South of the James

Two men - Dan Gecker (D) and Don Sowder (R) - are vying for the Midlothian District Supervisor seat. This promises to be a spirited race as they head into November’s election. For more information on each, see their respective websites.

Dan Gecker - Democratic Candidate

Don Sowder - Republican Candidate

As two black bloggers in the Virginia political blogosphere, we bring a unique perspective to the conversation regarding race that swirls around us. Each of our families have been in Virginia for more than 150 years, so we are well acquainted with the both with Virginia’s sordid past and its slow, steady move towards inclusion that has occurred in our lifetimes.

It comes as no surprise to us, then, that both candidates have used racial epithets in the past. To argue otherwise is to deny the realities of life in Virginia and our country. Inquiries into such behavior serve to shine light on those incidents and provide an opportunity for discerning whether they hold such sentiments today. It is not an irrelevant conversation, nor is it the only thing that matters in determining who should be the next junior senator from Virginia.

Some have used this inquiry as an opportunity to throw around racial epithets themselves. We contend that doing so is reflective of the lack of racial sensitivity that both candidates have indicated that they had in the past. Further, we contend that this desensitizes the readers to the real issues of race that are still with us. We find such behavior unacceptable and implore our colleagues to refrain from engaging in such behavior. While campaigns are willing to exploit the issue of race (and its companion issues of ethnicity and gender), the Virginia political blogosphere should not be so eager to do so.

To call for a complete end to such a discussion would be not only naive but hypocritical of us, and we are not proposing that. What we do ask is that the level of discourse be raised a notch, always mindful of the possible effects of such polarizing rhetoric not only through November 7, but beyond.

– Vivian J. Paige & Conaway B. Haskins III

By Mike Harton, Guest Writer
An ordained minister and educator, Mike Harton is the President of the Responsible Growth Alliance of Chesterfield.

September 26’s Richmond Times-Dispatch “Public Square” forum on affordable housing draw a packed house for a passion-packed hour-and-a-half. Who represented Chesterfield County at the meeting? With the exception of Tom Jacobson, Director of Revitalization and Community Development, I saw no county officials present—no commissioners, no supervisors, no other staff members. Proof that affordable housing is not on their radar screen?

Who represented Chesterfield at the forum? Scores of hands went up when Tom Silvestri asked who was present from Chesterfield. Our county was well represented by our citizens, many of whom spoke informatively and passionately about the subject. In addition to remarks by RGA member Shelly Schuetz (who drew enthusiastic applause) I called attention to the fact that, despite our county officials’ assertions that there is plenty of affordable housing, there is no affordable new construction. Even for our public servants—firemen, police, teachers, service workers—there is little available, and as Jacobson pointed out, what is available is older housing lacking in quality of life amenities such as parks, sidewalks, etc.

In the past developers provided a wide price range in new construction, Woodlake being a prime example.

Under any circumstances we cannot simply assert that there is ample affordable housing available today. We should be planning for the future, including planning for an increasingly diverse population. For example, what useable housing will be available to a growing aging population?

A two-year old Virginia Tech study asserts that demand is projected to grow by the thousands, will supply is not increasing.

Municipalities can address the issue in their comprehensive plans if they have the courage (of course, first it has to hit their radar). For example, why couldn’t cluster homes include a certain percentage of affordable units? This might be done by eliminating some interior “luxury amenities” while maintaining a uniform exterior. But there should be incentives, whether in the form of tax credits, interest free loans of by other means, and whether it is for new construction, redevelopment or for encouraging investors to set aside some properties for section 8 housing.

A news release from HUD reports that Chesterfield received over $2,000,000 in grants to address the affordable housing issue. Has anyone seen a report of how those funds have been used?

There are solutions if we have the will to find and create them. To be fair, citizens have to work with the county and with developers to educate and influence our NIMBY neighbors.

In a strikingly audacious post, the normally thoughtful conservative Republican blogger, Shaun Kenney, dragged Senator George Allen’s wife, Susan, into the middle of the developing controversy over her husband’s allegedly history of bigoted words and actions. Obviously smarting over the distasteful manner in which Senator Allen’s mother was brought into this debate by some members of the media and the blogosphere, Kenney subsequently composed a post titled “Democrats v. Susan Allen,” on the GOP “A-Team” super-blog stating the following:

“Most of what the Democrats are alleging are things that happened long before Susan met George; things a lady would know about her future husband. Is there a Democrat in Virginia vicious enough to argue Susan Allen would willingly marry a racist? Susan Allen is a wonderful human being — I’m certainly not that base or daring, first and foremost being I don’t believe for a moment it’s true.” 

In his zeal to defend Sen. Allen and lash out at Democrats, Mr. Kenney, whose well-regarded eponymous blog delves into the intersection of religion and politics, essentially invaded that most intimate of relationships – marriage. In doing so, he committed the same type of questionable acts for which he lambastes Democrats. His careless logic represents a serious questioning of the foundation upon which the Allen’s marriage is built, a move one assumes Kenney did not intend to make.

Forget for a moment that Kenney shades the facts about the source of the racism revelations and the timing of the Senator’s alleged racist words and deeds. By essentially daring Democrats to rebut his despicable argument, Shaun Kenney threw Mrs. Allen in front of the speeding bullets aimed at her husband. This troubling degree of hubris and sloppy logic effectively victimizes Mrs. Allen in ways that no Democrat could or should do.  

First, if Sen. Allen was then or is now a racist, and Mrs. Allen knew this before marrying him, then Kenney is tacitly accusing her of giving aid and comfort to a bigot. By virtue of the structure of his argument, Kenney wants to force Democrats into an untenable position, one which is indefensible without Mrs. Allen actually speaking on the matter herself. Second, if Sen. Allen was then or is now a racist, and Mrs. Allen did not know beforehand, then Kenney’s dare furthermore implies that she unwittingly married a racist man. Under this scenario, Kenney leaves two propositions both of which would smear Senator Allen and his wife: either the Senator lied to his bride-to-be (and later, his wife) or she never felt compelled to ask about his views on racism. Does Shaun Kenney really want to cast such aspersions on either the Senator or his wife?

Most disturbingly, Kenney – a married man and proud Catholic - fails to acknowledge a simpler possibility which makes Mrs. Allen’s willingness or unwillingness a moot point – her faith. If Sen. Allen is a racist, and Mrs. Allen knew that he was a racist and still chose to marry him, it is entirely possible that, as a Christian woman, she looked beyond the man’s faults and saw his needs. The normally erudite Kenney, one of the better religious thinkers in the Virginia blogosphere, failed to consider this plausible alternative angle despite admitting that his own “wife in particular spent the better part of two years putting me through the wringer before marrying me. Most married gentlemen will agree: their wives know them best.” In his haste to bait-and-switch Democrats, Kenney hastily ignored a simple truth that many married men – this writer included – will acknowledge: our wives not only know us best, but they also help us become better people.

After all, the Senator is quick to acknowledge how important his wife has been in shaping his adult life and even his political career. Even his opponents will acknowledge that he effusively heaps praise on her whenever possible, hinting that she has served in part as his moral conscience during their marriage. It is entirely possible, and even possible, that if Mrs. Allen did see racist tendencies in the future Senator before they married, she chose to stand by him on his “journey” of maturation and cultural sensitivity to make sure that he would not face such a trying voyage alone. If one accepts that Mrs. Allen is as amazing as both Mr. Kenney and Sen. Allen attest, then it stands to reason that if the senator was racist it would not have been a matrimonial deal-breaker, per se. Instead, it would stand as a testament to this woman’s high moral character and the power of her faith and love.  

As Martin Luther King once stated, “Most Americans are unconscious racists.” What Sen. Allen is accused of is conscious racism. Either way, if Dr. King was right – and I suspect that he was - then Mrs. Allen’s prior knowledge of Sen. Allen’s alleged racism is irrelevant. Otherwise, Shaun Kenney’s unfortunate, disrespectful, and cynical ploy means that all of our spouses should immediately head to the nearest divorce lawyer.

Part II of a Two-Part Series

This was published by Bacon’s Rebellion on September 25, 2006.

In the world of Richmond media, Jim Bacon occupies a unique place. A former publisher of Virginia Business, the Media General publication that chronicles developments in the Commonwealth’s economy, Bacon launched an online magazine called Bacon’s Rebellion in 2002. That publication’s tagline is “The Op-Ed page for Virginia’s New Economy.” Bacon had a long history in traditional public affairs and business journalism, starting his career as a gumshoe reporter in western Virginia. Through his online magazine and blog, Bacon and his stable of writers (this writer included) offer up perspectives on politics, public policy, economics and the media. He also is the co-owner of the VA Newswire, a business “intelligence” operation that gathers and summarizes relevant corporate-focused nuggets from media sources.

With his combination of experiences and personal connections, Bacon speaks with some measure of authority on the local Richmond media market. Turning his eyes to his one-time colleagues, he asserts that “The Times-Dispatch is a middling paper that management is trying to make better. But management has an up-hill job – the newspaper is under tremendous pressure to cut costs to offset stagnant circulation and advertising revenues.”

Bacon believes that the daily paper gives the city of Richmond an inordinate amount of coverage compared to other localities in the metropolitan area. He says “city politics gets lots of ink – county politics gets ink only when there’s a scandal. I read the newspaper more carefully than most people, and I don’t know who my county supervisor is. I don’t know who the chairman of the board of supervisors is. Other than the occasional zoning dispute or the latest flap in the school system, I know next to nothing about the major issues facing the county (through reading the Times-Dispatch).”

He notes that, “to me, media bias, which does exist, is less a problem than the media’s unwillingness to cover key issues at all.” In the case of Metro Richmond, Bacon sees the mainstream press as slanted against folks south of the River and west of downtown. To him, “If there’s a bias, it’s in favor of covering the city and ignoring the suburbs.” Despite his criticisms, he is skeptical of the usefulness of a news council as a response to shortcomings in local news coverage. Bacon notes, “If other people want to form a news council, that’s fine for them. I’m not interested.” Bacon prefers an alternative medium to perform the watch-dog functions of a news council – blogs.

“Blogs are a great way to deal with media bias. They provide an avenue for readers to talk back to the newspaper.” His answer is to “find a team of people who can comment intelligently on the practice and business of journalism and turn them loose on the Times-Dispatch, and possible local broadcast media. The goal would be to produce intelligent, informed commentary.”

To that end, Bacon says that he has “been thinking of organizing a string of blogs around Virginia whereby readers can criticize their hometown newspapers.” He wants to see bloggers step into the gap formed when larger media outlets fail to adequately give ink to local stories and perspectives. As opposed to merely sniping at the mainstream media, these bloggers would emerge as thoughtful commentators and competitors to the industry. Says Bacon, “Hopefully, these people would be relatively dispassionate, not out to ‘get’ the newspaper or settle old scores. Then the public would be invited to interact with the blog.”

*****

On the local scene, questions have emerged as to whether blogging is in fact, a form of journalism. Recently, Richmond media outlets have shown more and more interest in blogging, with journalists attending both summer statewide blogging conferences, and the RTD featuring blogs prominently in a July article (admittedly, this writer was the focus of that piece). As to whether blogging equates journalism, notable Richmond blogger, Norm Leahy, who publishes One Man’s Trash, thinks not. He says, “Bloggers are not journalists, and that’s not a bad thing.”

Leahy is a professional direct mail marketer by day and an avid media and political critic by night. A member of the nascent Media Bloggers Association, a national “non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting MBA members and their blogs, educating bloggers, and promoting the explosion of citizen’s media,” Leahy is a long-time critic of Richmond media mavens like reporter/columnist Jeff Shapiro.

He is not shy about attacking the daily paper when he feels it has strayed, nor is he shy about begrudgingly offering praise to those mainstream media types that he feels have done good work (like occasional kudos to Baron Hinkle). Leahy believes that bloggers can and do go further than mainstream journalists in some measures. He notes that, “For the local situation, the best example of bloggers daring to go where the press fears to tread is the Virginia Performing Arts Center fiasco. Don [Harrison] and Andrew [Beaujon] at Save Richmond were on this story from the start and they never let it go. Don is still on the case. What they achieved was nothing short of amazing.”

Leahy is referring to Save Richmond’s dogged efforts at revealing what they felt were major problems with the proposed massive arts and entertainment complex in downtown Richmond. As Leahy points out, the project “enjoyed the backing of the region’s moneyed elite, the political class, and the Times-Dispatch [a proponent of the Arts Center] was brought to its knees by a couple of bloggers who simply refused to stop asking questions.” Save Richmond stood in where the media essentially refused to go. Leahy continues, “I’ve said it before, but Save Richmond’s work ought to be a case study for bloggers and journalists alike.”

Leahy is a big believer in the ability of blogs to develop and grow into a repository of local news and commentary, especially when the mainstream press lets stories slide. For him, “Locally, blogs have been able to fill the gaps in press coverage or develop stories to a far greater extent than the press owing to time and resource restrictions. I won’t say laziness, but I’m sure there’s some of that as well.” While he does not believe that blogs will replace the traditional media, he does assert that, “As blogs proliferate, they will continue to fill the gaps the established press leaves behind. They will break news, they will make news, and they will be news.”

*****

Terry Rea has also traveled between the worlds of the traditional and alternative media. The publisher of SLANTBlog, Rea is a writer and cartoonist whose works was published by the Richmond Mercury and the Commonwealth Times in the 1970s. A multimedia journalist, he has done art, columns, essays, features and photography for a number of area publications over the last 30+ years. With that diversity of experience, Rea says, “The term ‘mainstream media’ still seems somewhat unclear to me. Is it the same thing as what we used to call the ‘establishment’ media? If so, then are alternative print or electronic ‘zines’ now seen as part of the mainstream, or not? Is ‘mainstream’ just another way of saying professional?”

Rea is well aware at the seeming contradictions of the blogging world in terms of the mainstream press. He notes, “When I went to the [Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership] June blogging summit, I saw how much many of the political bloggers wanted to be both at odds with the mainstream media, and yet accepted by them, too. To me the blogosphere seems more like a parallel universe most of the time.”

Though he has not written much about the local “blogging versus media” scene, he did note that one of his blogging endeavors highlighted the points of divergence. He notes that the tragic deaths of the Harvey family and the outpouring of love and grief that followed “presented me with a unique situation for how to use SLANTBlog in a way different from what the mainstream/traditional media were doing.” Rea’s personal connectivity to the situation gave him insight and perspective that the strictures of traditional journalism do not often provide. Against this backdrop, he was able to engage in the kind of “citizen media” work in Metro Richmond that blogs are often noted for in national circles.

Rea believes that Metro Richmond needs some form of media watchdog. In his words, “I think every good-sized town ought to have such a thing.” Rea feels that two main factors have brought about the need for some monitoring presence. He opines, “The first is the power that money — in the form of advertising dollars — has to influence, even corrupt, the media’s coverage. The second is the merger trend we’ve seen that has reduced the competition in both print and broadcast. That has chased much of the diversity of opinion and background out of the field. So much so, it seems at times that all the media outlets are working from the same playbook and game plan. Thus, when they make a mistake, they all seem to make the same mistake.”

While recognizing the important of a new council type body is one thing, Rea hones in on the trickier aspects of the notion that proponents advance. He says, “Who decides who should be the Media Watchdog is tricky. I can’t imagine a government appointing you or me to the post, nor can I imagine the Times-Dispatch and [WTVR] Channel 6 getting together to do it either. So, the watchdog probably will probably appoint himself.”

Rea comes down on the side of bloggers as the most appropriate outlet for such a media monitor saying, “They now have the tools, and some of them are already doing something along those lines.” But, he cautions that certain elements of the blogosphere itself - such as the unfettered ability to hype opinion over fact and the tendency for too many to become stooges for political campaigns and interest groups – make it difficult. He notes that bloggers are covering the media, “But, it’s usually coming from a partisan political standpoint, and let’s face it, too many political bloggers clog up the blogosphere with silly, repetitive rants and raw propaganda for the blogosphere itself — as it is now — to do the job effectively for a community such as Metro Richmond.”

Still, Rea sees an opportunity brought upon by recent happenings with the major press outlets. In his words, “With the RT-D having recently muzzled its own staff — no talking to out-of-house reporters, on the record — meaning the public will know even less about how they do their job, the need for such a watchdog seems greater than ever. For there to be a blog-driven watchdog for this community, I’d say you’d need a staff of volunteers. Most of them would probably need some experience as professionals, to have the understanding of how the biz works, and have the contacts to investigate stories.”

Like his ideological opposite Norm Leahy, Rea looks to one particular blog as the model for a media watchdog blog, saying, “What Save Richmond has done along these lines is the best example of what I’m thinking about, and I’d say Don Harrison is exactly the kind of person you’d need six or eight of to make the thing work…a web site or blog that would assemble a team to attempt to be Metro Richmond’s Media Watchdog.”

*****

Blogs are growing in recognition and reputation as purveyors of news and opinion. Local sites like Save Richmond, One Man’s Trash, SLANTBlog, RiverCity Rapids, Church Hill People’s News, and yes, even South of the James, combine elements of muckraking, political activism, media criticism, and general agitation that can redefine media criticism and maybe even reform the local media industry itself. On the whole, Virginia’s public affairs blogosphere has demonstrated dynamic staying power and growth over the past two years, playing significant roles in state politics and gaining the attention of the statewide political media. Through the development of Blog carnivals, content aggregators, news feed summarizers, and two blog-themed conferences (one put on by the political establishment and one by bloggers themselves), at least in Virginia, the medium has legitimacy that blogging skeptics once doubted.

Admittedly, the major media outlets like the RTD don’t have much to worry from bloggers in terms of financial competition for now. But, there is impact on the news and opinion side as mainstream entities cut back on both, which provides an opening for bloggers as media monitors. Essentially, local bloggers can play the roles of watch-dog and at-large ombudsmen for the community that proponents of news councils hope for.

As such, be it Jim Bacon’s media mega-blog idea or simply individual bloggers highlighting the yeoman-like work of their contemporaries, the building blocks are there for bloggers to strategically respond to cries for increased and improved community-oriented reporting and editorializing. Metro Richmond’s bloggers are at the right place, at the right time, and have the right tools to do the job. Whether they consistently show up for this work is the key to whether bloggers can effectively become the media watch dogs. For Greg Pearson’s (and others like him) sake, let us hope so.

Part I of a Two-Part Series

This was published by Bacon’s Rebellion on September 25, 2006.

Greg Pearson does not particularly care for the Richmond Times-Dispatch or NBC-12. Actually, Pearson is not a big fan of Media General or many of the corporate media conglomerates. The publisher and editor of the Chesterfield Observer, one of two community newsweeklies covering Virginia’s fourth-largest locality, Pearson believes that local news issues suffer a lack of coverage by such large media corporations. As a response, Person regularly uses his “Media Watch” column to chastise the larger news outlets for what he considers to be shabby treatment of Chesterfield news.

In Pearson’s mind, the situation with Media General is drastic enough to mandate an institutional response. For quite some time, he has been beating the drums for the creation of an outside intermediary organization to serve as a watchdog for fairness and accuracy in coverage, especially of news in his hometown. Called a “news council,” this group would field complaints, conduct investigation and serve as a sounding board for citizen, business, and government criticism of the local press.

According to Pearson, “the news council idea is not an original one. I first inquired about it in 1997 when I heard about it and contacted the Minnesota News Council. I spoke with Gary Gilson (the Minnesota group’s executive director) who said it would be announced what markets are given a grant [by the Knight Foundation] to get a news council started.”

What Pearson is referring to is the Knight Foundation, a national grant-making institution founded by the men who started what the Knight-Ridder media empire. In June, Knight awarded two $75,000 grants to emerging news councils in Southern California and New England to assist with start-up costs. According to a Knight press release, “News councils are independent, nonprofit organizations that promote trusted journalism by investigating accuracy and fairness complaints against news outlets. They help determine the facts involved in these disputes, and provide open forums where citizens and journalists can discuss media ethics, standards and performance.”

The Minnesota group that Pearson alludes to is the oldest such organization in the nation. It was started in the 1970s in response to the decline in public trust of media in that state. Financially supported by foundations, media organizations, individual donors, and corporations, the Minnesota News Council conducts public hearings, hosts public forums, and engages in workshops and other activities in order to promote “fair, vigorous and trusted journalism by engaging the news media and the public in examining standards of fairness.” According to its website, “democracy needs trusted news media; media openness earns public trust. A complaint is a gift that helps a news outlet look at its performance and improve it.” Prior to the Knight grant, only one other organization of this sort existed, an eight-year-old council in the state of Washington.

Pearson has previously attempted to garner the support of his colleagues in Metro Richmond’s press. He says, “Last year I suggested that [some local media colleagues] take on the project just for Richmond or statewide, but the word came back that a news council would potentially damage local media relationships. I’m not looking to spearhead the idea or necessarily serve but do support the concept. Most of the folks serving on the Minnesota News Council are not in the media but have media backgrounds or work with the media, including judges and attorneys.”

Despite his calls to action, Pearson is not necessarily up for bearing the brunt of the burden of starting such an organization. In his mind, “This is a much bigger concept than a weekly newspaper can pull off. I’m actively involved in the day-to-day running of our paper. The daily media — particularly the Richmond Times-Dispatch Dispatch — is opposed to the idea. They believe it’s not needed.”

Going alone is not an option for him as he feels that the targets of his scorn are the very entities that should support the news council. Pearson asserts, “For a media council to be started it will take the mainstream press to support it. My impression is that the media reluctantly gets behind the idea because of pressure to accept it.”

For the time being, the likelihood of a news council growing in Metro Richmond seems off in the distance. Any number of pieces would have to fall into place to make such a formalized media monitoring organization a reality. Despite the odds, Greg Pearson remains undeterred. While he recognizes the difficulty of his vision, he is mostly undaunted by the challenges therein. He has concluded that, “Upsetting the status quo is upsetting. I’m a proponent [because] it would be the right and fair thing to do.”

If he could only get his colleagues in and around the region’s community-based and alternative media to agree, he just might be on to something.

*****

Mark Fausz, publisher and editor of the Village News, a community newsweekly focusing mostly on eastern Chesterfield County, is by no means a fan of the Richmond Times-Dispatch or similar large media companies. On the contrary, he holds rather strong negative views of the big Richmond paper. He says, “Personally, I find the Times Dispatch lacking and politically biased, not only D[emocrats] and R[epublicans] but county vs. county.” Fausz’s paper is the chief rival of the Chesterfield Observer in the race to capture the local news market. Despite producing a smaller outlet for news and opinion, Fausz has a different take on the issue of whether Richmond needs a local news council the likes of which Observer chief Greg Pearson ardently advocates for.

As for a formal media monitoring group, Fausz is not necessarily a proponent. He is, however, a vigorous promoter of alternative media sources like his paper and even Pearson’s. He also supports the growth and development of blogs as providers of local news and opinion content. To that end, he provides relevant links on the Village News’ website (including South of the James and Bacon’s Rebellion). Despite his distaste for the big media, Fausz prefers a less-institutionalized response to consumer dissatisfaction. As he says, “A news council will not replace market research for a big operation like the Times-Dispatch. Their news forums are for show only or possibly a large focus group. It is done through the business department. The people at media organizations that need convincing are not listening, they’re looking at the bottom line.”

Although his paper has a relatively small reported circulation of around 11,000, Fausz is more than willing to let market forces dictate the fortunes of media entities, large and small. For him, “the readers are the ‘news council.’ I think that in the media business, a reader or a viewer has options. In the Richmond area, he or she can get regional news from the Times Dispatch or four separate television news channels or even Richmond.com. There are alternatives although one may not realize it at first.”

Fausz regularly watches developments in the Metro area’s media market, and he draws a more expansive picture of it. From his vantage point, “If one doesn’t care for [the Times-Dispatch], there are alternative such as the community newspapers and the Internet, or if you’re not in a hurry, Style Weekly. They all may have a different approach, but local TV is going to scoop the breaking news anyway - the murder and mayhem stuff. Newspapers, and now the Internet, are charged with the job of in-depth reporting, and one thing the Times-Dispatch or any other large daily cannot do is in-depth stories on every community in its readership area.”

Fausz’s stance stems from the changing media market dynamics that are present in Richmond and beyond. It is no secret that major daily newspapers are scrambling to stem the loss of readership to a growing cadre of alternatives. By the same token, television news is spread broadly among a number of regional and national network and cable options.

As Fausz notes, “The Times Dispatch is losing readership continually, and that’s why you have recently seen the emergence [at Media General] of the Midlothian Exchange, a new Spanish language publication, a Style Weekly type publication, and a move to special subscription rates for their stock [market] reports. It’s not news that the larger dailies are having a hard time. News councils have not or never will have an effect on that. Like any other business, publishing is market driven. People want to read or watch what is most important to them – what touches their own lives.”

Fausz sees an opportunity for entrepreneurs like himself – and by extension, the Chesterfield Observer – in fulfilling the community’s need for news and opinion. Says Fausz, “I am prejudiced, of course, on the issue of community newspapers, but I have read a lot about the future of the genre, and, at least for the time being, the future of print media is in specialty publications, especially community newspapers.”

Operating in Virginia’s fourth largest locality, a county with a population of near 300,000 residents, Fausz believes that Chesterfield’s growth is breeding additional segmentation for the local media market. He notes that, “In Chesterfield there is a natural barrier between southeastern and northwestern Chesterfield. It is our [Village News] contention that Chesterfield is getting too large to do local news, features and opinion, in a countywide publication [like the RTD]. People in Chester don’t know where Moseley is and many of those in Midlothian could care less what happens in Enon. [They say].” It is against this backdrop that Fausz finds opportunities for himself and his community media colleagues.

One area of agreement between both Greg Pearson and Mark Fausz is over the Times-Dispatch’s coverage of Chesterfield-centric news. According to Fausz, “There have been times when [Chesterfield] county officials have gone to the Times-Dispatch and asked, possibly threatened, the paper to stop printing negative stories about Chesterfield. Once again, it is market driven; they will print what they think people want to know. They are not going to print stories that they think will not be read, at least I don’t think so.”

Where the Village News owner differs is in his suggested recourse. The way he sees it, “The answer for Chesterfield government is to quit doing stupid things!”

Having watched overall media trends, Fausz believes that “the future of print media is in specialty publications, especially community newspapers…the only way to convince a business to change its practices is through the market.” In the final analysis, as he sees it, “If someone doesn’t like the Times-Dispatch, Observer, Midlothian Exchange or Village News, they can quit subscribing to or picking it up. Soon the advertising will wane and the end will come quickly.”

*****

The shortcomings of Metro Richmond’s mainstream media also extend to its coverage of the African-American community. Despite the presence of a number of talented black journalists inside the traditional outlets, reporting and editorializing on the contradictory polarization and progress on race-related matters in the region still falls mostly on the smaller shoulders of the area’s two black newsweeklies, the Richmond Free Press (link not available) and the Richmond Voice. The Free Press has long been an antagonist of the RTD, once even taking the daily paper to court over the Free Press’ status as a paper or record for the publication of legal notices. Rarely does a week go by in which the editors of black newsweekly do not gleefully lampoon and lambaste the RTD in ink.

The region’s other black-themed newspaper – the Richmond Voice - takes a less strident, but just as critical view of the RTD. It chooses not to print as much on this subject, though. As news editor for the weekly newspaper with a circulation of over 40,000, Marlene Jones focuses on news and opinion for African-American communities in Metro Richmond and Southside Virginia. She is critical of larger media outlets for what she sees as a failure to adequately cover the happenings in communities of color. Jones believes that “just because a young man in Richmond’s Gilpin Court community is arrested for carrying an illegal gun does not mean that every young man in that community will behave similarly.”

Though she does indicate that she would “have something to say” about any attempts at developing a Richmond-area news council to better monitor coverage and mediate complaints, the Voice’s Marlene Jones reserves her full judgment for Metro Richmond’s overall media scene. She believes that newspapers and large media entities like the RTD thrive off of controversy, with much of that negativity disproportionately attached to black faces. In her mind, “Big media tends to focus on the bad. If I had to guess how much, I’d say [negative stories represent] more than 90 percent of their coverage and [they focus] rarely on the good. Additionally, inclusion of the whole community in coverage - affluent or not, black or not - demonstrates a dedication to the most important component of the profession - the audience.”

The Voice is part of the unheralded but vital tradition of the African-American press. In the US, the black media has tended toward advocacy journalism, a tradition that dates back to its crusades against slavery in the antebellum period. From that point onward, in print, radio, and even television, the black media engaged in intrepid efforts to undermine Jim Crow in the early 20th century, and to give voice to little-known facets of African-American life in the years leading up to and following the Civil Rights Movement. To this day, black media outlets continue to showcase both the travails and triumphs of contemporary African-American life.

In particular, weekly newspapers like the Voice and Free Press have provided information sustenance for communities oft-ignored by the mainstream press, communities like those where Metro Richmond’s poor, middle and upper classes reside. Out of this tradition of community-oriented news gathering and opinion-making, the Voice and Free Press offer their takes on the region’s African American communities, doing what they can to hold the mainstream media to some measure of accountability to its African-Americans readers and story subjects.

Though the Voice and papers like it are small businesses seeking to carry out their social missions while maintaining the profitability needed as a going concern, Jones is actually wary of the growing demands of the business side of the media equation. She asserts that responding to corporate concerns as a guide to news coverage essentially waters down journalistic principles. To her, “The journalism profession has to be more than just making money. Accountability to the communities that support the media should be first and foremost and this means being there equally through the good and the bad. Ignoring the good for the bad and sensationalizing only serves to minimize public trust in media.”

*****

With alternative and community papers like the Richmond Voice and Village News being either unsupportive or lukewarm to the notion of a news council, bringing a full-fledged organization to fruition would appear to be difficult. As the Observer’s Pearson has acknowledged, the burden of maintaining his own newspaper’s commercial viability already makes his full plate rather crowded. Thus, it would appear that those interesting in media watch-dogging should look to other sources. Some Richmond media observers have one such alternative outlet in mind: Blogs.

While the politics of the “Women Can’t Fight” issue is fair game and watching GOP bloggers now try to frame this contest as “the racist v. the sexist” is downright funny, today’s Meet the Press debate between Sen. George Allen and Secretary Jim Webb raised more serious policy and constitutional questions than it answered. Last year, the House Armed Services voted to re-affirm the restrictions on women’s combat roles, despite apparent moves inside the Pentagon to open up the  battlefields to women in greater numbers. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a military veteran who chairs that committee, was quoted as saying, “The American people have never wanted to have women in combat and this reaffirms that policy.” Conventional wisdom confirms Hunter’s sentiments, and President Bush has put it simply saying, “No women in combat.” 

Regardless on your politics, this is a thorny and emotional issue. As a full supporter of women’s equality (and sometimes supporter of their superiority on several fronts), my first inclination is to say “sure, let’em fight.” After all, America is an enlightened democratic republic with women steadily rising to prominence and equity in nearly every facet of our society, politics and economy. At the same time, women have honorably given their lives in defense of this nation since America’s birth. Still, when I delve a little deeper, my mind starts considering the prospect of captured American female soldiers being subjected to particularly inhumane treatment by enemy forces from parts of the world that take a much less enlightened viewpoint on women in society. So, I throw the proverbial football to blogger and blog readers:

What is the proper role of women in the military?

Should women be granted full participation in every aspect of military life on the same par as men, including direct combat roles?

Greg Pearson is the publisher and editor of the Chesterfield Observer. 

Regarding the News Council blog, my differences with the Richmond Times-Dispatch, WWBT or any other daily media does not concern their size. The issue is simply accurate and fair reporting. All of the media, regardless of size, need to be monitored, including the Chesterfield Observer. A News Council concept would allow a citizen, business, government, or group to access a venue for redressing poor reporting wherever it occurs locally. Saying “Pearson is not a big fan of Media General or many media conglomerates” is not really correct. There is a need for big media. Most of the good reporting done in the Richmond metro is written by RTD reporters. To cover some stories, you have to have the resources, and that means adequate staffing. Six months ago, I said so at an RTD public forum. 

The blog seems to imply that I’ve been a defender of the county (as in “to chastise the larger news outlets for what he considers to be shabby treatment of Chesterfield.”) Actually, I consider myself to be informed about the county, and therefore, I’m writing about subjects that I believe I have sufficient knowledge to comment on. Finally, to date, there has never been an editorial in the Chesterfield Observer that has criticized any media. Criticisms of the media have only been written in the “Media Watch” column. 

– Greg 

Part II of a Two-Part Series

In the world of Richmond media, Jim Bacon occupies a unique place. A former publisher of Virginia Business, the Media General publication that chronicles developments in the Commonwealth’s economy, Bacon launched an online magazine called Bacon’s Rebellion in 2002. That publication’s tagline is “The Op-Ed page for Virginia’s New Economy.” Bacon had a long history in traditional public affairs and business journalism, starting his career as a gumshoe reporter in western Virginia. Through his online magazine and blog, Bacon and his stable of writers (this writer included) offer up perspectives on politics, public policy, economics and the media. He also is the co-owner of the VA Newswire, a business “intelligence” operation that gathers and summarizes relevant corporate-focused nuggets from media sources.

With his combination of experiences and personal connections, Bacon speaks with some measure of authority on the local Richmond media market. Turning his eyes to his one-time colleagues, he asserts that “The Times-Dispatch is a middling paper that management is trying to make better. But management has an up-hill job – the newspaper is under tremendous pressure to cut costs to offset stagnant circulation and advertising revenues.”

Bacon believes that the daily paper gives the city of Richmond an inordinate amount of coverage compared to other localities in the metropolitan area. He says “city politics gets lots of ink – county politics gets ink only when there’s a scandal. I read the newspaper more carefully than most people, and I don’t know who my county supervisor is. I don’t know who the chairman of the board of supervisors is. Other than the occasional zoning dispute or the latest flap in the school system, I know next to nothing about the major issues facing the county (through reading the Times-Dispatch).”

He notes that, “to me, media bias, which does exist, is less a problem than the media’s unwillingness to cover key issues at all.” In the case of Metro Richmond, Bacon sees the mainstream press as slanted against folks south of the River and west of downtown. To him, “If there’s a bias, it’s in favor of covering the city and ignoring the suburbs.” Despite his criticisms, he is skeptical of the usefulness of a news council as a response to shortcomings in local news coverage. Bacon notes, “If other people want to form a news council, that’s fine for them. I’m not interested.” Bacon prefers an alternative medium to perform the watch-dog functions of a news council – blogs.

READ MORE

Much ado has been made about state Sen. Benjamin Lambert’s (D-UnReal Virginia) surprising decision to support Republican George Allen in the 2006 US Senate race over his own party’s nonimee, Jim Webb. It has definitely shaken up Democrats who were apparently assured that Lambert no longer had issues with Jim Webb. It looks like the cowboy senator has a new Kemo Sabe for his civil rights pilgrimage…

Weeping and wailing aside, the Richmond senator is well within his rights to turn his back on the party that has supported both his career and the budding political aspirations of the younger generation of Lamberts in and around Richmond. After all, Democrats have no right to expect loyalty from any of their elected officials…party oaths notwithstanding.

Those compassionate souls in the Republican Party who’ve quickly come to to Lambert’s defense vigorously insist that blacks should no longer let themselves be taken for granted by the Democratic Party. They will get no argument in this corner. Historically, the Democratic Party of Virginia was controlled by the Byrd Organization, a good ole boy outfit that stymied the advancement of blacks for many years. In later years, those regressive forces gave way to more progressive elements in the party that, against the odds, elected the nation’s first and only African-American governor. Thumbing their noses at the old guard, these “new” Democrats went so far as to foolishly relegate themselves to minority party status by creating more black majority districts and packing GOP-friendly white voters in other legislative territories. Silly Democrats!

Now, blacks only represent 29% of the Virginia Senate Democratic Caucus (5 of 17) and only 31% of the Virginia House Democratic Caucus (12 of 39). One black majority House district is still represented by a pesky white Democrat of apparently marginal influence and prestige. By contrast, Sen. Allen’s Republican Party of Virginia - which regularly counts on up to 15% of the black vote in Virginia - sure has done a bang-up job of ensuring that black Republicans are proportionately represented in the General Assembly’s GOP caucuses…

According to his letter to Le Senator, Lambert was particularly impressed with Allen’s position on historically-black colleges and universities. Lambert further noted that his support for Allen’s reelection was forthcoming because the two men “have worked well together over the years on many issues.” From this statement it is quite obvious that Jim Webb’s stances on key policy issues affecting the lives of Virginians did not line up with Lambert’s views. Only through taking a gander at some of those positions can Webb and his Democratic brethren recover from this blow.

• Jim Webb supports equal rights for gays & lesbians and opposes the Marshall-Newman Amendment. George Allen (his Senate office hiring policies aside) opposes equal rights for gays & lesbians and support the Marshall-Newman Amendment. Sen. Lambert stands with Sen. Allen.
• Jim Webb supports affirmative action policies designed to specifically overcome the legacy of slavery, segregation, and institutional discrimination faced by African-Americans. George Allen opposes affirmative action in all forms. Sen. Lambert stands with Sen. Allen.
• Jim Webb supports a woman’s right to determine her own reproductive decisions. George Allen opposes a woman’s right to choose. Sen. Lambert stands with Sen. Allen.
• Jim Webb supports raising the minimum wage. George Allen opposes raising the minimum wage. Sen. Lambert stands with Sen. Allen.
• Jim Webb supports fully funding federal education mandates, including No Child Left Behind. George Allen opposes fully funding federal education mandates under No Child Left Behind. Sen. Lambert stands with Sen. Allen.
• Jim Webb supports negotiating group discounts for Medicare programs so that seniors on fixed incomes pay less for life-sustaining medication. George Allen opposes negotiating group discounts for Medicare. Sen. Lambert stands with Sen. Allen.

On issue after issue, Jim Webb stands for issues that are anathema to George Allen. Sen. Lambert now stands with Sen. Allen. Lambert said, “I hope to be working with you in Washington, long after November…” Come January, it will be interesting to see if the Richmond optometrist - with plum committee assignments such as Education & Health, Finance, and Privileges & Elections - will see clearly enough to caucus with the right party when the General Assembly is back in session.