Not to name names...

In response to the following statement posted on Oct. 25 to the Political Insider blog on azcentral.com:

"In a letter Arpaio sent to supporters last week, he painstakingly lays out the left-wing conspiracy working against him - name-dropping the Rev. Al Sharpton, President Barack Obama, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, ACORN and a few media outlets."

Sheriff Joe Arpaio was making threats about what would happen if the voters did not free up some of the money that was being saved for education and healthcare, among other things.

Which is fine because that's just what Arpaio does. It's in his nature to be unreasonable and attention-seeking.

What was important to note about this statement were the words highlighted in blue. The bloggers and contributers to this topic, some of whom are considered fairly insightful and transparent writers at the Arizona Republic, name-dropped all of the names that Arpaio was citing, except for the media outlets.

More likely than not, the Arizona Republic was one of the primary media outlets that Arpaio was calling out.

He has his own blog that is targeted at the Republic called "The Truth Behind the Headlines," which cites the majority of the writers who contributed to this blog.

I think that the journalists may have felt that naming those media outlets, specifically the Republic in their own story, would take away from their argument.

I understand their reasoning, but I think it is important to be transparent with the readers. If Arpaio is accusing the Republic and other local outlets of criticizing him, we have no reason not to own that accusation. One of the biggest responsibilities of the modern newspaper is to be accountable to the readers and to hold public officials to a high standard of skepticism.

I think most readers would have understood if we named the specific media outlets in these circumstances.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words...

Hearing and seeing the lecture about the Cinco de Mayo photos got me to thinking...

So my Republic editor and I delved into the nightlife/club scene photo albums at azcentral.com.

Specifically in the nightlife section of the photos, it is difficult to find a representation of the entire community in the clubs of Phoenix Metro Valley. The majority of the pictures are of scantily clad women. That was not the part that bothered me. I was interested when I noticed that the main majority of the women are white. For example, see this picture from the Costumes at Jackrabbit Lounge album.

Also in the same album was this picture, which shows a 3 to 1 ratio of women to men. The general audience may get the perception that the club scene or any nightlife event is overrun with females, which is not generally the case.

The rest of the pictures are mainly of blondes with alcoholic beverages, like this one and this one.

I understand that photographs of woman who are attractive and carry a beer tend to draw in a lot of page views for a site like azcentral.com. This is probably why they handle those events the way they do. My only concern is that there should be a wider attempt to photograph everyone at parties, clubs or anywhere.

Conducting our own investigations..

A story posted online at azcentral.com and in The Arizona Republic on Monday can be found here.

The story alleges that Sheriff Joe Arpaio and MCSO used funds from a program called RICO to finance personal vehicles for themselves and their high-ranking officers.

Although I agree with the fact that the media and the Republic specifically should be expected to hold public officials like Sheriff Joe Arpaio up to scrutiny, I am not sure if these reporters handled the story correctly. I think they should have provided more transparent information about their investigation. I am not sure that the average reader perceives an investigation by The Arizona Republic to be credible without sufficient backup from other public officials.
Also, what constitutes a thorough "review" by the Republic's standards?

This is another story listed in the NEWS section that sounds more like an editorial, with headings expressing sure bias like "questionable spending" and "little oversight."

In that position, I would have provided more information about where we obtained the documents and data to put together the allegations.

Questions for Dan...

The article:

Examining the most important questions facing Arizona

By Dan Nowicki｜Azcentral.com

The questions:

What are the most important questions and who decides what they are and why they are important? What are the merits of an important question? How are the voters "disenchanted" with their leaders and where are the quotes to back this up? Who was polled in this Gallup poll? What was the percentage of minority groups? How does the Gallup poll reach the major voting public if they primarily call land-line phones? Who are the individuals that make up this "random sample?" How does this poll reflect public opinion rather than seek to change public opinion? How does Nowicki come to the conclusion that Arizona is not viewed as a good place for young people? Why does this article sound more like an editorial than a news story?

I think that azcentral.com probably ran this story in response to the Gallup poll itself. I also think Dan Nowicki wrote it as more of an editorial than a news story because the topic of questions facing Arizona is so broad. I think this could have been a simple news brief with less bias and less unanswered questions. The Center for the Future of Arizona's "The Arizona We Want" could also have been run higher in the story to give it more context. In that case, I would still have moved the article to the opinion section of the site. 

This story raises more questions than it answers.