Attack journalism like Mom used to make

My weekly Independent Weekly email just showed up in my inbox, and would you look at what they've got on the front cover: three unflattering pictures of Thomas Stith.  The three pictures are arranged and edited in a way that is, in what I'd be shocked - SHOCKED - if it were more than a coincidence, quite reminiscent of Stith's attack mailing on Bell.

That bit is included as a graphic in the article inside, which is a great reminder of why we're so lucky to have the Independent around.  It pulls no punches in going right after Stith, and there's not a thing about the article that I would call unbiased, but frankly, I'm fine with that.  I've felt for a while that journalists treating "balance" and "objectivity" as immutable laws that must always be followed, as opposed to characteristics of a style that should be useful but not ubiquitous, isn't really a healthy thing.  Looking through Mosi Secret's piece, there's a lot of solid factual information and substantive reporting, but also plenty of well formed persuasive writing, nailing Stith to a few posts and other sundry stationary objects.  (New fact I learned: Stith only sits on one council subcommittee.  The other six sit on at least 9 each, with Cole-McFadden sitting on 22.) 

Attack media?  Yup.  Biased?  Oh, yeah.  Deserved?  Entirely.

Comments

[Joseph H. Vilas]

Once the Indy was referred to as "left-wing attack media from hell": http://aan.org/alternative/Aan/ViewArticle?oid=oid%3A966. I later saw some folks from the Indy with t-shirts they'd had made up with that exact quotation on it. Sometimes saying something negative is the best way to do something positive. :) Certainly a lot of media outlets polarize and simplify issues so they can put up some sort of a/b comparison. I've even complained about it: http://jhv.blogs.com/falloutshelter/2005/10/culture_of_comp.html. It's frustrating to have to resort to polemic as an antidote to coverage that's oversimplified in order to sell more media, but maybe sometimes it's necessary.

[Barry]

"New fact I learned: Stith only sits on one council subcommittee. The other six sit on at least 9 each, with Cole-McFadden sitting on 22."

One of the unanticipated consequences resulting from the downsizing of the Durham City council a few years ago.

With only 7 councilmembers, it's simply no longer a part time job. And since it only pays about $15k a year, if you're not independently wealthy, or at least drawing a full salary from somewhere else, it's an almost impossible job to take.

As Durham continues to grow, the Council is going to have to get back closer to the 13 members it had during the 90s. Maybe 5 ward seats, 5 at-large seats, and the mayor.

And speaking of those ward seats, maybe we can get a true ward system installed, instead of this modified at-large monstrosity we're stuck with right now. I want a ward representative who represents the district where i live, not having to worry about getting votes from south Durham.

[Mike Woodard]

As one of those seven, I have to disagree with Barry that we need a larger Council. It's off topic, and I have too much to say on the topic to post here now. A discussion for the post-election season. How about let's tickle this one for a future date, blog writers and readers?

[barry]

agreed that the runup to a council election is not the best time to discuss this, but the new year will probably be more appropriate.

and granting that each subcommittee probably doesn't meet weekly, still, 9 monthly meetings, in addition to 4 council meetings has got to be a burnout situation. i'm on two citywide committees, plus my neighborhood association board, plus a full time job, and i'm fried half the time. i don't know how people like Mike do it.