You’ve got a friend in me (or do you?)

Last weekend, I saw the critically acclaimed movie “The End of the Tour.” Starring Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Segel, the film is about the few days in 1996 that Rolling Stone reporter David Lipsky spent with writer David Foster Wallace, whom he was interviewing for a story to be published in the magazine. Aside from being a superbly acted, scripted, and directed film, its existential and philosophical discussions are guaranteed to make anyone think. However, what really made me think was the way the journalistic profession was depicted on screen.

For starters, I was surprised at how unglamorous the Rolling Stone office was; it looked exactly like the office of the small newspaper I used to work for in Puerto Rico. Aesthetics aside, the film also touches upon classic issues in journalistic ethics. When Lipsky goes to his editor to try to convince him to write about David Foster Wallace, it’s clear that he greatly admires the novelist’s work, perhaps even envies him. His wide-eyed enthusiasm about the writer is not dissimilar to that of a teenager and his favorite rock band. When Lipsky finally meets Wallace, however, he changes. He has a job to do, and he doesn’t let himself get too close on a personal level. This was surprising to see because, from the way the character was presented in the early moments of the film, I figured that he would stubbornly seek Wallace’s approval at every turn, or even try to befriend him.

This scenario brings up a dilemma that I’ve encountered many times while interviewing people: how friendly should I be? I am very sociable by nature, and sometimes it’s difficult for me to not try to establish some sort of human connection with the person I’m talking to. I addressed this issue with my Enterprise Reporting professor last semester, former Boston Globe reporter and three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Stephen Kurkjian. He told me that even though I was a “nice guy with a friendly face,” that I could not be afraid of getting under someone’s skin with a question I had to ask. This does not mean that I have to be rude, but being overtly friendly is not conducive to getting the type of responses you want. This is also addressed in the movie when Lipsky’s editor insists that he ask Wallace about his alleged heroin addiction – a subject that he had been avoiding so far, perhaps out of respect for Wallace.

A few days ago, The New Yorker published a marvelous piece on the way the film presents the journalistic profession. I was glad to see that it described some of the things Lipsky did as “creepy,” because I felt the same way as I saw his character rummaging through Wallace’s bathroom drawer and casually flirting with his female friends. However, what I liked most about the article was its description of “the curious artificial intimacy that can arise in the process of interviewing, at length, the subject of a magazine profile.” Like I said before, this is an issue that I still struggle with. It’s important for journalists to know the difference between being someone’s friend and being friendly, as well as the difference between being rude and being assertive. I’m happy that such a successful movie is shining a light on these complicated yet fascinating themes.

Final Paper: The media’s coverage of Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Somali author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a polarizing figure in modern American politics. Championed by some as a defender of secular, liberal, and feminist values and derided by others as an intolerant bigot, her criticism of Islam has ignited controversy on many occasions.

While she does have ardent supporters, a simple Google search shows that the most pervasive opinion of Hirsi Ali is a negative one. Articles published in Time, Salon, Slate, The Guardian, AlterNet, and The New York Times have strongly criticized her and her views. This is somewhat perplexing due to their reputations (warranted or not) as left-leaning publications. One would think that they would side with a person who risks her life to support traditional liberal values: human rights, gender equality, freedom of speech, and secular policies. The problem is that most news outlets and journalists are not aware of what she truly stands for.

http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ayaanhirsiali.jpg

In her latest book (“Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now“), Hirsi Ali cites numerous verses in the Qu’ran that advocate violence, but whenever she is interviewed, no one seems willing to acknowledge the fact that these texts are riddled with outrageous barbarism. More often than not, journalists seem more interested in debating or judging her than in actually listening to what she has to say.

If I were interviewing her, I would ask her why does she believe that religion itself (instead of the perversion of religion) is the problem, but in all honesty, this question should not even need to be asked. Hirsi Ali addresses the issue directly in “Heretic”:

If the Qu’ran or the hadith urges the believer to kill infidels (“slay them wherever ye catch them” [2:191]) or to behead them (when ye meet the Unbelievers [in fight], smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly [on them]” [47:4])—or to whip adulterers and stone them to death (Sahih Muslim 17:4192), then we can not be wholly surprised when fundamentalists do precisely those things. Those who say that the butchers of Islamic State are misinterpreting these verses have a problem. The Qu’ran itself explicitly urges pitilessness.

One of her harshest critics is The Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur, who called her as a “neocon maniac” who says that “we are in a military war with Islam.” Uygur’s wide reach as an online news host and political commentator means that has the power to influence other people, and such misrepresentations are disingenuous at best and criminal at worst. After all, journalists are supposed to adhere to a code of ethics that obliges them to minimize harm to other people. Using a platform as wide as The Young Turks to smear a person (who already lives her life under constant death threats) just because you don’t agree with her views (or what you think her views are) is, therefore, extremely unethical behavior.

This is even more problematic when one actually reads her books and articles. Hirsi Ali believes that Muslims “must critically evaluate their sacred texts in order to reform their religion.” The types of reforms that she advocates are strictly ideological, but the mainstream media seems hellbent on presenting her as a violent radical ironically similar to the ones she’s trying to stop.

In Heretic, she states:

For years, we have spent trillions on waging wars against “terror” and “extremism” that would have been much better spent protecting Muslim dissidents and giving them the necessary platforms and resources to counter the vast networks of Islamic centers, madrassas, and mosques which has been largely responsible for spreading the most noxious forms of Islamic fundamentalism…We have not bothered to develop an effective counternarrative because from the outset have denied that Islamic extremism is in any way related to Islam. We persist in focusing on the violence and not the ideas that give rise to it…We cannot fight an ideology solely with air strikes and drones or even boosts on the ground. We need to fight it with ideas—with better ideas, with positive ideas.

If that’s not a far cry from the policies of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama (who despite his fondness for drone strikes, no one would ever describe as a neoconservative), I don’t know what it is. Sadly, when someone as respected as Obama refuses to acknowledge the troublesome aspects of religious texts by insisting that violent acts are only committed by those who corrupt the tenets of their faith instead of adhering to them, Hirsi Ali’s words are seen by many as nothing more than unchecked hostility.

If whoever is interviewing Hirsi Ali wants to make sure that viewers and/or readers understand her message, they need to make this abundantly clear from the beginning. A journalist never judges; he or she informs. There are multiple ways of doing this, but aside from the obvious (reading her books would be a good start), the best one would be to just let her speak for herself. This approach guarantees a better outcome for all: the journalist would gain credibility by being impartial, Hirsi Ali would be given a fair chance to articulate her views, and the audience would get to hear the ideas straight from the source.

This final point is an important one because one key aspect of journalism is presenting the facts and giving news consumers the opportunity to formulate their own opinions. It is worth noting that these opinions are unrelated to facts; that is, someone might not agree with Hirsi Ali’s perspective, but they will have a better idea of what she really thinks if journalists avoid injecting their own opinions about her and her views during the interview.

In a world rife with Islamic fundamentalism, the possibility of offending the wrong people is a reality that those who cover these topics confront every day. However, it seems that some journalists take this fear of displeasing others to a dangerous extreme. Giving too much importance to not angering other people might interfere with your main responsibility as a journalist: providing accurate and truthful information. It is not our job to sugarcoat inconvenient truths, and it is definitely not our job to attack those who have the courage to express them.

Spoiler Alert!

While surfing the web yesterday, I decided to look up reviews of my favorite movie of all-time, Before Sunset. I’ve read more about that film than anyone I know, but since I love it so much, I can never get enough. This led me to a piece that came out in The Daily Telegraph in 2004, the same year that the film was released.

From the first paragraph, I was drawn into the article; not only because of my obvious affinity towards its subject but because of how well-written it is. However, as I kept reading, something started to bother me. It had way too many details about what happens in the movie. I couldn’t help but think that if someone who has not seen it yet ends up reading it, he or she will miss out on the surprising developments of the film and it will ruin their entire viewing experience. I found it criminal that the “review” gave away what happens in literally the last 10 minutes of the movie – as I watched the film for the first time, I had no idea what would happen, and I could not take my eyes off the screen for a second or let my mind wander because of how captivating it was.

Shockingly, that’s not even the worst part about this whole ordeal. The last line of this article just drove me insane: “Before Sunset opens on Friday.” The movie had not even come out when this was published! As I read the review, I thought, “maybe it’s not that bad, because most people who read reviews like this have already seen the movie,” but no! In this case, no one had seen it yet!

This made me think about the ethical guidelines of writing film reviews. I reviewed films for the newspaper I worked for, and I always struggled with how much of the movie I would give away. As a reviewer, you obviously have to talk about some scenes and characters, but my rule of thumb was to never give away surprises. Basically, if it was an important plot development that was not in the trailers, it was off-limits. This might seem like a minor issue to some, but as a film buff, I take it very seriously. Aside from the viewing public, producers (as well as actors and directors) should also be taken into consideration when writing reviews. These people have invested their time, energy, and/or money into a product whose main selling point is the fact that no one knows exactly what they are getting when they pay for it. If you take away the element of the unknown, the product loses most of its value.

Because it’s an opinion-based genre, I’m well aware that coming up with a universal set of ethical guidelines for film reviews is a challenging (if not impossible) endeavor. Nevertheless, journalists’ main purpose is to serve the public interest, and in my opinion, this includes allowing them to enjoy the magic and mystery of cinema to the fullest extent possible.

Online News Association

As part of my Enterprise Reporting 2 class, I had to join a group for journalists. After careful deliberation, I chose the Online News Association.

The first feature that attracted me to the group was their name. By drawing immediate attention to the digital aspect of things, it seemed a little more current and modern than the Society of Professional Journalists. Whether we want to admit it or not, we all know that print journalism is dying, so it seemed more appropriate to join an organization that started in 1999 (the dawn of the digital age) instead of one that began in 1909.

Gotta love that URL

The ONA is fully aware of this fact, and on their “about” page (titled What We Do), they directly address the constantly evolving aspect of journalism. This resonated with me in a powerful way, so I felt that it was a natural fit for me.

Aside from this, I really like the simple layout of the page. It’s very easy to navigate, and that is something I value highly. Precisely because of this newfound interest in digital media, many websites have switched to a flashier layout that is extremely hard to browse (hello, ESPN). I’m glad that the Online News Association has not succumbed to the pressure to do this; it makes for a more welcoming experience for guests and members alike.

Where Would I Like To Work?

As someone with extremely diverse interests, I can answer this question in a myriad of ways.

If I decide to become a sportswriter, I could easily picture myself covering the Celtics for any major or minor newspaper. Last semester I interviewed Mark Murphy, who covers the Celtics for the Boston Herald, and Chris Forsberg, who covers the Celtics for ESPN.com. I’d be lying if I said I don’t envy them a little.

I’ve always been into music and politics, so a magazine like Rolling Stone would be a natural fit. I could easily picture myself writing album reviews, doing feature stories on musicians, or covering an election for them (like Hunter S. Thompson did for the magazine in the 1970s).

When I was a kid I used to say that my dream job was to write for the New York Times. I think that’s every journalist’s dream job, so that thought still stands. Other print and online publications that I read and admire (and therefore, would love to work for), are The Guardian, Slate, The Atlantic, and The New Yorker.

Freedom of speech…just watch what you say

Although it is officially an opinion piece, Mona Eltawahy’s article “Egypt’s War on Atheism” is a revealing read with a great deal of information. The article begins by sharing the story of Karim al-Banna, 21 year-old student who was sentenced to three years in prison for simply posting on Facebook that he was an atheist. Right off the bat, this lets us know that significant human rights abuses are being perpetuated in Egypt, and we can’t wait to read more.

I’m glad that the New York Times printed this article, because defending freedom of speech and all its variants (such as freedom of religion and sexual freedom) should be one of the main concerns of any democratic country. I’d be willing to bet that most Americans – or Westerners in general – were not aware of the Egyptian government’s extreme efforts to curtail freedom of expression, particularly when it deviates from the traditional standard of the heterosexual Muslim male.

On that last point, I liked how Eltawahy also touched upon Egypt’s intolerance towards the homosexual community. Based on the article’s title, I had no idea that this would be there. This could be both a good and a bad thing: good because it’s always nice to get a little more than you bargained for; bad because those who might care more about the gay issue than the atheist one might not have bothered to read the article after glancing at its title. It also can be seen as complementing at the main idea or taking the focus away from it, but since it ties into the general theme of intolerance, I think that including it was an effective technique. It gives the reader a more complete view of how abominable the laws in Egypt truly are.

Speaking of laws, I loved how Eltawahy exposed the different strategies that the Egyptian government uses to circumvent them. There’s no official law against atheism, but they are incarcerating atheists on blasphemy charges. There’s no official law against homosexuality, but they are incarcerating homosexuals on debauchery charges. It goes to show how oppressive governments truly function and how they use all the tools at their disposal to make life impossible for their citizens.

Eltawahy also reveals the hypocrisy of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who vocally condemned the jihadist message of the Islamic State and sent a foreign minister to the Charlie Hebdo solidarity march while ruling a country that is ranked 158 out of 179 in Reporters without Borders’ (RWB) annual press freedom index. This statistic should spark the outrage of journalists (and everyone else, really) around the world, and I commend the New York Times for bringing this issue to light.

Mark Murphy: hard work and dedication

In the era of ubiquitous blogging and of fiery talk shows like “First Take” and “Pardon the Interruption,” one might assume that all sports reporters are larger-than-life personalities who teeter between being charismatic and obnoxious. Sports fans are so adrenalized that it’s not uncommon to see their fervor rub off on commentators, and some of them thrive on this particular brand of ostentatious reporting.

Nevertheless, not every sports journalist out there fits this description. Mark Murphy, the Boston Celtics’ beat reporter for the Boston Herald since 1988, is living proof that one does not need to resort to cheesy histrionics to achieve success in sports journalism. Don’t let his calm demeanor fool you, though; Murphy is an extremely passionate reporter who feels a profound sense of gratitude towards his profession.

“I’m very lucky. Writing is what I do well, and when it comes to newspaper work, some of the best pure writing opportunities are in sports. I’ve also covered some great teams, like the KG-era Celtics,” he said.

A 1978 graduate of Suffolk University, Murphy parlayed his bachelor’s degree in journalism into a lengthy career that has also seen him cover the Boston Red Sox, the UMass Minutemen, and USA Basketball. Along the way, he has come across every kind of character one could think of in the sports world. From the very private Kevin Garnett to the extroverted Shaquille O’Neal, and from the reserved Avery Bradley to the attention-demanding John Calipari, Murphy knows the value that reading personalities offers to the beat reporter.

“You have to ask tough questions, but you’ve got to be friendly. You can’t be hostile. Some guys want to get stuff off their chest, and if you approach them as non-confrontationally as possible, they’ll answer it,” he said.

This easygoing approach to human interaction led him to become close to players such as the notoriously quiet Robert Parish, whom he describes as “funniest guy in the world” and someone who “would talk about anything.” Even Kendrick Perkins, famous for his ever-present scowl and tough-guy demeanor on the court, is the “greatest guy in the world, just phenomenal,” according to Murphy.

However, this does not mean that he can’t be critical when he needs to be.

“You have to remember that you’re there to do a job and not to be a fan. It’s a very important distinction to make. I did a story on Jared Sullinger the other day where I was talking about his attitude last year, and you have to write that his attitude sucked,” he said.

Although he is able to be objective in his writing, Murphy is still a Celtics fan at heart. The subject of Ray Allen’s departure from the team in 2012 appeared to be a delicate one, especially considering the fact that he named Allen as the one player he became particularly close to.

“Well…I didn’t want to see him go…but, you know…I had to…you know, he didn’t like some stuff that I wrote when he left,” he said.

“Like what? What did you write?” I asked.

“Uh…his motivations for leaving, you know? He obviously wasn’t doing it for the money, because he took less to go to Miami, and he had issues with Rajon Rondo. He was in denial about the effect he had on Celtics fans. He thought they respected him still; he just didn’t want to admit to himself that he was persona non grata, or at least not to the media,” he replied.

When Allen left the team, Boston sports fans felt a similar sense of betrayal to when Johnny Damon left the Red Sox to sign with the New York Yankees. What shocked people the most was not that he left, but that he went to the Miami Heat, the Celtics’ most recent rival. Murphy summed up the feelings of every Celtics fan with one brilliantly succinct phrase that simultaneously demonstrated his ability to interpret specific situations and his love for the team:

“He could’ve gone to the Lakers and it wouldn’t have been that bad.”

Statements like these reveal Murphy’s attachment to the Celtics and his devotion to his work, and this has endeared him to his coworkers and drawn him closer to his family. Adam Kurkjian, an editorial assistant at the Boston Herald, praised his hands-on approach and availability.

“Mark simply makes you a better writer and reporter. He’s very detail-oriented and he brings out the best in you. If you have a story or feature idea, he’s really good at helping you flush things out,” he said.

Murphy has also had a profound influence on his daughter Emma, a journalism major at the University of Vermont.

“I always thought it was so cool that my dad covered sports for a living. I love to read and write, which my parents really encouraged growing up, and my dad has always been there to give me advice. What he’s taught me has really helped me to figure out what I want to do and has helped me grow as a journalist,” she said.

Even when his reporting duties become challenging, Murphy remains unruffled in the face of adversity. He admits that getting the most withdrawn players to open up can be a daunting task, but he persists until he gets the material he needs, even if it doesn’t come directly from the source.

“Some players can be really difficult to cover. You just gotta keep going back at ‘em. After a game, you gotta be there at their locker, even if he doesn’t want to talk to you. Hopefully, over the years you develop other contacts with these players – high school coaches, all the people in their agent’s office, family members. Sometimes they’re going to tell you more about the athlete than the athlete himself,” he said.

According to Murphy, the key to getting interview subjects to open up is being able to speak to them privately.

“You try to get guys alone, because they’re going to be less likely to answer tough questions in a room full of reporters. In these days, with so many different websites and blogs popping up, it gets more difficult to get a guy alone. It’s easier to do it when you’re traveling, because when you’re on the road, the crowd isn’t there.”

The constant traveling that comes with sports reporting results in a hectic schedule with irregular hours, and Murphy joked that his wife likes to stress that it’s a great job for a single person. Despite these complications, he always makes sure to check in with his family.

“When I was in high school, my mom and I tended to oversleep, and regardless of the time zone he was in or how much sleep he’d gotten, my dad would make sure to call us every morning to make sure we were up. I also played field hockey, and so long as he was home he made sure to be at every single one of my games. Given his busy schedule, I think it’s pretty great that he chose to spend his limited free time watching a high school field hockey game. Not many people would do that!” said his daughter Emma.

Indeed. The world needs more people like Mark Murphy.

How it all began

Two events that would change my life forever happened in the summer of 2009. In July, Rasheed Wallace – my favorite basketball player at the time – signed with the Boston Celtics, and in August, I decided that I wanted to study journalism. I started my bachelor’s degree in Cultural Journalism at the University of Puerto Rico in January 2010, and like I said in my previous post, began to follow the Celtics religiously.

To this day, I am a voracious reader of anything related to the team. I always check The Boston Globe’s sports section, as well as SB Nations’ “CelticsBlog” and ESPN’s “Boston Celtics Report”. These pages provide content that ranges from hard news and post-game coverage to statistical analysis and trade rumors (and everything in-between), so they are essential reading for the true Celtics fan. For those who wish to dig even deeper, CelticsLife and CelticsHub are also good sources of information.

By keeping up with the latest news on the team, I became acquainted with the Boston media and determined that I would eventually work in Bean Town. It’s not a coincidence that I ended up in Northeastern University to pursue my master’s in journalism, but I find it fitting that the writing sample I submitted with my application was a blog post I wrote in 2012 about how Ray Allen betrayed the Celtics when he joined the Miami Heat.

My love for the Boston Celtics is clearly and inextricably linked with my passion for journalism. With this blog, I intend to share both of them with the world, and now that I am living in Boston, I plan to take full advantage of this opportunity.

The future of journalism

Being a Boston Celtics fan in Puerto Rico can be difficult sometimes. El Nuevo Día, our most important newspaper, has always provided great sports coverage, but it didn’t give me the insider information that I craved as a diehard Celtics fan. When I started following the team religiously in the 2009-10 season, I realized that all I needed to get my daily Celtics fix was my amazing iPhone 3G (which is pretty much useless these days, but still) and my ever-expanding Twitter feed, because they connected me to The Boston Globe and numerous other New England publications that I didn’t even know existed before I began to use social media.

I must admit that at first, it felt strange to get all my news from a cell phone, but that feeling didn’t last long when I discovered that I wasn’t alone. In a Wired article from last month, Frank Rose writes that more people than ever are getting their news from mobile devices:

Statistics from the Times say roughly half of the people who read it now do so with their mobile devices, and that jibes with figures from the latest Pew report on the news media broadly.

My case is a prime example of one of the big advantages of the shift from print to digital media: allowing people from all over the world to access news outlets they might not have been aware of previously.

Salon’s Andrew Leonard writes that even if these new developments are beneficial to readers, they’re making newspapers lose money. His concern for the future of journalism and the livelihood of those who practice it is extremely valid. However, it is up to us in the field to create new ways to circumvent this reality, and we will surely become better journalists as a result of this challenge.