Journalists of the 21st century like to think of themselves as agents of change, giving voice to revolutionary ideas and new standards. We like to think that we are slowly changing the world, making it a better place. However, somewhere along this journey of reformation and transformation, many slowly lose sight of their original goals.
Whether these figureheads and institutions consist of the law enforcement, the ones who vowed to help and protect our communities and lives, or hedge funds, controlling all the resources we have at our disposal as journalists and publishers, becoming accustomed to these long arms of power and law, it is oftentimes hard to question the validity and morality of their actions, which ricochet into what we publish and display in our work.
Award-winning journalist and author known best for his novel, The Holly, Julian Rubinstein, sat down with Pulitzer Prize winner and journalist Wesley Lowery at The Battle for Truth event hosted by Colorado College. At this event they spoke on journalistic rectitude and the work they have both done concerning social justice movements from Black Lives Matter to gang affiliation and racial issues in a Denver neighborhood known as The Holly.
Both Rubinstein and Lowery have done work that has exposed the effect institutions have had on communities. For Wesley Lowery, his work was in Philadelphia, the “birthplace of democracy and therefore the birthplace of many institutions,” according to him. Lowery focused his work on a specific media institution, The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Starting off as a paper that was owned by white, wealthy aristocrats in which they profit themselves, they have since sought to reckon with their history and work to rebuild the strained relationship with their community. In most cases, the media look back on papers covering historical events while serving the community. When Lowery was working on investigating the Inquiry, he did not want to recap these historical events that were published in the past, but instead to tell the story of the Inquire as an institution and how it also relates to other media establishments.
For years the Inquirer was a financially sound institution but as the population grew and expanded into the suburbs, its audience changed causing a drastic change to the industry. This led to financial and economic issues for the paper and a struggle to connect to their new audience. When the internet came around this changed everything for the paper and annihilated the ad revenue.
“A place that had never fully integrated now began to see the small parts of progress being exempted from their paper”, Lowery says.
Lowery sought out to tell the story about the change and adjustment the paper has been through, but also researched what the paper has done in the past 2 years to change. Despite The Inquirer working hard to make these changes, Lowery came to a realization that is difficult for many journalists to come to terms with.
“You have to accept the idea that reconciliation is not given. In some cases the institutions that have been here have had relationships that have been so oppositional and negative to parts of the community that we may never be able to rebuild this relationship”, Lowery said. Sometimes these institutions have caused harm that simply cannot be undone no matter how much they may try to reconcile this relationship. Whether these institutions consist of media outlets, law enforcement or hedge funds, they can cause an impact that may seem miniscule to them, but can unleash chaos and turmoil for others.
This leads to the topic of Rubinsteins book and documentary, “The Holly”, that tells the story of of a multigenerational, predominantly black neighborhood in Denver, CO and the efforts to save it from gang violence, the media, racial discrimination and law enforcement. In this story, the media and Denver law enforcement play a large role The story follows a previous gang member now turned anti-gang and anti-violence activist Terrance Roberts and his struggles. His social position and politics lead him to becoming the target of active gang members, the media and the law enforcement.
Rubinstein came across Roberts after hearing on the news about a shooting he was involved in at his own peace rally. The media seemed to be asking all the questions except, why would an anti-gang and anti-violence activist end up shooting a gang member at his own peace rally? Instead of asking the community and those affected by this shooting, the media relied on Roberts past as a gang member and took the side of law enforcement to paint him as a criminal and dangerous man. Failing to report fully on the incident and expand their sources, the media painted a very obscure image to the public of what happened. Sitting in the DAs office being persuaded to take a plea deal for 10-20 years in prison, Roberts refused to take the plea and begged them to help clear his name as “he believed he was attacked for political reasons to remove him from his position,” Rubinstein said.
After investigating the victim of the shooting, it became known that the attacker did in fact premeditate the attack on Roberts. Roberts was acting in self defense. However, the most shocking detail was who the attacker was working for: the Denver Police.
Why would the Denver Police Department voluntarily work with active gang members? Rubinstein explained there is a very interesting relationship between gang members and law enforcement. In a time in which gang violence is at an all time high, the DPD are desperate to get behind how to stop this, but also continue receiving their grants. Due to this, they are exploiting active gang members for intel and paying them. This violation of federal anti-gang effort has revealed how the law enforcement in Denver are dealing with the problem of gang violence and using active gang members as informants in exchange for immunity and money.
Without putting the actual work in and talking and listening to the community, DPD are helping active gang members put on fronts to help extract more information. Many gang members are lured into this trap due to financial problems and wanting to be able to provide for their families. They also have the benefit of being protected by the DPD.
However, it is not just the institution t that plays a role, but also the media. With relationships between journalists and those in law enforcement, the first source all journalists use are the police. With the media using the police as their source of information, they are limiting the community from receiving reliable, balanced sources of information and getting authentic, honest news.
Despite the relationships that many journalists have with the law enforcement, there is also the issue of hedge funds. The Denver Post, a newspaper many find to be authentic and trustworthy, is owned by a hedge fund. Due to this, they cut back on a lot of expenses and do not have the resources to make connections and find sources to report fully on these issues. Without adequate resources, they are limited in what they report and are getting intel from the only source they do have, the police.
This all leads back to the impact these institutions have made on the community. Whether it is the failure of the Inquiry to connect with their community and rebuild their relationship. Or the Denver media outlets that are supporting corrupt federal anti-gang efforts made by the Denver Police, these institutions are detrimental to the community in which they are supposed to be holding up.
How can these media institutions change? How can all media institutions make progress in underrepresented communities, which they have betrayed and silenced?
The most important thing they can do is use a wide range of sources. No matter who they are or their views, media institutions need to reach out to these communities. Journalists should aim to get as much information as possible to make sure that what they are reporting resembles the truth. Whether this means talking to the victim of an incident, the families and friends or even the perpetrator.
It is essential that the media listens to everyone and does not let one source dictate the story which is released to the public. Listen to everyone and do not let one source dictate the story in which you tell. Rather than thinking solely on what source is going to advance the narrative in which they are seeking to tell, they must work to be open-minded in the entire process. When journalists succumb to preconceived notions, the story in which they are reporting is finite. What is published lacks rectitude, validity and honesty. Until media institutions stop letting bias and profit dominate their reporting, there will never be any progress in the journalism world.
