Diary of a Mad Voter: Nathaniel Hoffman
Reporters Be Different
By Nathaniel Hoffman, 3-31-08
 |
|
 | |
|
When I moved to Boise I was still in my flip flop phase. I was not that into shoes for a number of years.
I thought I had found a town that was cool with that.
The East Coast prep school I attended for four years was not that into flip flops. I wore a tie every day of high school and kept a blue blazer in my locker.
Prep school drove me West.
My first winter here I landed a job at a still-rural daily paper just west of Boise. The mayors and county commissioners out there still wore jeans to work.
I started dressing like a reporter. That is to say, I started dressing so as not to be confused for a lawyer. I sat at the back of council meetings differentiating myself from the city lawyers who came to rip off the farmers and build tract housing throughout the country.
Their suits did not impress us.
Then I bought cowboy boots and started occasionally wearing a Stetson. Which got a little weird.
Then we moved to California for a few years where reporters more and more dress like lawyers. Especially at the big city papers.
So when I returned to Idaho, and started covering the statehouse in Boise for the local alt weekly, I was shocked to find that the Idaho dress code had been Californicated.
Perhaps it had always been this way. I do recall former Gov. Dirk Kempthorne’s blow dried ‘do. And Gov. C. L. “Butch” Otter, whose reputation is more toward the jeans and boots of a county commissioner, actually wears tailored shirts with his name embroidered into the cuffs.
It’s not that I care so much what they all wear, but it’s part of a two-pronged pattern that makes for mad Idaho voters.
The first prong is the professionalization of the citizen legislator.
A local political science professor recently asked me to speculate on the differences between lowly state representatives and the perceived higher position of state senator.
His thesis is that there is no real reason for a difference between the two houses: they have the same terms and pretty much the same jobs.
One of the differences however is that the internalized elitism in the Senate breeds a permanent political class. The longer they serve, the more state legislator conventions they go to, the more personally enriched they become the better suits they start wearing: it’s all part of a pattern of forgetting their farmer roots.
Case in point: A page handed me a folded note during a crowded, emotional hearing of the Senate State Affairs Committee.
“You look hansome!” it read, and then, parenthetically, “Professional in attire compared to your pajamas from the other day.”
Signed, by a senator who will go unnamed for journalistic reasons that I’m not totally sure of. Perhaps he has successfully co-opted me.
Which leads me to the second, and more enraging prong: the use of their positions of power to co-opt the press.
The longer we serve alongside them, the more journalism conferences we go to, the longer we survive the death of the papers, the better suits we wear all serve to distance us from our bulldog roots.
But in Idaho, in the lower House of Representatives, the meddling goes even deeper.
The Speaker of the House this year insisted that reporters say the Pledge of Allegiance along with the body or stay off the floor until lawmakers are done Pledging.
A local Christian right provocateur dared ask how the press could be trusted if reporters refused to Pledge. (Without irony, he asked this in the form of a press release to the local media on which he relies for his fame.)
I would say that standing in our monkey suits surrounded by the body we cover and reciting a loyalty oath that has been gerrymandered into a Christian prayer is no way to start the day in a fair and balanced manner.
How’s that for burying the lead?
To be a proper outside observer, reporters must remain outside the system. And codes of any sort – dress codes, religious codes, ceremonial codes – are part and parcel of the system. The government’s insistence on rules and decorum makes sense for their process. It does not make sense for ours.
The Idaho Legislature is coming to an end for 2008, hopefully by midweek.
And it’s just in time to break out the flip flops again.
Editor’s note: Nathaniel Hoffman’s weekly blogs are part of NewWest.Net/Politics’ “Diary of a Mad Voter” feature, a group blog, published in partnership with the Denver Post’s Politics West intended give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the ‘08 election cycle. For more columns check in with www.newwest.net/madvoter. And for more information on each of the bloggers, click here.
[End of article]Mr. Hoffman;
So why don't you call their bluff and stay off the floor? Why should you pledge allegiance to the Republic before you know how that particular branch of the Republic is going to demolish liberty and justice for all during that particular session?
That Senator who hit on you for your natty attire didn't happen to be United States Senator Craig, making a visit to the State Senate, did he?
Professional attire -- that is to say decent pants, shirt, and tie -- isn't too much to ask of a reporter. Having performed that job for two decades, including a stint at a Western statehouse, I can say that leaving the jeans at home and wearing a tie boosted my credibility immensely among lawmakers, lobbyists, staffers, and yes, even members of the great unwashed public who ventured to the marble hallways to plead for their various causes.
Grubby clothing does not make you a man of the people or some kind of maverick journalist. It simply gains you a reputation as a slob and, at least among sources and potential sources, raises significant questions about your judgment and credbility.
At this time, when the journalism profession is under considerable attack for being less than credible and accurate, why perpetuate the sloppy image by dressing poorly? You don't have to say the Pledge (just stand silently, like I used to do), but at least wear a damn tie.
Nathaniel, you go, girl.
:o)
Bat, you're missing the point, old man. Nathaniel is talking about the very serious and disturbing attempt in the Idaho Statehouse to co-opt the media, and he's dead-on. Hoffman and maybe one or two others in Idaho are the only journalists in the entire state willing to speak truth to power. I, too, was a journalist covering the Idaho Statehouse for many years, and while the dress code requirement of wearing a jacket didn't bother me, being forced to wear a tie (it's codified in the Joint Rules of the House) did bother me; and not just because I've got a size 19 neck for which very few off-the-rack shirts are made.
I have also been an editor in this state, and I have seen Idaho reporters get far too close to my comfort to the people in power. I have to wonder what corolation, if any, there is between the amount of reproter co-optedness and the one-sidedness of any state government, whether Republican or Democrat.
Hey Chuckles, I'm a bit more troubled about Bat's thinking for another reason: Nat talked about how he came to Idaho and dressed like the natives (jeans, shirt, even cowboy boots) but Bat believes such dress (that of the locals) to be "grubby", that of a "slob" and that it "raises SIGNIFICANT [huh?!?] questions about your judgment and credibility." So, what I get from Bat's thoughts is that he doesn't have a very high opinion of the regular Joe and Jane from Idaho. I think it's time for Bat to go back to his high falutin' law practice in the "city of angels".
Comment By Sisyphus, 4-01-08Not sure what to make of this. Lots of stereotyping going on here, making assumptions based upon personal appearance. I'm not sure whether it says more about Mr. Hoffman than it does about the system. But I'm a little thick so maybe that's the point.
The issue is control. We all have our spheres of influence wherein personal control is amplified or diminished depending on our status within it. This is formalized in government. The floor of the House is the Speaker's domain. He is charged with keeping decorum befitting the dignity of the governmental function being maintained. Its similar to the authority of a Judge in the courtroom. When someone through language, conduct or dress diminishes the decorum of the office, we the people provided the Judge with the authority to find that person in contempt giving the Court punitive powers as a result to wipe the stain of it away and the implied anarchy that goes with it. The Speaker has similar powers on the floor of the House. The prudence of exercising those is within his discretion and the manner in which he chooses to exercise them is certainly a matter for which to hold the officeholder accountable.
But by the same token journalists get to control what they write. Their selection of words can and does "slant" the way something is perceived as they will be the first to admit. But a politician has about as much influence to directly change what a journalist will write as a journalist has in directly influencing a particular vote that politician will cast. These two spheres are symbiotic. Politicians need journalists since they are the font of most information received by voters. In turn, journalists are paid to report on the dealings of government.
Given this context, it strikes me that the Speaker was less than prudent in his admontion. For a politician to directly confront a journalist, impugning his patriotism in writing, seems like biting the hand that feeds him, having the opposite effect of exhibiting control. Instead it invites criticism and will likely result in unfavorable press, not a good quality in a politician. Its heavy handed, arrogant, subjective and abusive as well.
But Nathaniel I'd be careful about judging books by their cover. I too chafe at conformance especially at overt attempts to get me to. Many people who see me think I'm a yuppie Republican but I come from, and share values with, an extended family of Idaho spud farmers that recognize the Democratic Party as the one best representing their interests. I will say that when I go shopping and need assistance, I'm a hell of a lot more likely to get it when I'm dressed for Court than I am when I'm dressed for harvest. Is it conforming for me to dress to get the desired effect or simply a means to an end?
Ah, Mick, if only I were a highfalutin' lawyer from the big city, the dreams I could fulfill! As it is, however, I am an almost lifelong journalist who has scraped by on typical journalistic wages paid in the West (Kraft mac and cheese, anyone?). My intent was not to insult people who don't wear suits every day; I don't own a formal suit, and my newest sport jacket is something like 15 years old. My point was simply that when covering a state Legislature, it helps a journalist's credibility to dress up a notch or two.
And Chuckles, I don't know the particulars of what's happening in Idaho, but dressing up a notch or two to be on the floor of the House or Senate doesn't necessarily mean you're being co-opted by any particular political movement or agenda. A reporter can still ask tough questions and write tough stories while wearing a necktie. The process of co-opting reporters is a time-honored tradition by politicians, and they do it a number of ways, not the least of which is offering free meals at political events and offering particular journalists "special access" to important people. Ethical journalists know where to draw the line in such instances.
One more thing, then I'll shut up. State-government reporters anywhere should resolve to spend as little time as possible in marble hallways. More stories should be written from out in the field, where government policies have a real effect on ordinary peoples' lives. That -- and not in a corner of the House or Senate chambers -- is where great journalism is practiced, and journalists who are out among the public, reporting on matters of public interest, simply cannot be co-opted by politicians.
Bat, I agree wholeheartedly on your final point. Just to clarify, though, it's certainly not the dress that bothers me so much -- the dress code is spelled out in the Joint Rules and applies to everyone who has access to the floor; journalists, lawmakers, pages, secretaries and invited guests. If it's in the rules, and you agree to the rules, there's little you can say.
It was the compelled speech (the pledge) that bothered me so much. It is NOT disruptive for a reporter to stand silently and respectrfully during both prayer or pledge. I remember once an ACLU lobbyist was chastised for failing to utter the words "under God" during one morning pledge.
Essentially, these people get themselves elected and suddenly their mindset reverts to some feudal system that allows them to lord over the rest of us, even if just in the immediate chambers.
I've seen it happen on both sides of the aisle, and I don't like it. But I like it less when the journalist not only succumbs out of sheer convenience, but seeks out other ways to sidle up to the elected officials. Sometimes I wonder if their motivation is really to gain better press access, or if it's just a more basic desire to rub elbows with power. I'm human, and have experienced both temptations. But they are temptations to be remembered and resisted.
I rest my case, and my arse.
"The longer we serve alongside them, the more journalism conferences we go to, the longer we survive the death of the papers, the better suits we wear all serve to distance us from our bulldog roots."
It's a metaphor, folks! All this quibbling about wardrobe when Nathaniel's point about being co-opted (above) is dead on target. The layers go deeper than I suspect Nathaniel had space to write, but I'd love to see him expound on this theme and the earlier commenters with backgrounds in journalism probably have a few tales of their own to throw in. Keep this discussion going on the many levels which politicians in power try to keep reporters on a short leash.
Do watch the McCain daughter's video of how her father co-opts the national media on a much larger scale at Glen Greenwald via Crooks and Liars.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/11/just-how-cozy-with-john-mccain-should-the-press-be/
And don't tell me it doesn't happen here. It's just on a smaller scale.
Of course it goes on here, Mama. I just don't think Nathaniel's example is very apt. You need go no further than Wayne Hoffman to see a glaring local example.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/reporters_be_different/C37/L37/