FFA follow-up

Ah, when constabulary duty's to be done, to be done,
A policeman's lot is not a n'appy one, n'appy one.
-From Pirates of Penzance
by Gilbert and Sullivan

There are times when these lines from the G&S comic operetta could very well have been written about writers or journalists.

Something like:

When journalistic duty's to be done, to be done,
A reporter's lot is not a n'appy one, n'appy one.

The vast majority of writing and shooting photos for readers is satisfiying, but every once in a while a straw is thrown on the payload that just snaps ones camel.

For those of you just getting here, back up one blog to
Wisconsin State FFA officers minus three (click)
This one refers to that one.

Seemingly, this was a straight forward piece of news. Having started in Wisconsin as an ag journalist, previous contacts in ag publications were a consideration in what was possibly significant news. Likewise, it was of interest to local mainstream news, because it involved local individuals.

News people develop a thick skin about many matters. One day we are doing a feature about a thimble collection, but on that same day may have to cover a fatal traffic accident, and be on the scene for both. No matter, because with some warning one can adjust a frame of thought to be prepared for both.

We strive for objectivity, but are still human. So reporters strive for complete objectivity, while balance can indeed be maintained. Still, would we want a fourth estate that was not human? Otherwise there would be little concern over the poignant efforts of the human condition, nor would journalists still in the field care about sharing inhumane conditions in various parts of the world.

News writers are merely the messenger, but it appears that simplistic thought has started to return to the "kill the messenger" mentality.

The piece referring to a shakeup in the Wisconsin FFA state officer team was written weeks after the situation emerged. Journalistic integrity put a hold on anything being written about the matter until there was a final outcome. Aware of the developing situation, the filter "is it news?" made it an easy bit of information to step away from.

When the final outcome surfaced the answer to the filtering question became an easy and explicit "Yes."

You may see journalists at meetings or public events and note that they are working, but most forget that gathering the data is about one-third of the work. After everyone else has left, people in the media are charged with doing follow-up homework and turning hours of talk into 500, 800, 1000 or more words. This is usually done under the thumb of a deadline.

It is easy to become impervious to comments or corrections, or even having a piece tossed out or torn up - and that can just be an editor's reaction. Commentary, correction and criticism of one's work is not a problem, because it must pass quality assessments that any product is subject to.

But, like any other position, personal attacks because one doesn't like the product are the journalistic equivalent of hitting below the belt in pugilistic terms

People should be encouraged to comment on issues with a printed piece, especially if there are legitimate inaccuracies. This is a luxury of community news - those who gather and report the news will be available in the future and have an accountability incentive to their subjects and their readers.

But there really is no excuse or reason for attacking a reporter personally because he/she wrote something an individual considers bad news.

Simply put:

The reporter can't help it if you simply don't like the news!

And such is the case with the recent news of the FFA state officer team.

There are times when it is better to get something out in a timely manner with fresh information before time can dilute a story. And of course if news sits, it really is no longer news. Note that the time stamp on the piece is shortly after 4 a.m.

After completing the piece, various news outlets were notified of the information on a 'take-it-or-leave-it' basis. All expressed their gratitude for the info, but said it is likely they'd make their own story, using this blog as an original source.

Monday a DPI representative sent an email that attacked the reporter and made a judgement on the motives for writing the piece. It was again, one of those times when the attack was on the person and not the work. Such actions can be hurtful and leave an impression that is slow to depart.

Email from DPI (click)

The response speaks for itself:

Response to DPI letter (click)


The next morning the official press release came attached to a subsequent empty email:

Offical press release

The well written press release created a sense of bewilderment, because the original article said essentially the same thing as the press release.

Speculation remains over where the article is inaccurate enough to be considered a seditious act against the FFA.

One possibility is a reference in the article that Robert's Rules were not followed. It was hard to believe as it was written because the organization as a whole excels in procedure. But four sources present at the event and an independent concurred that according to Robert's, to deny the rights of a member, or to dismiss someone in a "Trial of a Society Member," a two-thirds vote is required. Not to further pick nits, but this also almost requires the presiding officer to divulge the vote count. So the initial conflict to question was that Robert's would be used, BUT majority would determine.

Another point that may deserve clarification is the difference between resignation and dismissal. This was a point of mutual confusion, but in a situation where a governing body determines if you should or will resign, is it not tantamount to a dismissal? Additionally, the FFA policy specifically uses the word dismissal.

A possible area of more speculation has since emerged. In addition to admirably arguing on behalf of his colleagues, the third officer to resign first stated that he too had committed an infraction that warranted dismissal. None of my sources divulged specific information beyond the fact that he had resigned.

Reiterating a support for FFA, writing the article was a difficult task where absolute diligence was used to neither favor nor detract.

Instead of complaining about any specific discrepancies in the article, the letter sought decidedly to figuratively hit below the belt. Among the personally demeaning statements used by a person of authority in this situation was the explicit inference that there was a motive to see the demise of an important and fine organization. Nothing could be further from the truth, thereby multiplying the insult.


# # #
Lloyd