Fundamentals of Interactive Journalism

His superhero name is Jimmy Justice, a citizen journalist who tapes and uploads videos of NY traffic agents said to be breaking the very same laws they enforce. 

He’s been on national television, such as on ABC’s “i-Caught,” MSNBC’s “Caught on Camera” and the “Star Jones” show.

“I’m an average working class guy with a passion for justice. What makes me different from others is that I am not afraid to walk up to a law enforcement officer and confront them,” he said.

Got that right. He isn’t intimidated by them, but he still rather hide his true identity and not his face, as shown in the following video clips. 

Though NYPD failed to provide a response to me, officials have spoken on television, obviously outraged and calling Justice’s actions harassment.  His response is, “I would not have the conscience to accuse someone of wrongdoing unless I was absolutely certain that according to the law they have done something wrong.”

Some find it refreshing that New York City’s “zero tolerance policy” carried out by cops is extended to include them as well.

Justice started video taping two years ago, when he found an officer parking his vehicle in front of a fire hydrant when it wasn’t an emergency, a move that would cost any other civilian $115.

“I could show the entire scene, and provide empirical proof, such as the officer leaving McDonalds holding a bag of food, and the officer would not have the opportunity to lie. “

Part of his confident stems from reading up on traffic law, along with privacy issues when filming in public.

So the government, specifically Internal Affairs Bureau, does reprimand their own, according to Justice.  The 311 procedure is shown below:

He has not yet been arrested or seriously injured for his “activism.”  However, he has been pushed around, punched, almost run over by a car, spit on, cursed at and had two cameras broken.

Oh, and has a day job, folks, this doesn’t exactly pay the bills.

“I always bring my camera with me to work in case I see something unfold that should be recorded. Manhattan is the busiest borough so therefore I get the most video there.”

Justice claims that he’s making a difference, seeing a reduction in the rate of recidivism in areas where he made a presence.  He even described a “success” story, after revealing the behavior of one highly ranked cop:

Justice receives about 200 emails per week, which range from fan mail, to death threats, to marriage proposals by German girls.  He won’t stop what he’s doing until he’s run out of material.

The Republic National Convention posted a video online this Saturday alleging that Obama might not be speaking with complete candor on his relationship to the Blagojevich scandal. The video titled “Questions Remain” is a bit reminiscent of a 1950’s newsreel which is appropriate for a piece of work so explicitly Mccarthy-like.

Cast in all black and white the piece attempts to show Obama’s connection to the governor because Obama helped with Blagojevich’s campaign in 2006. I wonder if the guilt-by-association trick will work better this time around than during the election. But this case is certainly an even more bizarre attempt at a connection – what kind of headline do the Republicans hope to make:
OBAMA HELPED FELLOW STATE DEMOCRAT TO CAMPAIGN FOR REELECTION

Pretty unimpressive stuff.

Mccain is distancing himself from the attack ad (aren’t those over?!) – perhaps uncoincidentally during an interview when he said he might not support a Palin presidential bid. The whole venomous attack thing is something that has hurt Mccain several times. Bush used it on him in 2000 and his own attempts to play those hands might have cost him this past election.

Which makes me rather wonder what the RNC is up to on this. What will de-legitimizing and incoming president during a time of grave crisis do for them? Is it just a reflexive blow from punchers that have trained to hard to miss a small opening?

I would like to see some good analysis on this folks.

The pharmaceutical industry is coming under fire for allegedly hiring ghostwriters (writers who work for pay, but not a byline) to write positive reports/analysis of clinical tests on drugs with possible efficacy issues – and then recruiting notable doctors to stick their names on it. This issue has been bandied about for months and suspected for longer, but now U.S. Senator Charles Grassley from Iowa is renewing the fight.

Is the fact that this possibility has surfaced doesn’t surprise me troubling? Even before I declared my concentration in health/medicine reporting, I was aware of the corruption and rampant abuse of power by what is referred to as Big Pharma. Government deregulation and regulation on a slew of business and healthcare policy issues end up benefiting these corporate entites, whether allowing unapproved drugs and drugs with possible side effects to go on the market before they are fully vetted by the FDA or removing/weakening price caps on prescription drugs so that Pharma can charge more for less and profit from donations of life-saving drugs to Third World countries. And of course there are the deceptive drug ads that have had varying levels of regulation over the last two decades.

Journal articles are an important “first draft” introducing new developments in medicine to the public and are among the sources used by health professionals and medical reporters in their story research. Doctors and reporters already look at journal articles with a wary eye, and the likely possibility of journal articles being fabricated can be even more detrimental to the trust people place in such written work.

And that doctors would sign on to put their names on these works they haven’t written – even if they agree with what is being written – is egregious and says they condone this deceptive practice. Like the regulations placed on drug advertisements, all that would be needed is for the doctors to acknowledge that this IS NOT their work. It would be better if it were, but if this is the way they want to roll, then disclose your affiliations.

It is tantamount to plagiarism.

It was impossible to avoid the news of Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich’s arrest this week. Federal prosecutors charged him with blazing a trail of corruption in pay-to-play schemes, culminating with a “show me the money” approach to appointing Barack Obama’s successor as senator.

The 24-hour cable news channels reveled in the scandal. After the feel-good story of Barack Obama’s historic election, which inspired millions of people, I think the media enjoyed the chance to wallow in the mud of political sleaze.

Today the New York Times published an analysis of Illinois’ history of political corruption. It suggests that residents of the state are comfortable with a degree of criminality in their politicians. Being a major cynic and a former Illinois voter (who helped elect Blagojevich to Congress in 1996), I don’t find his behavior at all shocking. While it’s definitely objectionable, it’s the kind of thing I assume goes on all the time in American politics but in most cases is never exposed to public view.

I thought it would be interesting to see how Blagojevich’s woes were playing out in the social networking arena. If you search for the governor’s name on Facebook, the top results include earnest-sounding citizen groups with names like Impeach Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and People for the Removal of Rod Blagojevich as well as satirical groups, including Rod Blagojevich for President, 2016. That group’s page includes a hilarious possible explanation for the governor’s behavior. Under all those results, however, you’ll find what appears to be Blagojevich’s actual Facebook page, which features the photo below.

The official page lists “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” as a favorite quotation and “Getting things done for people” as the governor’s job description. Those statements may have seemed like throwaway platitudes a week ago, but now they’re bursting with ironic double-entendre potential.

The Facebook account boasted 1,780 supporters as of this evening. The group Citizens of Illinois Against Rod Blagojevich, by contrast, has 5,156 members, almost three times as many. Judging by sheer numbers, it seems that Illinoisans may not be so comfortable with corruption after all. Then again, the number of supporters on the governor’s page was 1,769 earlier today. So despite his ethical troubles (or who knows, maybe because of them), he’s still gaining fans.

Even if you’ve been a journalist for just several months, you’ve probably noticed how tight-lipped folks in government are when you come knocking. “I’m sorry, but I’m not authorized to speak to the press,” says one bureaucrat. “Could you submit your questions in writing?” says another. It doesn’t matter if you are calling about retirement benefits for city employees or the Christmas gift drive, the trend in government and corporate offices is to funnel media requests to the designated flak who will use carefully crafted talking points with just the right amount of spin on them, to give you the answers you are seeking. Of course, in their words, it’s about the message being “appropriately positioned.”

I am sure people have always feared the “fourth estate,” but the past decade has seen an increase in the barriers companies, government departments and even nonprofits put up between themselves and journalists. Gone are the days when a reporter can just saunter into the police department and shoot the shit with the workers. Now there are “public information officers” whose job is to dole out sanitized versions of the facts to reporters. Very often, these PIOs don’t even do that, as I’ve experienced time and time again with the New York Police Department. But when I’ve pointed out that if they don’t speak to me, it will make them look bad, they just take down my number and promise to pass it along. The message they are sending–loud and clear–is I JUST DON’T CARE.

As the next generation of journalists, it’s up to us to educate government officials, corporate hacks and everyone else that it’s actually in their interest to talk to us and explain their side of things. Most journalists aren’t out to get their sources, but simply want to report what’s happening. Unfortunately, that’s a point that seems to lost on most people.

What do you think? Can journalists do anything to counter the trend of companies and government creating strict procedures about speaking with the press? Is it a matter of making friends with the people you want to become your sources? Is it a matter of bidding your time, until hesitant sources begin to trust you?

Sunset Park – Prostitutes have long plied their trade along the Gowanus Expressway’s southern end in Brooklyn, coexisting quietly with their working class neighbors and largely ignored by police. But when residents began complaining in late September that men had begun soliciting sex from young girls and teachers at a nearby elementary school, the cops took fast action.

A series of morning crackdowns over three weeks resulted in 39 arrests along 56th and 57th streets between Second and Third Avenues, according to Deputy Inspector Jesus R. Pintos, of the 72nd Precinct. But the prostitution busts were only part of a larger effort that shows how local law enforcement can involve community organizations to find long-term solutions for neighborhood crimes.

The campaign began with getting the offenders off the streets. In what Inspector Pintos described as “precinct-based enforcement,” officers arrested 21 johns – the term used to describe the predominantly male clientele of prostitutes – and eight prostitutes.  They also arrested nine others for related crimes of car theft (cars used by those arrested) and drug use or sales. Five vehicles were also confiscated at the scene.

Within days, the only signs that illegal activity had taken place were used condoms and other debris scattered on the sidewalk.  The Brooklyn D.A.’s office lent several hands to deal with that. Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes assigned individuals sentenced to community service hours in the neighborhood to assist the precinct in sidewalk clean-up.

To maintain the quality of life in the area and prevent the problem from simply relocating, police increased surveillance.  First they installed Sky Watch – a surveillance tower that extends via mini-crane atop an NYPD car, traveling between high crime areas in the city – along the main intersection on Third Avenue and 56th Street during the two weeks following the arrests.  Precinct officers were also assigned to conduct regular sweeps of the problem corridor, making arrests when necessary.

For residents and schoolchildren, the effect of the changes was immediate. “Where did the prostitutes go, Mommy?” one grade-schooler asked her mother on the way to school a week following the first arrests.  The grateful mother shared the story with Deputy Inspector Pintos at the monthly Community Council meeting. Says Pintos, “We’re making headway, but we’ll continue to monitor the problem.”

Others are trying to help those arrested in the busts. The Red Hook Justice Center, in collaboration with the 72nd precinct, is offering first-time offenders an alternative to trials and jail.  Instead they have to attend “Project Respect,” often called the Brooklyn John School. The six-year-old program puts offenders face-to-face with former prostitutes, videos of sexually abused children and images of the diseases inflicted on them.

EPIC (Ending Prostitution In our Communities) and “Saving Teens at Risk” are two programs targeting prostitutes above age 21 and younger girls, respectively. They offer educational and rehabilitative services to help these women find other options and to deal with the issues that originally caused them to turn to the streets.  Kings County DA statistics note that 80 to 90 percent of the women prostituting themselves have been sexually abused.  The U.S. Dept. of Justice says that girls enter prostitution at an average age of 13.

According to Gerianne Abriano, Bureau Chief at the Brooklyn D.A.’s office, “the vast majority [of offenders] that come to Red Hook go through these programs. Anyone with a prior record, we try to get them drug [or other] treatment. [And as for] the prostitutes, they tend to be the most accessible. We have good results with them.”

Ah, the judicial system…

Where partisan hacks are appointed for life…

Where we win the war on drugs a few million arrests at a time…

Where overworked D.A.s and more overworked P.D.s come together for a few hours of jostling over who gets the better end of the structured plea bargain…

Where the magic happens.

My colleagues in Tim Harper’s Craft class joined me in a fun-filled day watching:

a Fujianese immigrant bow before the arraignment judge, who told them to come back on a date different from what the bailiff told them, and only then (the date the judge said, not the date the bailiff said) would the People’s case against them for selling shit on the street without a permit be adjudicated;

a 19 year-old woman testify for the prosecution against the man she accused of raping her, calmly parrying the defense like so – Q: What did you have to eat when you got home? A: Chef Boyardee ravioli. Q: Meat or cheese? A: I do not recall the specific flavor of ravioli.;

a purple-haired woman yelling over the barrier separating the court from the gallery during a sentencing, only to be revealed as the defense attorney when she looks at her client, recognizes him and asks him how he got to court without her.

All of this led off by an inspiring dissertation from an ADA about how the best time to commit a crime is just before Christmas, because the prosecutors won’t be able to convene a grand jury before they have to cut you loose.

And my mother still wonders why I didn’t go to law school.

Hey, at least we don’t still execute mentally challenged sixteen year-olds, right?

Can your worst job change you?

Two of my classmates have already blogged about the passage of Proposition 8 in California: Jackie Linge and Robert Voris. In addition, Kate Nocera blogged about same-sex marriage in Connecticut.

For those who haven’t followed the California situation closely, here’s the rundown: Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry is fundamental and applies to people who want to marry someone of the same sex. Since that time, thousands of gay couples had been married in the state. On Tuesday, 52% of California voters took that right away. The text of the proposition reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Voters approved similar statutes in Arizona and Florida, though same-sex marriage had not already been declared legal in those states as it had in California.

While California’s domestic partnership law confers most of the same rights that marriage does, the court found that “separate but equal” status is not good enough, declaring that “discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment,” was unacceptable and denied “equal dignity and respect” to gay couples.

For my part, I’m with my colleague Robert. I say government should get out of the marriage business, let religions do what they want with it, and offer civil partnerships to both heterosexual and homosexual couples instead. But many people who probably agree with me on most other issues would disagree with that idea.

Even if I don’t get fired up about marriage from a personal standpoint, when it comes to a ballot proposition like this one I can’t help being offended by it because it’s driven by the desire to deny rights to people. Heterosexual marriages are not diminished by allowing gay people to get married, and I’ve never heard anyone suggest that we should make opposite-sex marriage illegal. So granting marriage rights to gay people can have no negative effect whatsoever on straight people’s relationships. There’s no justification for the anti-gay marriage forces’ position except bigotry.

I actually got into an e-mail argument with a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, John Wildermuth, because he described the proposition’s backers as “supporters of traditional marriage” in this article. My take is, no one is threatening to take away traditional marriage, if by traditional marriage you mean a man marrying a woman. Gay marriage or no gay marriage, men can still marry women freely, and vice versa (even if they’ve been divorced 12 times already). Hence, no one needs to “support” traditional marriage. What Prop 8’s backers are is opponents of same-sex marriage. To describe them as “supporters of traditional marriage” implies wrongly that someone is looking to take away their right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Since we’ve discussed objectivity a few times on this blog, I might as well bring it up here. Am I in the tank for one side on this issue? Yes, most definitely. But I think any reporter who just repeats what people say and gives each side equal weight with no context might as well be a robot. If I’m going to be a reporter, I’m sure as hell going to call bullshit when I see it. And “supporters of traditional marriage” is bullshit. Looking back 40 or 50 years ago, would you describe white people trying to deny equal rights to black people as “supporters of white people’s rights”? Would any newspaper article today describe white supremacists that way?

Last Monday, I found a searchable database of campaign contributions to both sides of Proposition 8, compiled on the San Francisco Chronicle’s SFGate.com. I was searching for this information with the idea of writing about New York City residents who had made donations. After seeing that the contributions from Manhattan included 1,456 to the No on 8 side and just 10 in support of the proposition, and from Brooklyn, 280 against the measure vs. just 2 for it, I settled on Brooklyn contributors seeking to defeat the measure. I spoke with a few of them about why they had donated money and what they saw as the stakes in the fight. Once the measure had passed, my story idea — “Brooklynites Help Defeat Measure in California” — collapsed. But I still wanted to write about it.

Stephen Yuhan, a 28-year-old attorney who lives in Brooklyn Heights, has never lived in California but does have friends and extended family there. “I’d rather live in a just world than an unjust world,” he said. “I do think that passage of 8 would be a real black mark in American political history.”

Gwyn Meeks, who recently moved from Los Angeles to Brooklyn and works for MTV, called herself a firm believer in same-sex marriage equality and counts about 10 couples among her friends who have gotten married since the the law changed in favor of same-sex marriage. “I strongly hope and believe that California will continue to move in the right direction,” Meeks said on Election Day. “Prop 8 would take us backward.”

Voters did not move the state in the right direction on Tuesday, but the historical momentum is clearly on the side of same-sex marriage.

While my classmates were swept up in the throngs in Times Square Tuesday night, I was huddled around a woodstove and a radio with a gathering of Democrats in Alaska to hear the election returns. Everyone had watched President-elect Obama’s acceptance speech on TV just moments earlier and were exhilarated and tearful…and turning their hopes to the statewide returns, which came rolling in shortly thereafter.

But things didn’t turn out as the Alaska Dems had hoped. The challengers to Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens didn’t generate enough votes to beat these longtime Republican leaders, even with the incumbents facing corruption scandals.

As New York transplant Jane Eidler said, “I’ve been living in Alaska for 33 years, and they have been my representatives.”  It seems that the risk of choosing new leadership was too great for a state that relies so heavily on federal dollars – money that Young and Stevens have reliably funneled into the state for years.

(more…)