Kindly Lent Their Owner

Twenty-five years ago I found myself in the most unlikely place for an art gallery: Las Vegas’ Bellagio Hotel. If you’ve ever been to Las Vegas, you know that its primary attractions do not include art galleries; this specific hotel is known for its musical fountain show and nearly nine acre man-made lake: smack in the middle of a desert, no less.

Still, I was intrigued by the art collection in this majestic, albeit somewhat gaudy, setting. It featured the private art collection of Steve Martin–you know him as the comedian, Saturday Night Live alumnus, and musician (he plays one hell of a banjo and has garnered a Grammy award for that talent).

Even more so, I was intrigued by the exhibition’s title: “Kindly Let Their Owner,” so much so that I bought the accompanying catalogue, not only to remember the visit, but the title. “Kindly Lent Their Owner” intrigued me at the time and does this day; I even looked up its origin these 25 years later.

A quick AI assisted search revealed that the phrase is “a clever spin on the standard museum credit line, “Kindly lent by their owners,” as well as having its origin in the nineteenth-century artist James Whistler (he of “Whistler’s Mother”) cracking a joke when leaving out the word “by” in order to suggest that all artwork is simply ours for now, passing through our hands, temporarily , until it ultimately becomes the property of others once we are gone. The artwork is timeless (how often have you heard that phrase?), but our ownership of it is temporal. We are its current owners, but it ultimately is not ours to keep.

That got me thinking.

What do I think I “own?”  Is it a house? Is it a car? How about everything in that house or in that car?  Is it really mine or “kindly lent?”

I remember many years ago when our son was young he and I were outside on the rear deck of our rural Rhode Island home, pondering the heavily treed forest, beneath a highly lit sky. Corey, my son, turned to me and said “did you ever think about how that tree,” pointing to one majestic oak in particular, “is yours, that you own it?” 

I had a flashback to Las Vegas, a place that could not possibly be more different from where I stood at that moment, and the art collection I’d seen there.

We then, father and son, went on to talk about how this house, like all of the New England town in which we live, was built on Native American land. We are merely entrusted, for now, with its ownership. The trees themselves, the soil, the rocks, the animals and their descendants, all existed here hundreds, if not thousands, of years before us. They were being lent to us. the “owners,” until such time as they are “lent” to someone else.

In a time when so much focuses on what “we” own–whether individually or as a nation–“Kindly Lent Their Owner” presents a lesson, at least it does to me and, I hope, to you.  Another great comedian and social commentator, George Carlin (ironically, I once saw him perform in Las Vegas–maybe the town has educational value, after all!) had a routine he called “Stuff.” It went something like this:

A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it. You can see that when you’re taking off in an airplane. You look down, you see everybody’s got a little pile of stuff. All the little piles of stuff. And when you leave your house, you gotta lock it up. Wouldn’t want somebody to come by and take some of your stuff. They always take the good stuff. They never bother with that crap you’re saving. All they want is the shiny stuff. That’s what your house is, a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get…more stuff!

That stuck with me when a close friend, and fabulous musician, named Jimmy Berger and I wrote a song last year titled “Gratitude.”  I penned the lyric:

“You can take the stuff,

But leave the dream

When all is said and done

It’s only you and me.”

On Father’s Day weekend this year I found myself talking with my fellow father-in-law about all of this .We are both of an age and have had careers where we believed that all the stuff we accumulated was what we “owned” and that, in itself, defined a certain portion of our self-identity.

But the longer we thought about it (and I harkened back to “Kindly Lent Their Owner,” Carlin, and “Gratitude,” the more we got “it.”

All we really own in this life is what we have the time to enjoy while we’re here and, when we’re gone, “lend”  to our children, grandchildren, friends, and others in need., in order that they can also enjoy what was “lent” to us. We spend a lifetime working  to “own” what we will never really “own” in a permanent sense  beyond this life. It has been “kindly lent,” us; it is, temporarily, “ours.”  What we truly “own” isn’t a piece of art or a home or any variety of things. It is what we alone possess: the love of family, the kindness of strangers, and the community of friends. That’s the “stuff” that can’t be lent, and it also can’t be stolen.

You’re Gonna Miss This

The bedroom door was locked. I didn’t want her to see me cry. “Dad, we have to go,” she said, while knocking continuously on the door.

Go where? It wasn’t possible. My little girl was going off to college. It was supposed to be a passage. It was alleged to be the natural order of things. 

It wasn’t. Not for me. 

I had spent the last 18 years repeating the same mantra to her. “You can’t live here forever. Our job is to get you out of the house and into your own life. Your job is to get yourself on your own.”

So why, now, did I not only disbelieve that parental mission, but disagreed with it. This was my baby, my first child. My Casey. 

“Dad, we have to go,” she repeated. 

Northeastern University, only a little more than an hour away, was the destination. It might as well have been India. 

I know. I have to unlock the door, both physically and metaphorically, to our daughter’s future. 

I will, I did. I must. 

So, we got in the car and, with her mother, drove to Boston, all the while me revisiting, in my mind, the day she came home from high school with a form for me to sign giving permission for her to take driver’s ed classes.

“Why do you need to drive,” I asked with actual seriousness. “I can take you anywhere you need to go.” 

“Dad, please just sign the form,” she implored.

Hypocrite. Me. The hypocrite. The blind man. I didn’t see it coming, this wave of saying one thing, getting exactly what I wanted, but not knowing I don’t want it at all. 

She’s leaving.

***

We get to Boston, finally. The car is unloaded with all measure of things that she is taking with her. 

The one thing she isn’t taking is me. Her father. 

It’s time to say goodbye. We do, me reluctantly. 

This time there’s no door, so I find a tree on campus to duck behind and hide the tears. 

We left. 

I had one of the first “mobile,” as they used to call them, phones.

 I called the payphone (I had made sure I had the number before leaving) in the dorm’s hallway and asked for Casey.

 She finally, after what seemed an eternity, came to the phone. 

“Are you okay,” I asked. 

“Dad, you and mom only left five minutes ago,” was the response.

My heart fell.

Five minutes for her was eighteen years to me. Where did it go?

Years later, I heard a song by Trace Adkins, “You’re Gonna Miss This,” about those years that went by in a flash.  

As a parent, the trials and challenges of infancy, adolescence, and young adulthood seem like they never will end.

They do.

They have.

You’re gonna miss this.

I did. 

I still do. 

You will, too. 

Good Journalism Takes Time

I tell my students we never know when a story will hit us. One hit me today. Actually, many have hit me, but few, if any, resonate quite so personally. This one does.
As with so many of our own stories, this one has its origin in the similarity to someone else’s story.
I was reading about several photographers, now each in their nineties, and the great, though largely unheralded, in our time, contributions they made to history—both to their field and to our culture.
The article was in Berkshire magazine. It profiled four photographers—two women—who, in a pre-digital, pre-cell, pre-device era, was a craft everyone couldn’t “just do.”
Sure, there were those who “snapped” photos, but there were others who learned the process of how to do it right.

They cared that the outcome was accomplished in a certain “way,” that it reflected the pride of the person behind the lens.That required imagination. It took care. The major lesson it can teach us is how to reflect.
It recognized that the work wasn’t only for this time. It might, just might, be for all time.
Imagine.
There once were those who not only knew the process, but thought about it. They had a vision. They could see the story before others saw it as a story.
They imagined it in their heads.
I knew one of them. I was privileged to work with and learn from him.
His name was Paul Pappas. He was my mentor, in journalism and in life.
I thought of him today because my father passed away, recently, at age 94.
Paul was like a second father to me. He passed away the first year I began university teaching.
He could be an unpleasant man. But he taught me that wasn’t the measure of a man.
Care
Like my father, Paul cared about the work he did. It was never enough for either of them to leave the job behind at the end of a long day. They took it with them.
There is such a thing as caring too much. There’s also such a thing as not caring enough.
Paul could have had it easier. First, he didn’t need a wet-behind- the ears, fresh from radio twenty-something who knew next to nothing about the medium Paul helped create when film was king and video hadn’t even been imagined.
In radio, I worked to master words. Pictures were never a consideration. In television, I had to learn it the other way around. It was like learning a new language (and high school French was not my forte.)
In my first television job, the station management thought it would be a great idea to pair me with Paul.
It didn’t seem so to me.
For one, I truly disliked this man, much the way any child, at some point, dislikes a parent who tells him or her that he or she isn’t doing things the right way.
Paul did that. Repeatedly.
To start, some days he would refuse to shoot my “standup,” the part of the story where I appeared on-camera, until I knew where and why it “fit” into the story I was trying to tell.
That, of course, meant I needed to know the story I was trying to tell. And, often, I did not.
More than once, when we were on-location, he stopped shooting, packed the camera in the news car’s trunk, and announced “we’re done.”
When I’d argue, he’d say something like “learn to get it right,” offering some abrupt advice, and then, still insisting that, for this day, I was done.
I thought, at the time, it was because he disliked me.
I was wrong.
He cared.
After weeks of being reminded by Paul that I knew nothing about television news, I whined, complained, and made it clear to my station’s management that I didn’t want to work with him.
Their response: you need to work with him. They were right. They might have added “and he needs to work with you.”
I needed to learn. And in ways he didn’t realize, he needed to teach.

Teach
We tend to think of teachers as those who occupy a classroom. It’s easy to overlook that the most effective teachers don’t have that occupation listed on their tax returns.
Paul was a teacher.
And I had a lot to learn, both about journalism and about my teacher.
For starters, I didn’t know that this gruff, inconsiderate, and angry man was also a big part of journalism history.
He never told me. I never asked.
I could have had no way of knowing that one day in the future I would tell his story in front of hundreds of students—the story that was in the textbooks I used for my courses. Little did I know then how little the textbooks knew, even now.
Paul Pappas, I learned in time, had gone to jail. He called it, modestly, his “case.” He only talked about it when someone brought it up, albeit reluctantly. Even then, he would minimize his role in the historic Branzburg v. Hayes case that worked its way all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The issue was reporter’s privilege—the right to withhold from authorities confidential information that is revealed during the process of news gathering. It eventually took the form of “shield laws” in some, though not all, of the United States. Sadly, it’s still not a federal law.
In Paul’s instance, he was granted access to a Black Panther headquarters in New Bedford, MA in 1972, on the condition that he wouldn’t reveal its location.
When authorities learned that he knew the location, Paul was brought into court and told to reveal his sources, as well as the exact location of the Panthers’ headquarters.
He refused.
Paul was unaware, at the time, that there were two other journalists—Paul Branzburg and Earl Caldwell—who had taken a similar stand, different circumstances, same principle.
Frankly, knowing Paul as I came to know him, if he had, it wouldn’t have made a difference.
He made his own choice.
Journalism wasn’t free. It came with a price, one way or another.
Paul never sought to be a teacher, but he became one, teaching by example.

1981. After what seemed to be an eternity of enduring his criticism, wrath, and condescension, I basically ignored him. On this day, Paul and I were in the waiting room of Providence RI’s then postmaster general, Harry Kazerian.
He was an old acquaintance of Paul’s. It was a large club, as Paul often reminded me.
We were waiting outside Harry’s office to interview him; Paul was reading a magazine.
I heard a voice.
“You know, Mister, you’re pretty good.” It was Paul.
“Excuse me,” I remarked, figuring he couldn’t be talking to me.
Without looking up, the great man, who I did not know to be the great man, repeated, “you’re pretty damned good.”
That was, as they say, the turning point. I didn’t know it then. I know it now.
Paul was giving me his approval and, not knowing it, his permission to keep doing this damned thing called journalism.
It was not based upon a single accomplishment, but perseverance and progress.
I, the pupil, had shown him, the teacher, that I cared to get it right, that I thought about how to do the story before forging ahead just to get it done.
Apparently, I had impressed “Paulie,” as I would later be allowed to call him (though few were), when he and I had covered Pope John Paul’s visit to Boston.
On that day, he had warned me that I had only one chance to get it right, meaning my standup as the Pope passed behind me during the papal procession.
Fuck it up, I recalled him saying, and you have nothing. You can’t do it over.
He taught. I learned.
One chance.
Don’t fuck it up.
Scared to disappoint the man who I had heretofore loathed, I did it.
Once.
Got it right.
One take.
I didn’t know I could do that. I still don’t know how I did it. The words I spoke escape me, but I remember this: I didn’t want our feud, mine and Paul’s, to go on.
He nodded, saying nothing.

Getting It Right
1982. The Claus von Bulow trial in Newport, R.I. It was the first nationally televised trial. The details are readily available: Danish socialite is accused of killing heiress wife for money and mistress.
Paul and I covered it together. By then, we were talking.
It wasn’t far from our house then, so Paul would pick me up in the news car on the way to the courthouse. We’d sometimes have breakfast first.
It was our routine, for months, that is, until it wasn’t.
Finally, the trial ended. The jurors began deliberating.
That’s when the “pool” system—the lottery that determined who would shoot that day’s court proceedings—decided who the one photographer shooting the verdict would be.
It was not a small decision. Whoever shot the verdict was recording history for millions of people. Even in the pre-Internet world, it would be broadcast and shared by hundreds of news organizations world-wide.
Paul got the nod.
He deliberated in our kitchen that morning of the verdict. Where should he focus? On the defendant? On the jury foreman? On the family of the victim?
He seemed, uncharacteristically, undecided.
We talked about it in the news car on the way to the courthouse.
He actually asked my advice. Me.
I mumbled something like “just get it right.” There are no second chances.
He had taught me and taught me well.
Paul focused on the defendant, Claus von Bulow’s, reaction, as the guilty verdict was delivered.
It resonated throughout the world. He got it right.
My piece, which he shot, did also. I got it right, the first time.
Teacher and student, united.
Years later, when I became a professor, Paul was generous with his time, talking to my students for their term papers in media law.
He was, uncharacteristically, talkative.
What he never told them was how much he cared about every story, not just the “big” ones. He never showed it, but he cared.
He cared. Big time.

Reflect
I remember the time when the wind chill was well below zero and a beached whale was at death’s door. After staying in the bone-chilling cold with Paul for an hour, I relented, retreating into the news car.
Paul stayed. He didn’t want to miss the story, especially the rescue, when rescuers arrived.
He caught the moment when the whale was pulled from the ocean, just as he had the sinking of the Andrea Doria in 1956. Yes, he caught that, on film, too. If you’ve ever seen it, you’ve seen Paul’s historic work.
On this day, I thought he might have pushed it too far. He was breathing hard and turning pale—not good for a man his age who had survived open heart surgery too few years before.
“Damn it, old man, you’re going to die with that camera on your shoulder,” I yelled in his face.
“That’s exactly the way I’m going to die,” he told me.
He did. Not on that day, but not long after.
He was photographing an everyday car accident, neither historic nor memorable.
It was at the end of his work day and he went out to shoot it before heading home.
Paul died of a heart attack, his video camera on his shoulder, just as he predicted.
His legacy did not.
It lives on in the hundreds of students he never met, the ones I’ve taught. The ones I will soon teach.
Thank you, Paulie.
I’d like to think they, too, will eventually get it right.
It takes time. But you knew that.

Memories Where You Can Find Them

  • Memories

Memories Where You Can Find Them

The VHS box set of “Star Wars.” I bought that for her for Christmas.

The first video games he ever lobbied to get for Christmas. I bought those, too.

The Care Bears that I stood in line at frigid Christmas time, with tons of other parents, to “win” for her special gift.

Oh, and there were the “My Little Pony(s),” all the accessories, and how about those “Cabbage Patch Kids?”

Those CD’s by people with names like “Vanilla Ice.”

They’re all in my house now. Some of them are visible every day. Some are packed away in the attic. I either pass or come across them every day, in my travels here at the home where our “kids” were raised.

I called it a “home.” Actually, now it’s a house. That’s a downgrade.

When did that happen? I guess around the time our daughter and son “grew up.”

Sure, they still come to visit, sometimes for a weekend, sometimes longer, always for holidays, at least for now, with or without a spouse or “other.”

I wonder for how long.

The rest of the time I walk by this stuff they left behind and see how much more was left behind. So much more.

Some of it is just “stuff.”  Some of it is more, much, much more.

There are the baseball gloves, his and mine. They correspond to the patch of lawn where we played catch in a time that seems not so very long ago. But it was.

There are the photos of the pets, long gone, in each of their bedrooms. Why do they keep those?

And why am not able to avoid looking at them each time I walk in and out of their rooms to raise shades or lower windows?

Old technology abounds. There’s the boom box that once was state-of-the-art and its sibling, the Walkman.

I pledged I’d get rid of all this stuff last summer. Or, was it the summer before? Or is it every summer since they “grew up”?

When my mom died nearly eight years ago, my dad, now 94, told my sister and me that nothing was to be touched in his house. He wanted it exactly the way it was when my mother left us.

That seemed an old man’s clinging to something long gone, something that can’t be retrieved, a time that can’t be brought back.

A fool’s gold.

It seemed that way.

But then, I became that man.

What would seem to others like scrap is my gold.

It is a touchstone on a time and of a time.

It is a window to memories that shouldn’t depend upon an object, and yet they do.

These objects—all of them—are markers, reminders that this once was a home.

Now it’s a house.

The difference may not be measurable, but it is palpable.

And it brings me, as a father, closer to my own.

Who, not what, is a “soft target?”

It’s one of those experiences that falls into the category of “firsts.” First love, first kiss, first job, first car, first concert.
It’s one of those indelible joys, proof that we are making progress toward growing up, getting closer to something for which we yearned: adulthood.
When I was growing up, and maybe when you were, I looked forward to the day when I could go to my first concert, an experience filled with anticipation of independence from my parents.
I had every expectation that it would be crowded, loud, characterized by blazing lights and thumping sound.
I expected all those things.
What I never had to think about was that I could be a soft target.
I remember my father, who had worked all day in the fields, dropped me off at the RI Auditorium, a cavernous barn of an arena, an hour’s from our home, so I could have the shared experience with friends and total strangers of watching the great James Brown, Sonny and Cher, the Young Rascals.
He probably had his own apprehensions about what was going on at the concert.
What he didn’t have to think about was that I might be a soft target.
With our own kids, I came closer to knowing what fear was when letting go of them for what was an early marker of adolescent independence.
I never had to think of them, not even once, as soft targets.
As various media outlets repeat that term nearly every 5 minutes, in the shadow of the bombings outside an Ariana Grande concert in the UK, I’m struck by the irony of the term itself.
While I know the term “soft target” has specific meaning when devising strategies to fight terrorism, it hardly seems appropriate when describing the hard reality of what we as a culture are now facing.
For the nearly 22 young people who lost their lives, there was nothing “soft” about the brutal action that robbed them of their youth and their future.
For the parents of those young people, there will be no “soft” days ahead.
I’m aware that “soft target” refers to distinguishing between high risk and lower risk targets, but I also wonder if using the term actually desensitizes us to the reality of terror.
There’s more at stake here than semantics.
As soon as we delineate and separate some places as soft targets for terrorists, don’t we shield ourselves from the realization that we live in a world where nowhere is safe?
The loss of these young people’s lives is the most tragic part of this or any act of terrorism.
But the collateral damage is the destruction of the joy, the memories of childhood, preadolescence, and adolescence that the young people of this and future generations may never have.
As another musician, Don Henley, once wrote, it’s the end of the innocence.
And there’s nothing soft about it.

Top 5 Annoying Habits of TV News Reporters

TV reporter

I’m always tempted to write about serious issues involving journalistic practices, often those that result in an ethical lapse. Sometimes, though, it’s just good to take a break from all that “seriousness” and focus on some of journalism’s simpler lapses. Watching local TV news provides a lot upon which to focus. Here are the top 5 most annoying habits common to many television reporters.

5. Nodding continuously while being tossed (TV lingo for being introduced) to by the studio anchor during a live shot. The best I can deduce, it’s to reassure the show’s producer that the reporter knows she/he is on camera and is ready to go. Unfortunately, it often doesn’t so much  project preparation as it does an unfortunate nervous “tick” or spasm.

4. Walking and talking on camera even when standing still makes more sense and motion is not only gratuitous, but distracting. A variation on this is random hand movement, meant to punctuate and emphasize a story’s major points. Instead,  an excess of both result in making the reporter appear to have some variation of ADD or ADHD.

3. Failing to check pronunciation before reading a story off the teleprompter. This really becomes obvious when the word is part of a familiar phrase like “bats in the belfry.”  Most viewers know the last word in that phrase is pronounced “bel-free.”  I heard an experienced news anchor recently pronounce it “bel-fry.”  That really burned her credibility with me.

2.  Laughing exhaustively at a colleague’s comment. Yes, those who work in TV news are supposed to appear to be “friends” on and off the set. That’s why reporters will often joke back and forth. Let’s face it. Most aren’t Jimmy Fallon or Jon Stewart. Let’s invoke the 5 second rule. If you feel you must establish “rapport” with your anchor or reporter, limit the hilarity to no more than five seconds and move on. Audiences can take this stuff to a limited degree, usually around the weather segment, which most of the time isn’t serious anyway.

1. Looking serious no matter what. Just as everything isn’t hilarious, every story isn’t related to a life or death issue. Staring at the camera with a mournful “the world as we know it is ending” look while delivering a sad or tragic story suggests not only over-hype of the story, but a lack of perspective on what’s really important in our world. Looking appropriately serious is good. Looking like you, personally, are in pain, as opposed to the real pain of  those directly impacted by your story, is not.

An addendum to the number one annoyance: The story, any story, is not yours. It belongs to those living it, those whose lives are impacted by it. As visual storytellers, TV news reporters can be especially vulnerable to annoying habits. The antidote is vigilance: be sure that what you think you are conveying is actually what the audience is receiving.

Reporting on the continuous disconnect between “able” and “disabled”

(This column was originally posted by floridapolitics.com on July 15, 2016.)

For those of you who are elderly or disabled and travel north for the summer, let this be a cautionary tale. Recently, I experienced a new awareness of the continuing disconnect that exists the between the “able” world, in which the majority of the population live, and the “disabled” community.

There are a billion — that’s right, one billion with a “b” — fellow travelers on this planet Earth who have some form of disability.

Great advances in accommodations and accessibility have arisen from the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. However, since my wife recently experienced a temporary disability this summer, as her caregiver, I now know firsthand that much more must be done.

In July, we visited a theater in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, called Barrington Stage. We’ve been there in the past, but failed to notice the theater has no elevator.

On previous visits, we were “able” to climb the multiple staircases to the mezzanine, so it was not an issue.

Now, given my wife’s changed circumstances, I recall past visits, seeing many elderly, if not disabled, audience members having severe trouble navigating the stairs to the mezzanine.

Given that the majority of their audience falls into the elderly demographic, this would seem to be especially inappropriate. Floridians finding themselves in a similar age group can certainly relate.

It’s hard for me to fathom that my wife and I were the only ones (think theater management) who noticed those out of breath and unsteady theatergoers finally reaching their seats on high.

Obviously, the solution is to sit downstairs in the orchestra WHEN or IF tickets are available there. What happens, however, when they are not? That was my experience recently when trying to purchase tickets for an especially in-demand production.

The orchestra seats were sold out, but available that morning were half-price, day-of-sale tickets.

Good, right? Wrong.

All those seats were in the mezzanine. I anticipated a problem, but honestly expected to broker a sensible solution.

First, I spoke to a manager, by phone, at the site of purchase, to make what I considered to be a reasonable request. Couldn’t she simply put a chair of any kind downstairs at the rear of the orchestra (or anywhere) so my wife did not have to (which she wasn’t able to) traverse the long staircase upstairs?

I was told no, “sorry, but no.”

I tried again by phone, through a very courteous ticket agent, to reiterate the request to someone who I was told was a different manager.

The answer, again, was no.

This is disturbing on a number of levels: (1) Barrington Stage prides itself (or so they say) on making theater available to everyone; (2) I’m assuming that, like most arts groups, Barrington Stage receives some level of federal or state funding, which means that they should fall under ADA rules. Even IF they don’t, there is an ethical, if not legal, responsibility to address the above issue.

Their failure to do so is especially disappointing, in light of the fact that THREE other cultural groups in the area all assisted my wife with seating, without even being asked.

Ironically, in a different theater, only 20 miles further in Williamstown, the play being performed, “Cost of Living,” centers on how the larger culture interacts with the disabled community. Those who run Barrington Stage should see it; the experience could help make them aware of what I saw: the consequences of what happens when those who are “able” are intransigent toward those who are not.

My wife’s disability is, as I said, temporary. I can only imagine how those whose disabilities are permanent navigate similar scenarios each and every day of their lives.

Since initially writing this as a “Letter to the Editor” to the local newspaper — “The Berkshire Eagle” — I received a response that they wouldn’t print it.

Why? Because it wouldn’t be “fair” to the theater.

The paper apparently reached out to the theater’s management, who responded they couldn’t put in one extra chair because it would violate a fire law, and they could be fined.

My response: That’s a specious argument. I disagree. ONE chair makes a fire violation? Come on. What they did was an ethical violation, if not a legal one.

In addition, I also believe that, from a journalistic perspective, you have not done due diligence. Why don’t they have an elevator? Do they accept federal funds? (They do.)

As noted in a 2014 news release: “Barrington Stage Company receives $10,000 Art Works Grant from National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in support of Dancing Lessons, a world premiere by Mark St. Germain.”

With that said, do they fall under ADA regulations/laws? Good question. Why not ask it?

There’s a story here, Berkshire Eagle. You missed it. You especially missed the larger issue contained within my attempt to broker a broader conversation. Why can other arts groups do the right thing without even being asked? Aren’t they subject to the same “fire laws?”

They’re not off the hook and neither are you, regarding your responsibility to broker that conversation. If the discussion (that’s what journalism is about, correct?) led to the conclusion you’ve reached OR your own research did so, then that’s fair.

Taking their word for it is not.

I appreciate, as I hope Berkshire Eagle readers do, that there are avenues other than mainstream media through which to broker discussion.

One of the most important issues to discuss is how we treat — or, in some cases, mistreat — those who do not enjoy all the privileges of good health so many of us take for granted.

The Tampa Bay Times and the Gyro-Copter Pilot

Perhaps inspired by historic acts of civil disobedience in American.society, Doug Hughes, a U.S. postal service employee and resident of Ruskin, Florida, thought it was a good idea to make his point to Congress by delivering the message personally—by landing on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol in what’s called a gyro-copter, a vehicle small enough to fly “below the radar.” That delivery wasn’t “first-class”, but it was a criminal act (violating a federal no-fly zone) which could land Hughes in prison for up to four years. There’s no argument over the positive impact of civil disobedience in our society, but there is certainly reason to question his judgement or, at the very least, the timing of that judgement.

What’s worrisome is that no one, apparently, questioned that judgement. Not his friends or family. Not his co-workers. Oh sure, some of them now say they were worried about his safety. Not local journalists, who knew of his plans as early as last summer, but didn’t question his judgement. Among their arguments: it wasn’t their job to alert officials that someone planned to violate the no-fly zone of the nation’s capital, which is, to be clear, a crime. Actually, they now say they did alert officials—once Hughes was airborne and heading to the capitol and only to get a comment for the story they were about to cover on the ground.

In their defense, the Tampa Bay Times reporter and managing editor never made a secret of what was transpiring. They were very transparent in posting elements of the story—including Hughes’ intentions—on-line and through social media as it progressed. They even say they contacted the Secret Service and one of its ranks interviewed Hughes. They maintain they didn’t believe his intent was to harm the public (he told them so) and that he had no terrorist agenda.

The Times sent reporter Ben Montgomery and a photographer to Washington to cover the story, with the expectation there would be a story. Their explanation would seem to revolve around the idea that if they reported the flight to authorities earlier it would impact the outcome of said story. The counterargument could be that by not contacting the authorities earlier they ensured there would be a story.

Full disclosure: Jennifer Orsi, the Times executive editor, is someone I know. She’s spoken in my journalism classes (my Media Ethics course, in fact) and, more recently, gave me a wonderful introduction at a lecture I gave on my latest book at the Times’ parent organization, the Poynter Institute. She is, as I far as I know, a fine, responsible and thoughtful journalist. But thoughtful journalists can respectfully disagree. It is part of our ethical code, set forth by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), to point out mistakes in ourselves and others when they occur. It’s called “accountability,” not just for our own stories, but for the institution we call journalism.

Doing ethics, a term one of my colleagues coined years ago, doesn’t involve assigning blame. It does involve asking the right questions, even when the “right” answers are elusive (or there are none). This is one of those times. If I worked this scenario through with my students (which I plan to do), we would base our decision on the four pillars of the SPJ Code: Seeking Truth, Minimizing Harm, Exercising Independence, and Being Accountable.

Certainly, the Times’ decision was based on truth, or what they considered to be the truth at the time: that the individual in question—Mr. Hughes—had no ill intent, that he wouldn’t harm anyone and that he wasn’t mentally unstable. But what qualifies journalists to make that decision? I might ask, peripherally, how many journalists (or anyone else for that matter) could have predicted the mental stability of Timothy McVeigh, a decorated U.S. serviceman who seemed anything but a domestic terrorist? Specialists in forensic psychology have tried and failed in this and other instances, so what makes journalists so sure they can competently judge the state of mind of an individual who says he has nothing but civil disobedience on his mind?

I ask my students in every case study we consider to identify the “stakeholders”—those with the most to win or lose by our decisions. Mr. Hughes himself was a primary stakeholder in this scenario. He may have wanted the Tampa Bay Timesto be aware of and document his story as a way of protecting his personal safety, but I’m not aware of any journalistic shield that prevents authorities from shooting a flying object out of the sky when it approaches a national landmark, let alone the seat of our government. To put it bluntly, Mr. Hughes could have been killed; that’s not minimizing harm.

In the video that accompanies stories about Hughes’ flight, a tourist (one of hundreds on the Congressional lawn that day as there are every day) is heard saying “This isn’t good.” It’s an interpretation, but what if those in close proximity perceived this to be a terrorist act? Would hundreds of people be trampled, some injured, others killed? I don’t know, but neither does the newspaper. Did they consider that possibility? It, too, is harm.

Harm is something journalists are always asked to consider. It’s something that we can’t always predict or eliminate. That’s because, as in this case, we can’t always choose what is harm and to whom. That’s also why the SPJ Code reads minimize harm. We may not be in a position to arbiters of harm, but we, hopefully, have the professional “tools” to assess the possibilities.

Independence is a concept that suggests we make our own decisions, apart from what authorities, sources, or interested parties want us to do. Here, the Times would seem a bit afield. On the one hand, the reporter and editor did act independently in their decisions, unpressured by others in government—and that’s an important principle. On the other, they did follow a source who may or may not have been misguided or made myopic by his own zeal for a cause.
Finally, the newspaper was accountable by being very transparent in outlining the process that led up to its decision to pursue the story. They explained why they did what they did, so the public could assess their actions; reporters and editors seem to have been proactive, not reactive, in terms of their decision-making.

One of the most important aspects of the decision, however: the afore-mentioned timing. When Martin Luther King led citizens in the March on Washington, terrorism of the type we know today did not exist. There had been no 9/11. There had been no Oklahoma City bombing. There was no ISIS. Civil disobedience upset many in America in the 1960’s, surely, but the citizenry, let alone the government, had not internalized the possibility that real harm could be the intent. What happened at the U.S. Capitol this past Wednesday may have been the idealistic vision of someone who wants to improve, not destroy, America. But we don’t know that. And neither did the journalists involved.
Here are links to some stories that discuss the issue: