Another encampment in the trenches

Thursday I went to the University at Buffalo to cover President Barack Obama’s speech about the rising cost of college education and his plan to fix it.

I have no intention of discussing the policy initiative as presented. You can hear all about it elsewhere and come to your own conclusion.

Instead what I’m going to do is give you my take of Thursday’s event and provide some details you may not hear elsewhere.

My day started at 6:45 a.m. — at least two hours earlier than I usually roll out of bed — hoping to get to the University at Buffalo well ahead of the 9 a.m. media check in time. I nuked a cup of coffee and sent a message to Heather letting her know I successfully landed my feet on the floor. I turned the water on in the shower and set the temperature at the right level. And I stared at the mechanism of my shower. “How do I get the water to come out of the shower head,” I thought to myself. It took me awhile but I figured it out. I’m so not a morning person. Keep in mind that I get out of work between 1 and 2 a.m.

Heather picked me up around 8:15 and we headed to Amherst — via Tim Horton’s, of course. We got to UB just shortly before 9 and found the media check in. Without asking for our ID’s, they handed us our official White House Pool press passes and sent us to the security checkpoint. Equipment to the left, pocket items to the right, and bodies through the scanner. They checked over Heather’s camera gear to make sure it was really camera gear. They checked over my cell phone to make sure it was really a cell phone. I had placed my extra large triple triple on the table. They didn’t check to make sure it was coffee. It didn’t occur to me until later how odd that was. Security is tighter at Buffalo-Niagara International Airport than at a speech by the standing president (or former president, if you check my column from Oct. 23.)

Inside there was much wandering. And kabitzing. The media is a funny bunch. We all want to be first. We all want to be best. And we all want the other outlets to fail miserably. But when we’re together we’re like dysfunctional cousins at a family reunion.

At my end of the media riser, we watched each other take selfies. We talked shop. We mocked whoever wasn’t in earshot. A reporter from the Olean Times Herald photobombed a selfie Channel 2’s Mary Alice Demler was taking. This lead to much discussion and group photos. It was a party atmosphere.

At the other end of the media riser it was all work and no play, Heather tells me. That’s where all the camera people were. Camera people apparently don’t kabitz. Or take selfies. Although I know better.

So we’re waiting. And waiting. And UB President Satish K. Tripathi speaks. Followed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Then UB student Silvana C. D’Ettorre. And finally — although only a few minutes later than originally projected — President Obama.

The crowd went wild. It was my third time seeing President Obama so I was all cool and professional. But really, it’s cool to see the sitting president. If you get the chance, go do it. It’s like the difference between watching a Sabres game on TV or at HSBC. There’s just something about the experience.

In three words, the president inadvertently dissed Congressman Brian Higgins and Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown. Those three words were “Mayor Brian Higgins.” Oops. After some jeering from the crowd, he fixed his error and make a joke at his own expense.

About two-thirds of the way through his speech, some idiot stood up in the back and yelled “Traitor!” followed by something unintelligible and then a second “Traitor!” He was hauled off.

I’d say it’s hard to believe that someone could be so openly uncivilised. But again, I know better. I have Facebook.

Following the speech, the president wandered out into the crowd, much to the chagrin of about a dozen Secret Service agents who all “whooshed” to POTUS’ side — apparently out of thin air. He shook hands. He held a baby. He posed for photos. He swaggered. And he left.

The media said our goodbyes to one another until the next big event, went on our merry way and reverted our trains of thought to being first and best.

Scott Leffler has seen every sitting president in person since Ronald Reagan. He’s always respectful. And he thinks you should be, too. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler.

Whatever happened to just journalism?

I tend to tell people I’m a writer — as opposed to calling myself a journalist. There are a few reasons for this but it primarily comes from me not viewing myself in any grandiose manner that would qualify me as a journalist. I just write things I think in this column and write things I know in the stories I occasionally write.

The other day I read a column by Jeff Jarvis — most recognizable, I’d imagine as a TV critic for TV guide — in which he states that all journalism is advocacy.

“The choices we make about what to cover and how we cover it and what the public needs to know are acts of advocacy on the public’s behalf,” Jarvis said.

I tend to agree to a degree but I think that Jarvis over-simplified matters. And I’d also state that calling something “advocacy” leads me to believe that the writer (or editor or producer or whatever) had a bias going into the story. To me the word “advocacy” is tainted from the beginning.

I suppose you could say that members of the media — I also refer to myself in this way from time to time — are supposed to be advocating for the truth. I also imagine that many do.

George Orwell, the author of “1984” and “Animal Farm” said that “Journalism is printing what others don't want printed. Everything else is public relations.”

He’s got a good point, too. As cynical as he was, he must have considered himself a journalist at some point in his life. But he was most certainly an advocate for the way he thought things should be.

I think a lot of the “news” people on television (and radio) are not journalists at all. They’re not even really news people. They’re talking heads. Or worse, they’re hacks pushing a political point of view under the guise of being journalists.

What’s wrong with “just the facts ma’am?” Why must the people in charge of disseminating information choose to be so selective with what they report? What they dig up? And what they hide?

Obviously there is a finite amount of space in a newspaper or time in a TV or radio broadcast, so there are going to be things left on the proverbial cutting room floor. However, I fear that too much of what’s cut is what should run. And too much of what runs should never have been published.

That is why this field of mine — media or journalism or whatever you want to call is — was told last year that only 40 percent of people trust us a great deal or a fair amount while 60 percent of people don’t trust us at all.

Maybe we should stop advocating and start reporting.

And I’ll just keep writing.

Scott Leffler has worked in the local media for over a dozen years. He has a degree in journalism. And another in Political Science. But in the end he’s just a writer with two beautiful daughters. Follow his tweets @scottleffler.

We need to be careful where we get our news

I had a love-hate relationship with my profession last week.

It started with frustration over an AP photo from the Boston Marathon bombing. The photo in question showed a man in a wheelchair being wheeled away from the site of the bombing. The caption for the photo didn’t give the man’s name and that frustrated me to no end.

I thought it was very distasteful to show a closeup of a man severely injured and not take the time to get the man’s name. I was concerned for his wellbeing and had no way to find out if he was OK or not. I was fearful of using a photo of someone that may have ended up dying in the blast. I thought to do so would be classless. So I didn’t use it. In fact, none of the papers in this newsgroup used the photo — I’m happy to report.

It continued with all of the erroneous reports from — primarily — TV news saying there were more bombs than there were ... and that the suspects were caught ... and the use of photos of people that may be the suspects. One such case had the New York Post showing front-page photos of two men they said were suspects in the case. As it turns out, they were not.

The race to be first, it would seem, has replaced the need to be right for many news organizations. Just as the desire for sensationalism has replaced any semblance of decorum among many news organizations.

Another example of news-gone-awry was the alleged release of “the suspects” names via a Boston police scanner — followed by several Twitter posts with those names — followed by thousands of retweets of those posts. Within minutes the names of two men unconnected to the case went from a police scanner in Boston to the entirety of the internet due to the rapid response of social media.

Many news organizations picked up on that and used Twitter as a source of information, saying that the details came from Boston police, which Boston PD denies.

The timing was odd as just a week prior a local bank was robbed and the name of the suspect went out over the police scanner. Later that evening we got a press release from the Niagara County Sheriff’s Office about the robbery but they didn’t list the name of the suspect that had gone out over the scanner so we didn’t print it. The decision was made that it was better to be a day late on getting this person’s name out than to have the wrong name published and tarnish someone’s reputation without cause.

As it turns out, the name that went over the scanner was the same as the name of the woman they eventually arrested. But I would still make that same decision again. From my perspective, being right outweighs being first. Every time.

The 24-hour news cycle, coupled with social media has made a mess of the news.

Facebook and Twitter are certainly useful means of communication. But they’re unfiltered and should be taken with a proverbial grain of salt. They shouldn’t be used as sources for media. And they shouldn’t be confused with being vetted media. To be clear, I’m not saying that having access to the most up-to-date news is a bad thing. Not at all. But I am saying that we need to be careful to distinguish between news and supposition.

And by “we” I mean readers and reporters alike. If the mainstream media starts acting like a bunch of bloggers, that’s how we’re all going to end up.

Scott Leffler considers himself a writer with a full-time job editing. He also blogs, Facebooks, Instagrams and tweets @scottleffler.

On the role of media ...

The role of media is to tell the story without becoming part of the story..

This is conventional journalism wisdom and I say sometimes it's hogwash.

Last week, New York Post Editor and talk show host Fredric U. Dicker got into a heated argument with gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino over accusations Paladino made against his opponent Andrew Cuomo. This led to Paladino accusing Dicker of working with Cuomo … and eventually telling Dicker – who refused to back down – that he would “take him out.”

Many learned journalists would say that Dicker had crossed the line and should have backed down from the argument after Paladino refused to answer the question Dicker had asked. Dicker should have been content with going back to his desk and writing, “Paladino refused to answer the question,” they would say.

It is a popular school of thought that as journalists, we are there to record events for posterity sake, but shouldn't interfere with what's going on too much – kind of like Marty McFly in Back to the Future. If we do interfere, it will disrupt the space time continuum and the whole world will instantly turn to dust. Or something like that.

I say as journalists, we are there to get the story. And if we have to get our hands dirty a little and get involved in what's going on to get the story, then so be it.

Investigative reporters – the kind you see on the TV news confronting slumlords and whatnot – couldn't do their job without being part of the story. They knock on the door with the TV cameras behind them, sticking those cameras in the faces of the “alleged” slumlords and start asking some tough questions.

I see it as akin to a lawyer asking a judge if they can treat a witness as hostile. I'm not sure if that ever happens in real life or only on TV shows, but it sure is compelling. People sometimes take the same tone with others when they can't get an answer by asking politely. They berate the answer out of them. It might not be pretty but it works.

Well, it works sometimes. Dicker got thrown out before he could get his answer.

Both Dicker and Paladino are unrepentant about the situation, each claiming the high ground.

“People understand where I'm at," Paladino told the New York Times. "They want someone who will fight for them -- they don't want someone who's going to back down."

Paladino's right. I do want that from my politicians. But I also want it from my media. I want someone who's not going to back down and let the person they're attempting to interview dictate the terms of the story. I don't want “no comment” to be good enough.

No journalist worth their salt would let a source edit their story for them. It's just not intellectually honest. But by running away from someone who doesn't want to answer a question, they're basically allowing them to edit it before it's even written.

I'll be honest. That is what I try to do here, after all. I'm being somewhat hypocritical. I've accepted “no comment” on dozens of occasions. Maybe hundreds. I've gone back to my desk and typed it, feeling defeated with every click of the keypad. But I don't have the kind of gumption to get up in a guys face and demand answers the way Dicker did last week.

That's why we need to respect guys like Fred Dicker. We can't always count on the story “coming out.” Or the other candidate forcing the issue.

The role of media is to tell the story. But in order to tell stories, you need to have answers to questions.

The fall of the mainstream media?

I'm not sure if you've taken note of this, but the bloggers are taking over.

There was a time when blogs were used for commentary on stories that had appeared in that days paper or on the TV news. Now TV, radio and the newspapers are being scooped regularly by the blogging community.

Over the past week, I can't count the number of stories I've heard that have started with "according to (fill in the blank) dot com ..." And I've read more than a handful of stories in WNY's leading newspaper, the Buffalo News, that have referenced topics I had read the day before ... or a couple days before ... on my favorite WNY media clearinghouse, WNYMedia.net.

WNYMedia.net is a sort of media co-op, giving a venue to several writers (including myself) to post their thoughts, analysis, and news scoops. It's a sort of one-stop shop for WNY blog thoughts. It lists four people on staff and 11 contributors. But there's even more than that.

I subscribe to a lot of blogs. Fifty or so. About half of them are from WNY. Most of them are updated daily. Even the mainstream folks have taken to using blogs to get the word out. Ironically, I use my talk shows to promote my blog ... and my blog to promote my talk shows.

There was a day, of course, when newspapers were the only game in town. Then came radio. And newspapers feared that radio would be their demise. But they survived. Then came TV. And newspapers are radio feared it would be their demise. But they survived. Then came the internet. And everyone's worried that it will be their demise.

And it might just be.

After all, the internet offers newspapers via blogs. It offers radio via podcasts and web streams. And TV via YouTube. It is everything the mainstream media offers ... but instantly ... and usually for free. Oh, and now, it's earlier, too.

Before I was a talk show host, I was a reporter. There was a piece of trash web site that would often steal information right from our paper ... and print it as though it was their own. Occasionally, they would get some information online before I got it in print. Oh, man, that was infuriating.

Imagine if your your job is to gather information and distribute it to the world. You work 40 hours each week with this sole goal. And then someone who has no training scoops you ... and for the mere joy of it. He's not even getting paid! Infuriating.

Of course, the honorable thing to do is to attribute the web site for scooping the story.

A few weeks ago, the Associated Press put the blogging world on notice: Don't use our stuff without paying for it. See, some unscrupulous bloggers would pick up AP stories and run them on their sites ... sans attribution.

But that seems to work both ways. Mainstream media has taken information from local blogs and run with it ... sans attribution.

And now ... they're on notice.