Don’t get me wrong, I do realize that people develop a belief system based on their family, environment, experiences, profession, and education that fundamentally manifests into biases that play out in their life choices, relationships, and maybe even creeps into their subconscious. But… and this is a big BUT… I have faith in journalists. Not all. There are some bad eggs out there. But I believe true journalists can put their biases aside to do their job. I did it. I did it and still do on a daily basis. And I love it because I love giving people the entire picture of events in our communities, in our government, and in our world. By being exposed to all view points, one is better equipped to form their own opinions and stand by them. They also have a truer understanding of their friends, neighbors, coworkers who are all entitled to their own opinions. What is wrong with presenting a subject in the most objective manner possible while still holding on to your own personal beliefs?

Well, according to the Atlanta Progressive News, there is something wrong with that. Going so far, in fact, that they fired one of their reporters, Jonathan Springston, because “he held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively,” according to an e-mail from his editor, Matthew Cardinale.

The firing part isn’t what gets me. It is specifically spelled out in the editor’s statement and on the publication’s website that objectivity is not really their bag, instead opting for a “progressive” slant in their editorial policy. So, if you’re into objectivity, it’s probably not the place you should be working anyway.

What I can’t get over is the part of Cardinale’s statement that says: “We believe there is no such thing as objective news.”

Wrong. News, real news, is objective. What the Atlanta Progressive News is presenting is commentary masked with the word news in order to leverage the word’s credibility that was hard won by hardworking journalists who poured their lives and hearts into reporting – objectively. They didn’t do their jobs so that people like Cardinale could write about their news with commentary all safe and cozy from their office, most likely on a MacBook.

Cardinale’s statement (which he has taken a lot of heat for) also says: “Fortunately, our audience–working families–comprises a majority of people in the United States who are largely ignored by corporate media sources.”

My response:

A.) Most over-worked, under-paid journalists come from working families and are missioned with expanding news coverage to encompass all sections of the community, including those where advertising dollars are scarce.

B.) The digital divide is still a very real thing in the U.S. Yes, the statistics are shrinking, and that is a good thing. However, the “working families” Cardinale is referring to who are truly disenfranchised by the media are not reading his “news” anyway. Why? Because the Atlanta Progressive News is published online only. And according to a report released by the U.S. Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration just last month, “over 30 percent of households and 35 percent of persons do not use the Internet at home, and 30 percent of all persons do not use the Internet anywhere.” And what demographic is this? Blacks and Hispanics in rural areas. It also has to do with income. In 2009, “the users of broadband at home ranged from the highest percentages by those persons who are most affluent (with annual family income of $150,000 or greater) to the lowest percentages by those with $15,000 annual family income or less.”

C.) Newspapers – specifically small-town community papers – are still doing a better job of reaching and informing the “working families” referred to above.

You know, I started this Pen Street blog when I was in grad school because I wanted a place to publish my stories. When I finished my master’s, I didn’t know quite what to do with this site. Publish my opinions? It’s been a struggle. Sure, I’m a far left liberal and I can argue my opinions with the best of them. And I thoroughly enjoy reading opinionated blogs. There is definitely a place for them in the realm of media and some commentators are truly gifted in the art of discussion, I could never compete. However, I was taught, trained, drilled, possibly even mentally beaten with the fact that journalists – serious hard news reporters – separate from that when they are doing their job.

Now you tell me, do we really need more talking heads who will kill any morsel of objectivity that’s left out there? Or do we need to focus on getting back to the basics, the facts, and providing all sides of the stories for as many people as possible? Is it too late to reverse the slow death of objective journalism?

**On a systemic issue, here is an excellent examination of newspapers’ relationship with democracy.

Giant skyscrapers and melting snow are a bad combination, and you’re reminded of the pending horror constantly. Signs are everywhere, written in large red letters, “DANGER: FALLING ICE.” No, it doesn’t say “Beware,” or “Watch Out,” or “Caution.” It says “Danger” in all caps. They’re not kidding around. It totally psychs me out.

So I pull up my hood, convincing myself that somehow if I’m unlucky enough to walk under that corner of building just as the icicle’s cling to end of the roof gives way, that the thin layer of matted down feathers will cushion the fall. When in reality it will really be my skull that cushions the fall. OK, I’ve lived in Chicago three years and have never actually seen it happen with my own eyes (only read about it). But the snow is extra drippy right now.

Maybe I should have moved to Hawaii.

Captiva Island, Florida

Learned how mighty the pen is.

I could also go with:

Never satisfied, but working on it.

Lives vivid dreams during waking hours.

I write best while on deadline.

My teenage angst never went away.

Music saved me, more than once.

I’d rather be at the beach.

What is your six-word memoir? Comment it below. You can also post it on Smith Magazine’s website and it may be used in a future book!

Marriage in the U.S. is a legal recognition of a union joining two people into a partnership, a family. With that recognition comes certain civil benefits that should be accessible to all citizens, such as taxes, next of kin decisions, access to health insurance, etc. Most arguments against same sex marriage are religious in nature. However, we live in a country with a separation of church and state, and I’d like to keep it that way. Everyone should know that the church/state separation protects religious institutions most.

As my dear friend Heidi put it, “Minority rights shouldn’t be contingent on the opinion of the majority.” On most issues I support ballot measures – referendums, levies, major capital improvement projects, even medical marijuana. But civil rights issues (yes, marriage is a civil right) should be fully accessible to all U.S. citizens and protected under federal law. Yes, Maine, I’ll see your state vote and raise you a Supreme Court vote.

To me it is morally reprehensible to discriminate, against anyone. Why prevent two responsible, committed adults from pursuing their own happiness? And how will the allotment of legal marriage rights to same sex couples have any bearing on your life? Don’t give me that “it will be taught in public schools” bologna. Parents are vastly more influential on their children than public schools. If you choose to hate on gay people, I’m sure your children will do the same.

Now, I have a secret to share… sshhhhhh… come closer…. closer… can you read this? Good. OK, here goes… Gay couples already do get married. Yep, that’s right! Under God and everything. In places of worship, no less. But that’s not the issue, Maine. The issue is securing equal protections and civil rights under law for all citizens.

In conclusion, Maine, you are just another bump on the road to the inevitable: federally recognized same sex marriage. It will happen. Next year Generation Y will outnumber Baby Boomers. Change is slow, but it will happen.

Sincerely,

Erica

p.s. I still want to visit your beautiful coastline and eat lobster.

Chinatown, Chicago, October 2009

I am tired of rage. I’m tired of cruelty. I’m tired of the faults that some would characterize as the evil side of human nature.

I read about it here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-fenger-safe-passage-06-oct06,0,2119252.story

And here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/africa/06guinea.html?th&emc=th

And here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100503798.html

And here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j03boQVykjl_jgf2XrmgM1oK0IfAD9ATALPO0

I cannot shut off my mind. I cannot drown out the rage in exchange for mindless filler. Are you going to solve the world’s problems on your iPhone? Stop looking down at your damn phone! All of you! I see you on the train; I see you on the street; I see you with your phones, ignoring the world. Are you thinking about what’s for dinner? Are you thinking about the big game? Are you checking your email, again? Are you humming along to your favorite song?

Or are you thinking about what you’re going to do when you get sick because you don’t have health insurance? Are you thinking about what you’re going to do now that your spouse is laid off from their job? Are you thinking about how you might be evicted from your apartment because you can’t make rent again? Are you thinking about the rage, like I am? Are you tired of it?

Get off your fucking phones.

The word on the street back home is one of confident hesitation  – seems as though many believe the city will in fact be chosen, but aren’t so sure if Chicago needs it.

I, like almost every other kids, once fantasized about being in the Olympics. I imagined myself as a swimming champion. While that dream ended when I was about 14, I still understand the appeal and inspiration the Olympics can have, and it’s a great thing.

But for months and months, Mayor Daley, and those rallying behind Chicago’s bid, said that no city tax dollars would be used to fund the games. Then comes April, when Chicago is one of four final cities up for consideration, Daley changes his tune and agrees to foot the bill (and the City Council gives their stamp of approval, like good little minions).

Protesters rally outside Chicago City Hall last week to voice their opposition to hosting the 2016 Olympics. (AP Photo - Please don't sue me, I have no money.)

More than a few people were ticked off. Earlier this month, the Chicago Tribune reported that the city is split, with only 47 percent saying they support the Games coming to Chicago, while 45 percent are opposed. But they weren’t split over using public funds: 87 percent opposed using tax dollars to pay for the Olympics.

It’s no wonder, the Olympics are a pretty expensive in this economy. The cost is expected to be more than $3.8 billion, and that’s according to the organization leading the effort to host the games, Chicago 2016. While according to CNNMoney.com, the Olympics are traditionally not a revenue producing venture.

Chicago also differs from other cities in that it has control over the Chicago Public School District, and taxes from the city go into the CPS general fund (and state and fed, too). Meaning, CPS does not levy its own property tax dollars (correct me if I’m wrong), but rather they comes through the city. The city of Chicago also has a portion of the funding responsibility for the Chicago Housing Authority and the Chicago Transit Authority. Chicago is much more intertwined in other government agencies than other cities are. And for the past few years, similar to many other cities throughout the country, all Chicago has been doing is making program cuts and raising taxes. Being the highest taxed city in the country already, people are quite worried that the bill for the Olympics could make things spiral out of control.

There is also the concern that the fruit of any economic development that will take place as a result of winning the Olympics bid will (in Chicago tradition) fall into the hands of the wealthy and well-connected. Think about who will be rewarded those contracts for the Olympic Village construction. There is the potential to push the gap between rich and poor in the city even greater, and concern that the Olympics will cause greater segregation and less affordable housing as low income communities will be forced to retreat from areas where rents climb.

But I’m a hypocrite because if the games do come to Chicago, I’m going.

Anyway, we’ll know tomorrow… finally.

Now go forth and be artistic!

Jarvis Beach, Rogers Park, Chicago. Sept. 13, 2009.