Give Numero A Pulitzer

Sure it sounds odd to give a literary/journalistic (and sometimes music) prize to a record label. But the Numero Group are not just a record label, they're a full-scale archaeological enterprise, and one that also happens to release the results in the form of cds and records.

Each Numero release is filled with extensive details and biographies, old pictures in various states of decay, and sometimes tracks that didn't even make it onto an album or single, despite the hopes of the creators. The label has become best known for the Eccentric Soul series, which has focused on individual soul record labels that hovered under the radar, often even in the city where they were based. These release form an underground history of African American music and history in the '60s and '70s, with many songs that have been literally saved from the dustbin of time.

And those are just half of what they've released. The label's other work has ranged from gospel funk to country to power pop to the folk. Each release is a testament to the quality of music that has been made in America that never made a dent the first time around.

The records they've release touch on many of the Pulitzer Prizes. There's an incredible amount of research involved for these albums, with the label's three owners tracking down musicians and singers who have mostly moved on from their dreams of music and some who don't want to be found again. These works are biographies of cities, regions and musicians. The label has performed an incredible public service with their work, illuminating history and also bringing much great music back from the dead.

I'm Still Learning

In my freshman year at the University of Maryland, I had a disgruntled professor named Jon Franklin. I might have cared more about what he was saying if he sounded like he wanted to be there any more than I did. History of journalism? Not a difficult thing to make boring, but he was good at it. Printing press, yellow journalism, Edward R. Murrow, yadda yadda yadda.

What's more, Franklin spent what seemed like the first half of the semester on advertising and how "we, the readers, were the ones being sold to the advertisers." What?!? Dude, stop grumbling and explain yourself! The man seemed constantly frustrated - from the start - that we didn't "get it." It was as though he expected us to know what he was talking about before he said it. Clearly the material meant a lot to him, but that passion came out in the form of anger, rather than in creative teaching methods. This was a man who planned to say his opinions, have us memorize them, and then repeat them for his pointless little tests.

Nothing is worse, as a student who wants to learn, than just being forced to repeat what is being said by the teacher, especially when I don't even know what he's talking about. Can't learn anything if the teacher doesn't let you think for yourself, no? Either way, he was not getting through to me. For a kid interested in journalism, this man was the opposite of an inspiration.

At the end of the year, I learned this man, this rotund, balding man, this grizzly-bearded man, this grouchy, grumpy, malcontent man, was a two-time Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and a leading member of the innovative "new-wave" of non-fiction-novel reporting - a writing style of novelizing non-fiction.

With the Baltimore Sun, Jon Franklin won the first ever Pulitzer prize for feature writing in 1979, and the first ever Pulitzer prize for expository (or explanatory) journalism in 1985. Since then, he has published 5 books, and wrote for many science magazines, known best for humanizing his subjects

Photo of Jon Franklin....
and you thought I was exaggerating.

I've learned more from Jon Franklin since my time with him has passed. I learned he was right, of course, that the audience is sold to the advertisers. I've learned the elements of storytelling, which he was right about as well. I've learned that, just because he's aged, it doesn't mean he wasn't 'new-school' at some point in time.

I've also learned that - even though he did not inspire me as a teacher - his words have been an inspiration to many. He's quoted here by a teacher from VCU: "Back when I first started, I thought intelligence was the most important attribute a reporter could have. I have since changed my mind. You do have to be intelligent, but the big thing is courage. Courage to open your mind and let the whole damned confusing world in. Courage to always be the ignorant one, on somebody else's turf. Courage to stand corrected. Courage to take criticism. Courage to grow with your experiences. Courage to accept what you don't understand. Most of all, courage to see what is there and not what you want to think is there."

I think I can learn something from that.

truth = transparency

A while ago - almost three months ago - I posted about my desire to have a superhero-like 'cause.' I realized what my cause SHOULD be - no doubt about it in my mind. But acknowledging this cause is merely a first step towards championing it. What I really need to begin doing is defining my cause, and then following through with it.

There are not - usually - masked crusaders darting between shadows and downing mutant foes in today's world. That doesn't mean there aren't superheroes though. I don't think I'm making too big a leap as to say that besides super powers, superheroes are also known for a strict moral code, and for trying to do good things to help society. I would say that a real-life superhero is someone who heroically and admirably adheres to a strict moral code. If I'm right in my assumption that people like Harry Potter and Superman do not exist, then I would think that admirable and heroic do-gooders are all we're left with. And yes, it's very rare, but they are superheroes after all - they're supposed to be exceptional. In fact, their status as "exceptional" is literally unattainable, because it's to the extreme, and that's the point. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. Real-life superheroes, like fictional superheroes, and like Howard Roark, are there to set an example for us to strive towards.

And so? So I shall strive! But what should I strive for? What is worth fighting for? What is a cause can I strive to champion? What 'cause' do I genuinely believe in?

This is not a light topic. I can't imagine dedicating my life to something unless it was something I absolutely believed in. I don't think I could deal with dedicating my life to fighting for something and then failing. Failing is scary! Everyone knows that! And well, while there's plenty of worthy things to fight for, I've always been more interested in improving the life of myself and my friends as opposed to crusading for a cause. I've always been "too cool" to care. But I've come around, or close to. I've realized I've never been too cool for anything, if ever cool at all, and my days of pretending to not care, or being too afraid to care, have, I hope, come and passed.

==========

In other news, I've made the decision to go out and try to be a television news reporter. It's something I believe in, and something I believe I will enjoy doing. In the past couple years, I've learned a lot about what goes into the making of a good reporter, a good journalist. Much of that education has been observational - I've been watching some of the very best in the business at work - and I believe it's time I begin more doing.

On a simple plane, my experience has been an "ask and report" exercise. I've learned to press and pressure and schmooze and beg and plead and express empathy and excitement all for a bit of information, maybe to get a good sound bite or to attain a piece of knowledge over the phone. This I've learned during my time on the assignment desk, and it has been invaluable. From the reporters though, I've learned something more dynamic. There's the ability to determine fact from fiction from sources, and there's fairness and balance to keep in mind. Then, there's the entertainment factor, the art of storytelling, and this can not be overlooked.

I've learned a good reporter knows something about everything, is quick and always curious, can talk and make friends with anyone, and is courageous.

Atop a journalist's moral code should be a relentless striving for truth. Honesty and accuracy are the cornerstone of a reporter's reputation, and reputation is everything.

==========

As previously mentioned, a quality of superheroes is that they take their moral code to an unattainable extreme. If a reporter was a superhero, and we took a reporter's moral code to the extreme, where would that lead? The relentless strive for truth -- to the extreme? Where does that take us? What does that even mean? Are we left left with total transparency? Complete clarity and utter lack of mystery?

And is truth subjective? It's more of an existential concept that I've always toyed with in my mind, though I don't think of it as my personal theory towards things - maybe just something I've always wanted to believe. I certainly think it sounds the "coolest" and most progressive, in part because it's the most accepting theory of truth, and I'd like to think of myself as an accepting person. I suppose though that the subjectivity of truth would infer that truth is based on individuality, and to me that seems the most ideal.

Despite my interest in this topic, I know this is not actually how the world functions. Opinions are individual and subjective, but not facts, and people try to push personal agendas and shape views, but there is a 'truth,' even if we don't know what it is.

If truth was subjective, then there could never be complete transparency, because transparency requires that there be 'one' clear truth.

I don't know if the meaning of 'truth' is complete transparency, and I don't know if complete transparency is even a good thing. I would imagine it would be truth, to the extreme. I know, now, that truth will be my extreme cause.

========

The irony of all this is that Clark Kent used the facade of being a reporter as a disguise. One of Superman's great traits was his fight for what was 'right,' but he was at his most dishonest when he was pretending to be a reporter.

Another One Bites the Dust

So Gene Weingarten, esteemed Washington Post humor columnist and Pulitzer prize winner has taken a buyout from the Washington Post. I know it's the nature of life for my favorite players and bands and columnists to call it a day, but as a hometown boy, it was tough to see Kornheiser finally give up the newspaper ghost, and it's sad to see Weingarten go.

I will say that there are still a number of great writers at the post, Steven Pearlstein is one of the few and proud liberal business columnists (Not an oxymoron!!!), Lisa de Moraes's American Idol recaps are fucking hilarious, and Robin Givhan is a fantastic fashion writer. And alas they still have the undead corpse of Tom Shales to criticize all television things from his zombie lair, but I don't hold that against them.

Personally my favorite Weingarten article was a really beautiful profile of the most isolated of Alaskan towns (sorry you gotta pay for the full article). As a humor writer he was a fearless experimenter -- calling up company call in numbers, having endless post-feminist dialogues, and writing a column almost completely of footnotes. The Alaska piece was essential a jokey idea that became a much more serious feature.

Basically now there's gonna really be no reason to now read the Post Sunday Magazine.

And in Other News

Given our recent journalism discussion, I figure I'd mention one more recent thought. After the Caps and DC United games on Saturday I found myself at a bar with some friends, and on the TVs between many highlights of the Caps loss and very few of DC United tie they showed that wonderful staple of local television journalism - footage of people reacting to a sport event. This just strikes me as a strange choice. You've got a lot of talented folks working for your TV station, many of them with college degrees in a profession whose aim is to gather information, but you show people in a bar watching an event on TV that has already completed. It boggles my mind.

No more journalism observations for a while, I swear.

The State of Journalism

Bill O'Reilly. Keith Olbermann. Rachel Maddow. Hannity & Colmes.


Throwing those names out at the start, you may suspect where this is going. A condemnation of the aforementioned and their biased, one-sided reporting. Strong words in their direction demanding that they cease and desist tearing apart the fabric of the truth for their ratings. A harsh and brutal series of insults insisting Edward R. Murrow would be disgusted with what was on the air today. At least one quote along the lines of "how dare you" directed at Mr. Olbermann for ending his program with Murrow's trademark "Good night, and good luck."


But Murrow's rest goes on undisturbed. The problem is not the people reporting the news. It's the people watching it.


The journalists we see on television are not journalists at all. They are pundits, talking heads, dedicated towards pleasing a particular audience. Their reports are geared towards reaching a particular demographic. The stories they twist, the quotes taken out of context, the events they blow out of proportion or ignore completely, they're all done without compromising any kind of integrity. It's understood that these people are not real reporters, not in the purest sense. They're simply there to entertain while discussing current events. Like Jon Stewart, only not as blatant in what they do. The only power they have to be considered real and valid news reporters is the power we give them. Unfortunately, we give them quite a bit.


Somewhere along the line, news stopped being about being unbiased and impartial. People want to hear reporters tell them what to think. We seem to have lost interest in what's going on in the rest of the world. The local interest and human interest story has taken precedent over keeping people informed about current affairs. News agencies stay in business based on their ratings. No ratings, no advertisers, no money, no show. I can't blame them for showing what they do. It comes down to the people who watch - or don't watch - based on how entertained they'll be by what they see. Our news reporting agencies shouldn't be a part of the cycle of bread and circuses, and they would not be. Except for the fact that we demand they be.


The reporting we get is the reporting we want, whether we admit it or not. It's no mistake that we only get bad news. History has proven that's the news that most draws in an audience. People watch news that tells them what to be afraid of. The majority isn't interested in being broadly informed and thinking about information for themselves. They want to be guided. The news is not a tool to tell us how to act. It is there to inform so we can draw our own opinions with a little more insight and information than we would have had previously.

This is one of those situations where change starts at home. The only way to get decent reporting is to demand it in a way networks understand; watch the shows that are actually about the news. Don't sit on the edge of your seat waiting for the next clever thing Keith Olbermann says. Don't eagerly await Bill O'Reilly's next skewed appraisal of events. Sit down and watch a news anchor tell you without offering opinion the events of the world today. Watch the international news CNN is kind enough to provide on most cable providers. Watch for hard-hitting interviews and make it a point to tune in. Watch C-SPAN. Do something to be more than a parrot for a pundit. If you demand it, the networks will be more than happy to oblige, as long as you're watching.

Imagine if the majority of Americans willingly elected to be well-informed about current events and the way their government worked.

Wouldn't THAT be newsworthy?