedule a special hour with Jessica and Eugene, overflowing with his trademark goofy analogies and psychobabble.)
McBride then gives her reaction to the e-mail exchange:
Since Eugene now acknowledges he was just trying to get back at me, will the Journal Sentinel give me my retraction now (I officially requested one from the editors both yesterday and again today)?
A retraction?
No way. I would be amazed. It wouldn't fit the agenda of a liberal outlet like the Journal Sentinel.
I have nothing against Eugene Kane personally. In the newsroom, I did get along with him as a person, as I said before. I don't let politics stand in the way of personal interaction with co-workers. In other words, I have friends who are liberal, conservative, Independent, apolitical, religious, secular, and so on. I don't make a person's politics a litmus test for friendship or co-worker interaction. In person, Eugene is a more thoughtful and open-minded individual than he often seems in print. In person, he's sort of soft-spoken actually and he doesn't run around ranting and raving. But I don't agree with Eugene's politics, generally speaking. I did not then, and I do not now. I tried to avoid getting into such political discussions when I was at the paper. I HAVE changed - from a reporter who was not allowed to express a political point of view because I was a reporter - to an opinion writer who does. So, I am not surprised people think I've changed because I didn't run around spouting political beliefs in the newsroom. Why do I think people wouldn't be surprised if a former reporter started a blog with liberal beliefs?
Here McBride shows her class by giving her readers some insight into the Eugene Kane that Journal Sentinel readers don't get the chance to see.
Given Kane's refusal to back away from his personal attack and his failure to even address the mentoring matter, I think McBride was very kind in her comments. I don't detect any bitterness.
But I do not appreciate Eugene making thousands of readers think we had a conversation that did not exist to get back at me because of my blog. For that, I want a retraction. And, as for Sam, who knows how things would have turned out if a male, particularly a professional black male, had taken some consistent time out of their busy day for him. I guess we will never know. And that's the real tragedy here.
I'm glad McBride isn't backing down from her demand for a retraction. I think the Journal Sentinel owes her one.
If Kane had as much class as McBride, he'd address the issue in a column. Something about personal responsibility and integrity would be nice, or perhaps something about the importance of putting words into action.
There's no question that even if the newspaper won't print a retraction, and Kane doesn't have the decency to clarify the matter in a column, McBride has won this Blog War.
I don't think this was about taking a shot at Kane. It was about holding him accountable.
There's a difference.
"Taking a shot" implies malice. "Holding him accountable" refers to truth and justice; not for McBride's own benefit, but for kids like "Sam."
When all is said and done, I don't really care about determining the winner of the Blog War.
Jessica McBride has asked the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to print a retraction for the comments Eugene Kane made about her yesterday in his column.
In addition, the two exchanged e-mails today.
From Kane:
Jessica
Seriously, did you really think you could take a pretty harsh shot at me and my integrity and expect me not to respond?
You HAVE changed, don’t deny it. That’s your right. Maybe it is a sign of your personal growth.
But understand, you threw the first punch. (Actually, you slammed me before in your blog but I decided to let it slide. Not this time.)
I’m from North Philly; nobody gets a free shot at me without getting smacked right back.
Feel free to post it if you want.
Eugene Kane
Columnist
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Although Kane gave McBride the green light to post his message, I feel like I'm eavesdropping on a personal matter here.
Most likely that's because, to a certain extent, it is a personal matter between the former Journal Sentinel colleagues.
However, when public figures have squabbles, they carry more weight, particurlarly when the personal integrity and character of the individuals are the issue. They each have an interest in maintaining and defending the persona on which they've built their careers.
At least Kane is acknowledging that he gave McBride quite a hit. Unfortunately, he makes no apologies. He justifies his column slamming McBride, conservative talk radio, and conservative bloggers by pointing out that he's from North Philly.
Apparently, in North Philly, unfounded personal attacks are proper etiquette when one has been admonished for questionable behavior.
Kane's "you did it first" line comes off as childish. It makes me wonder whether he would have made a good mentor for "Sam."
As McBride points out, we'll never know if Kane could have been a positive influence in the teen's life. Could he have helped to steer "Sam" off the path that led him to prison?
It's the tragedy of what might have been.
McBride's reply to Kane's e-mail:
Gene,
You made a good point about my not knowing if you've mentored other youths. If you have, good for you, that's a great thing. But I feel like it could have made a real difference to "Sam" had a professional black male taken any interest in him. I was disappointed no one would.
And it bothered me alot that you didn't confine your criticism to me, but rather implied that Sam was destined to fail and not the "type" who could be helped. I don't believe that was the case at all. I do not believe he was a person not worthy of spending time on. You said you were right and point out he ended up in prison almost as if to say, See I was right! I don't think that's fair.
Secondly, you stated in the paper that I said something - or "agreed" to something - that I never did. I never agreed that talk radio were "ridiculous social provocateurs" nor did I ever say or think that...
Those two things are what bother me.
Jessica
I'm glad that Kane and McBride are communicating. She responded honestly, with substance and respect, as opposed to Kane's juvenile approach.
(I hope Dr. Phil doesn't get wind of this and schedule a special hour with Jessica and Eugene, overflowing with his trademark goofy analogies and psychobabble.)
McBride then gives her reaction to the e-mail exchange:
Since Eugene now acknowledges he was just trying to get back at me, will the Journal Sentinel give me my retraction now (I officially requested one from the editors both yesterday and again today)?
A retraction?
No way. I would be amazed. It wouldn't fit the agenda of a liberal outlet like the Journal Sentinel.
I have nothing against Eugene Kane personally. In the newsroom, I did get along with him as a person, as I said before. I don't let politics stand in the way of personal interaction with co-workers. In other words, I have friends who are liberal, conservative, Independent, apolitical, religious, secular, and so on. I don't make a person's politics a litmus test for friendship or co-worker interaction. In person, Eugene is a more thoughtful and open-minded individual than he often seems in print. In person, he's sort of soft-spoken actually and he doesn't run around ranting and raving. But I don't agree with Eugene's politics, generally speaking. I did not then, and I do not now. I tried to avoid getting into such political discussions when I was at the paper. I HAVE changed - from a reporter who was not allowed to express a political point of view because I was a reporter - to an opinion writer who does. So, I am not surprised people think I've changed because I didn't run around spouting political beliefs in the newsroom. Why do I think people wouldn't be surprised if a former reporter started a blog with liberal beliefs?
Here McBride shows her class by giving her readers some insight into the Eugene Kane that Journal Sentinel readers don't get the chance to see.
Given Kane's refusal to back away from his personal attack and his failure to even address the mentoring matter, I think McBride was very kind in her comments. I don't detect any bitterness.
But I do not appreciate Eugene making thousands of readers think we had a conversation that did not exist to get back at me because of my blog. For that, I want a retraction. And, as for Sam, who knows how things would have turned out if a male, particularly a professional black male, had taken some consistent time out of their busy day for him. I guess we will never know. And that's the real tragedy here.
I'm glad McBride isn't backing down from her demand for a retraction. I think the Journal Sentinel owes her one.
If Kane had as much class as McBride, he'd address the issue in a column. Something about personal responsibility and integrity would be nice, or perhaps something about the importance of putting words into action.
There's no question that even if the newspaper won't print a retraction, and Kane doesn't have the decency to clarify the matter in a column, McBride has won this Blog War.
I don't think this was about taking a shot at Kane. It was about holding him accountable.
There's a difference.
"Taking a shot" implies malice. "Holding him accountable" refers to truth and justice; not for McBride's own benefit, but for kids like "Sam."
When all is said and done, I don't really care about determining the winner of the Blog War.
What matters is that this dispute served to highlight the desperate need for intervention in the lives of a generation of criminals in the making.
One thing is indisputable: "Sam" was the loser in all of this.
Sadly, there are so many others in Milwaukee and inner cities around the country likely to make similar poor decisions and follow in "Sam's" footsteps.The relevant question is: Who cares enough to take the time to save them?
Sunday, January 8, 2006
BLOG WARS
There is a battle being waged in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin media, and a lot of bad blood is spilling.
The Old Media, also known as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and the New Media, local bloggers and conservative talk radio hosts, are at each others' throats.
It all started with a blog entry written by former Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Jessica McBride.
On her blog, McBride's Media Matters, she began telling the story of "Sam," an African-American teen from Milwaukee's inner city.
(Excerpts)
I have decided to write this story because I learned so much about the crisis going on in Milwaukee's inner city through "Sam" - the nuances of it, and the intractability of it. It's particularly important right now in the wake of the Samuel McClain beating, and I have a vehicle through which to tell this story, so I will.
...It starts out just another day covering homicide in Milwaukee's inner city. I am a police reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel when I first meet a boy named Sam. It's 2001, and a sunny day in June, and I am covering a rash of homicides.
...A boy named Sam puts dried flowers on a fence for Rob, the murder victim, half a block down, so I stop to talk with him. They'd grown up together, Sam says, from childhood on, although they'd lost touch in recent years. He is a skinny youth with limpid, childish brown eyes. They are soft and liquid, filled with innocence and warmth. Later I'd learn they could just as quickly harden into obsidian marbles when he is brooding and angry. But on this day, Sam is all wide smiles, big talk, and friendly potential.
...Standing by the fence, Sam tells me about his life, volunteering horrendous things way too freely and casually, as if he doesn't know they aren't the norm. He says he was once shot by a stray bullet, claims his mother was murdered, and comments that Rob was the eighth friend he knows who died violently. I will learn only some of this is true. He's never been shot by a stray bullet, although he was stabbed by an uncle and has the scar on his stomach to prove it. ... And, it's true: His mother isn't here anymore.
...I take Sam's phone number that day by the fence. I might write a story about him, I decide. I want to write a story about an inner city youth just trying to make it. Not the star. Not the criminal. Not the good kid or the bad kid but the kid living in the grays in between.
...I decide to stop by Sam's house and talk with his grandmother about my idea for a story.
...Sam's grandmother asks me to help Sam find a mentor. He had one once, through Children's Court, but the man got too busy and stopped seeing him, and that hurt him. I tell her that I'll help him find one. That's getting a bit too involved in the story but something inside me snaps. I'd covered the stories of too many Sams and too many Robs and I wanted to rewrite the ending of this one.
...But what could a white female in her 30s offer a young African-American male? Sam needed a male role model, I thought. Preferably, an African-American one.
I ask two African-American males at the Journal Sentinel to mentor Sam. Both are prominent columnists who are constantly weighing in on the problems of racism and inner city poverty in Milwaukee.
But neither one is interested in mentoring Sam. They brush me off immediately. Too busy, says one. "If I wanted a child, I'd have one," says another matter-of-factly. In my mind, both of those columnists forfeit the right to pontificate about how others have turned their backs on black, inner city youths. Wishful thinking. They still do it today.
In two paragraphs, war is declared.
One of the columnists, Eugene Kane, has come out swinging.
Kane responds in today's Journal Sentinel, attacking McBride, Milwaukee talk radio personalities, and conservative bloggers.
In "Blogging gives everyone a voice," he writes:
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, has it made a sound?
In a nutshell, that's what I think about most blogs.
The Internet is overrun with blogs. These personal Web sites are written by both amateur and professional journalists with an ax to grind or strong opinions they are dying to express. Many of them are read by only a small group of readers, sometimes just family or friends.
Despite the current hype over bloggers taking on the mainstream media - "MSM" to many bloggers - I believe there's little chance that blogging will replace traditional forms of reporting and commentary. At least, not in the near future.
But yes, they are making an impact.
There's something sad about watching the slow death of the Old Media. (Or should I say, "MSM"?)
Whether it's local or global liberal news outlets, they are all having the same difficulty coming to terms with the fact that their monopoly is history. The fat lady sang. It's over.
Poor Eugene.
I started my "Raising Kane" blog on JSOnline about a month ago, mainly out of desire to explore this new and exciting form of expression and counteract some of the rabid partisan constituency that wants to dominate the field.
"Rabid partisan constituency"?
Is he talking about Daily Kos or AMERICAblog?
Here in Milwaukee there's an active blogging community, particularly when it comes to politics.
Some of it is a byproduct of right-wing talk radio, which makes reading those blogs akin to listening to four hours of our local blowhards rail against liberals, Gov. Jim Doyle, Sen. Russ Feingold, Ald. Michael McGee and the other usual suspects.
It's my humble opinion that the best blogs - like mine at Raising Kane - don't rant and rave as much as refer readers to interesting stories and commentary from other sources.
Blogging is best when it's a clearinghouse for ideas rather than a long-winded exercise in self-congratulatory rhetoric.
This is really ironic.
If you're looking for "long-winded" and "self-congratulatory rhetoric" from Wisconsin media, look no further than Eugene Kane.
If you're in the Milwaukee area looking for a "local blowhard," Kane's your man.
That's what makes his dismissal of McBride's request so slimy. The hypocrisy oozes.
Kane and Milwaukee local talk radio hosts have been taking swipes at each other for years. His shot at them is nothing new. However, Kane is stepping into potentially dangerous territory by attacking conservative bloggers.
Like so many in the Old Media and the OLD OLD Media (Dan Rather), he underestimates the influence of the New Media. There's a reason it's called the WORLD WIDE WEB.
The libs don't learn from the past. They seem plagued by a disorder that compels them to live in it - Iraq is Vietnam, every scandal and non-scandal is Watergate, etc.
Of all their flaws, that probably will be the one that leads to the libs' complete destruction.
Nobody checks your credentials - or your credibility - at the blogosphere door.
Earth to Kane...
Apparently, he hasn't been paying attention to the credibility problems that have surfaced regarding the mainstream media in recent years.
Does Jayson Blair ring a bell?
How about Memogate?
Remember all the "credible" reporting that came out of New Orleans?
I find it interesting that the blogosphere played a significant role in bringing all of those credibility problems to light.
Kane is in no position to be touting the superior credentials of "real" journalists.
One newly popular right-wing blogger has made a reputation slamming her former colleagues at the Journal Sentinel as she scales the blogosphere mountain.
The peculiar thing is that less than five years ago I remember the same blogger agreeing with me that most of Milwaukee's right-wing talk show hosts were ridiculous social provocateurs not worthy of serious consideration.
These days, she's a regular guest on their TV shows.
I guess in the blogosphere, it's relatively easy for a leopard to change its spots if opportunity knocks.
Typical lib MO -- deflect and personally attack when the facts are against you.
What about that mentor thing, Eugene?
As a newspaper guy, I understand the declining circulation of the Journal Sentinel and other major newspapers makes it imperative to find new ways of engaging readers in our product.
...If the battle for new consumers of information and commentary is to be fully engaged, much of it will happen on the Internet.
What?
Did Kane see the light within the space of one column?
At the beginning he said:
Despite the current hype over bloggers taking on the mainstream media - "MSM" to many bloggers - I believe there's little chance that blogging will replace traditional forms of reporting and commentary. At least, not in the near future.
Which is it?
Kane backtracks on his earlier bravado. He needs to edit more carefully.
Why have all these Old Media outlets started blogs to accompany their Internet sites?
It's very simple.
Not only are the newspapers and network news organizations dying, so is their credibility. This is a direct result of the rapid dissemination of information that is possible via the Internet and the blogosphere.
To which I say to bloggers everywhere:
Bring it on.
OK.
You could say that this war, started by McBride's whistleblowing, has become a quagmire for Kane.
At this point, Eugene Kane has two choices in terms of an exit strategy:
1) He can cut and run in disgrace, while continuing to pretend to be an active force for those struggling in Milwaukee's inner city and to be more than just a columnist.
The right thing to do is obvious.
Kane has already lost this blog war, but maybe something positive can come from his defeat.
Maybe he and the other columnist that McBride refers to will decide to become mentors. Kane could focus on saving a life rather than putting his time into saving face.
The Old Media, also known as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and the New Media, local bloggers and conservative talk radio hosts, are at each others' throats.
It all started with a blog entry written by former Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Jessica McBride.
On her blog, McBride's Media Matters, she began telling the story of "Sam," an African-American teen from Milwaukee's inner city.
(Excerpts)
I have decided to write this story because I learned so much about the crisis going on in Milwaukee's inner city through "Sam" - the nuances of it, and the intractability of it. It's particularly important right now in the wake of the Samuel McClain beating, and I have a vehicle through which to tell this story, so I will.
...It starts out just another day covering homicide in Milwaukee's inner city. I am a police reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel when I first meet a boy named Sam. It's 2001, and a sunny day in June, and I am covering a rash of homicides.
...A boy named Sam puts dried flowers on a fence for Rob, the murder victim, half a block down, so I stop to talk with him. They'd grown up together, Sam says, from childhood on, although they'd lost touch in recent years. He is a skinny youth with limpid, childish brown eyes. They are soft and liquid, filled with innocence and warmth. Later I'd learn they could just as quickly harden into obsidian marbles when he is brooding and angry. But on this day, Sam is all wide smiles, big talk, and friendly potential.
...Standing by the fence, Sam tells me about his life, volunteering horrendous things way too freely and casually, as if he doesn't know they aren't the norm. He says he was once shot by a stray bullet, claims his mother was murdered, and comments that Rob was the eighth friend he knows who died violently. I will learn only some of this is true. He's never been shot by a stray bullet, although he was stabbed by an uncle and has the scar on his stomach to prove it. ... And, it's true: His mother isn't here anymore.
...I take Sam's phone number that day by the fence. I might write a story about him, I decide. I want to write a story about an inner city youth just trying to make it. Not the star. Not the criminal. Not the good kid or the bad kid but the kid living in the grays in between.
...I decide to stop by Sam's house and talk with his grandmother about my idea for a story.
...Sam's grandmother asks me to help Sam find a mentor. He had one once, through Children's Court, but the man got too busy and stopped seeing him, and that hurt him. I tell her that I'll help him find one. That's getting a bit too involved in the story but something inside me snaps. I'd covered the stories of too many Sams and too many Robs and I wanted to rewrite the ending of this one.
...But what could a white female in her 30s offer a young African-American male? Sam needed a male role model, I thought. Preferably, an African-American one.
I ask two African-American males at the Journal Sentinel to mentor Sam. Both are prominent columnists who are constantly weighing in on the problems of racism and inner city poverty in Milwaukee.
But neither one is interested in mentoring Sam. They brush me off immediately. Too busy, says one. "If I wanted a child, I'd have one," says another matter-of-factly. In my mind, both of those columnists forfeit the right to pontificate about how others have turned their backs on black, inner city youths. Wishful thinking. They still do it today.
In two paragraphs, war is declared.
One of the columnists, Eugene Kane, has come out swinging.
Kane responds in today's Journal Sentinel, attacking McBride, Milwaukee talk radio personalities, and conservative bloggers.
In "Blogging gives everyone a voice," he writes:
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, has it made a sound?
In a nutshell, that's what I think about most blogs.
The Internet is overrun with blogs. These personal Web sites are written by both amateur and professional journalists with an ax to grind or strong opinions they are dying to express. Many of them are read by only a small group of readers, sometimes just family or friends.
Despite the current hype over bloggers taking on the mainstream media - "MSM" to many bloggers - I believe there's little chance that blogging will replace traditional forms of reporting and commentary. At least, not in the near future.
But yes, they are making an impact.
There's something sad about watching the slow death of the Old Media. (Or should I say, "MSM"?)
Whether it's local or global liberal news outlets, they are all having the same difficulty coming to terms with the fact that their monopoly is history. The fat lady sang. It's over.
Poor Eugene.
I started my "Raising Kane" blog on JSOnline about a month ago, mainly out of desire to explore this new and exciting form of expression and counteract some of the rabid partisan constituency that wants to dominate the field.
"Rabid partisan constituency"?
Is he talking about Daily Kos or AMERICAblog?
Here in Milwaukee there's an active blogging community, particularly when it comes to politics.
Some of it is a byproduct of right-wing talk radio, which makes reading those blogs akin to listening to four hours of our local blowhards rail against liberals, Gov. Jim Doyle, Sen. Russ Feingold, Ald. Michael McGee and the other usual suspects.
It's my humble opinion that the best blogs - like mine at Raising Kane - don't rant and rave as much as refer readers to interesting stories and commentary from other sources.
Blogging is best when it's a clearinghouse for ideas rather than a long-winded exercise in self-congratulatory rhetoric.
This is really ironic.
If you're looking for "long-winded" and "self-congratulatory rhetoric" from Wisconsin media, look no further than Eugene Kane.
If you're in the Milwaukee area looking for a "local blowhard," Kane's your man.
That's what makes his dismissal of McBride's request so slimy. The hypocrisy oozes.
Kane and Milwaukee local talk radio hosts have been taking swipes at each other for years. His shot at them is nothing new. However, Kane is stepping into potentially dangerous territory by attacking conservative bloggers.
Like so many in the Old Media and the OLD OLD Media (Dan Rather), he underestimates the influence of the New Media. There's a reason it's called the WORLD WIDE WEB.
The libs don't learn from the past. They seem plagued by a disorder that compels them to live in it - Iraq is Vietnam, every scandal and non-scandal is Watergate, etc.
Of all their flaws, that probably will be the one that leads to the libs' complete destruction.
Nobody checks your credentials - or your credibility - at the blogosphere door.
Earth to Kane...
Apparently, he hasn't been paying attention to the credibility problems that have surfaced regarding the mainstream media in recent years.
Does Jayson Blair ring a bell?
How about Memogate?
Remember all the "credible" reporting that came out of New Orleans?
I find it interesting that the blogosphere played a significant role in bringing all of those credibility problems to light.
Kane is in no position to be touting the superior credentials of "real" journalists.
One newly popular right-wing blogger has made a reputation slamming her former colleagues at the Journal Sentinel as she scales the blogosphere mountain.
The peculiar thing is that less than five years ago I remember the same blogger agreeing with me that most of Milwaukee's right-wing talk show hosts were ridiculous social provocateurs not worthy of serious consideration.
These days, she's a regular guest on their TV shows.
I guess in the blogosphere, it's relatively easy for a leopard to change its spots if opportunity knocks.
Typical lib MO -- deflect and personally attack when the facts are against you.
What about that mentor thing, Eugene?
As a newspaper guy, I understand the declining circulation of the Journal Sentinel and other major newspapers makes it imperative to find new ways of engaging readers in our product.
...If the battle for new consumers of information and commentary is to be fully engaged, much of it will happen on the Internet.
What?
Did Kane see the light within the space of one column?
At the beginning he said:
Despite the current hype over bloggers taking on the mainstream media - "MSM" to many bloggers - I believe there's little chance that blogging will replace traditional forms of reporting and commentary. At least, not in the near future.
Which is it?
Kane backtracks on his earlier bravado. He needs to edit more carefully.
Why have all these Old Media outlets started blogs to accompany their Internet sites?
It's very simple.
Not only are the newspapers and network news organizations dying, so is their credibility. This is a direct result of the rapid dissemination of information that is possible via the Internet and the blogosphere.
To which I say to bloggers everywhere:
Bring it on.
OK.
You could say that this war, started by McBride's whistleblowing, has become a quagmire for Kane.
At this point, Eugene Kane has two choices in terms of an exit strategy:
1) He can cut and run in disgrace, while continuing to pretend to be an active force for those struggling in Milwaukee's inner city and to be more than just a columnist.
OR
2) He can be a man and acknowledge his hypocrisy, that his actions speak louder than his words. He can mentor an at-risk child.The right thing to do is obvious.
Kane has already lost this blog war, but maybe something positive can come from his defeat.
Maybe he and the other columnist that McBride refers to will decide to become mentors. Kane could focus on saving a life rather than putting his time into saving face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)