patrickmurfin

The article by Diana Sroka on Saturday’s hearings on the Healthcare for All Illinois Act (HB 311) in yesterdays Northwest Herald was one of the worst pieces of reporting I have encountered in a long time.  I was very disappointed in the young reporter, for whom I had very high hopes after speaking with her and observing that she actually stayed through the whole meeting and seemed to be taking detailed notes.  In an attempt to aid the furtherance of her professional development, I sent her the following e-mail.

Diana—

I am about to break a rule.  I am about to bite the hand that feeds me.  I help half a dozen organizations in McHenry County, including the Democratic Party and various candidates, with their press relations.  They, and I, rely on the good graces and fairness of the press.  I don’t expect to get everything I send in printed, or every story to be cast in a light favorable only to “my side.”  I know it is the job of the press to try to get all sides, to “balance” a story.  There is a give and take between reporters and flacks—that’s me even if I don’t get paid a dime to do it.  I ordinarily take my medicine like a man, don’t whine, and don’t pick up the phone to scream at editors, however much the urge may come upon me.  I also avow I am writing here now only as an individual and not as a representative of any of the fine organizations I often represent.  In fact its safe to say that the leaders of those organizations would be tearing their hair out in anguish if they knew I was sending this.  Because—you may not believe it—some reporters and editors have extremely thin skins and don’t take criticism lightly.  Some have even been known to take editorial revenge on their critics.  Hard to believe, I know.

But, Diana, your story on the health care hearings in Sunday’s paper was so unreflective of what actually transpired at the meeting, so lacking of any detail of just what the proposal was that was being discussed, and so completely one sided in the presentation of an opinion of an incumbent while completely ignoring the opposite opinion of his opponent, that I have to call you to task.  Call it lesson in Journalism 101.

1)      In the third paragraph—the virtual lead—before a single other detail of the Health Care for All Illinois Act (the name of which never even made print), you write “The bill would provide publicly funded health care to anyone who lives in Illinois—including  illegal immigrants…” The problem is that not once in the three hour hearing did the issue of “illegal immigrants” come up.  My guess is that when Rep.  Mike Tyron left the hearing and you followed him out into the hall to get an interview, he brought it up.  He played you like a violin.  Immigration is a hair-on-fire hot button issue—read the rants that fill the comments on the web site when the issue even tangentially arises.  Tryon knew that if he could get those words in your article, it would cease to be about health care.  You then dutifully tossed the question to Rep. Mary Flowers in your post-hearing interview and made it the lead.

2)      Your second paragraph identified attendees as “A mixture of about 45 local political figures, bill proponents and residents.”  Yet the only political figure identified was Tryon.  Who were the mysterious others?  Well one of them was Tryon’s Democratic opponent in the November election, Robert Kaempfe.  Kaempfe offered testimony in favor of the bill, albeit after Tryon departed.  When an incumbent and a challenger speak out on an important policy issues in the same public venue, it seems to me to be basic journalism that it is news!  There is also the issue of fairness.  An incumbent office holder can access the news columns of the paper pretty much at will.  All he has to do is pick up a phone and offer a comment about the issue of the day.  He will be quoted because he is, after all, an office holder.  A challenger on the other hand, at least at the Northwest Herald, would have a hard time breaking into print if he held the editorial board hostage at gun point.  Press release after press release from challengers go into the circular file.  But when both are present at an event where actual news is being produced, both deserve to be heard.  A few years ago a long departed and un-lamednted Herald editor told me that the paper would not cover any local election campaign before September “because the readers aren’t interested in it.”  He also said that the candidate interviews by the editorial board and the replies to candidate questionnaires—with questions and issues selected by the paper—was all the coverage these races deserved.  I certainly hope that is not still the policy of the paper.  It represents a de facto incumbent protection policy.  It is also quite unlike political campaign coverage  anywhere else.

3)      Although you quote Rep. Flowers at some length, all of the audience quotes were from critics of the proposal, even though supporters far outnumbered critics among those speaking.  You left out any of the compelling personal testimony of experiences.  And you left out mention of local physicians, nurses, and medical service providers who clearly spoke out about the need to change a broken system and who testified, for instance, the publicly funded Medicare was by far the best and most efficient provider of health coverage that they dealt with.

4)      It was impossible from your article to determine just what was being proposed.  I know these issues are complicated and “wonky,” but a bullet point side bar of the bill’s major features would have been enlightening.

5)      The last point, I know, was beyond your control—the headline.  In McHenry County could any thing be more pejorative than “Chicago Pol Touts Health Bill”?  Out here some folks consider both Chicago and Pol to be cuss words.  When Republican state legislators recently held hearings on the budget at McHenry County College, I don’t recall that any of them were identified as “Pols” even though the whole purpose of those hearings was to embarrass the Democratic governor and the Democratic majorities in the General Assembly.  And, of course, the sub-head of the article spotlighted the immigration issue.

I hope you will take this in the spirit with which it is given—the hope that you hone your skill and become the fair and accurate journalist I know you want to be.  I also know it is possible that you wrote a more complete account of the event and that it was subject to editing for space.  If so, I apologize for taking my frustration out on you.