I’m going to assume that this story is not completely unidimensional, and that there are people other than those who say it is all racism, although that is not apparent from the story itself. I am not saying, myself, that using such mascots and names isn’t potentially racist or offensive. But I assume that there are a variety of views. That some people don’t care, that some have arguments for keeping the names and symbols, that some agree with some of the points but disagree on what should be done about it. I just assume there is more than one perspective that exists on this issue.

Therefore, as a news organization, not a political action newsletter, I would assume that it’s your responsibility to report on that debate and let your readers go through it in their own minds and make their own decisions and come to their own conclusions. And that your readers would respect and appreciate you for doing that.

“Racist schools!” is a juicy headline and story body. But good reporting demands slightly more work than extensive quotes from a single person or single position in any serious debate.
Your decision to report it as if there were only a single story to tell is a signal to me that you are not actually interested in reporting the news, but in provoking sensation and engaging in editorialization. Please extend your reporting to cover the actual breadth of thr issue, not simply one hot take on it.

If you truly believe in the process of liberal democracy and reasoned debate, then furthering understanding of and further reporting on that debate and process should help, not harm, your personal political goals. If, on the other hand, you see your purpose as either simply forcibly advancing a viewpoint or goal, then you’re not a news organization, you’re a political action organization. Or, if you see your purpose as pushing forward the most exciting and sensational and morally and emotionally compelling and most reductive and least detailed and nuanced versions of a story, for the sake of popularity, then I would argue again that you’re not a news organization, you’re a popular entertainment venue.
What I would really love, though, and appreciate, would be a news outlet. Please strive to remember the difference.

My reply

Thank you for your words and thoughts. I do appreciate your position and see your point, from a professional and institutional point of view. You’ve got a job to do and you need to discharge it in the most efficient and most commercially productive way possible. Why delay it or complicate it?

But, two dozen schools worth of students and administrators and parents going back a hundred years each and you couldn’t get one source to tell you why all these racists were confortable with maintaining thier position (either in the past or currently)? I’ve worked as a reporter, I understand the daily churn, the deadlines. But that open question seems like a fairly large oversight worth pursuing at least one quote. Apparently all those thousands of people (who we haven’t even been introduced to) are just all huge, inveterate racists, and that’s the whole story. And all the lawmakers and all the tribal members are in agreement. And that’s just all there is to the story.

Back when I did reporting, making that sort of claim carried a higher cost and required a higher burden of proof, as well as more representation in the public discussion for the people in question. Even rapists get lawyers and rights and journalists will use words like “alleged crimes” if the case hasn’t come to trial yet. But now all bets are off, it seems, and you can only benefit from advancing such arguments without allowing any recourse.

I know that “unbiased” reporting isn’t in vogue any more and possibly isn’t even believed to exist any longer. I know that that kind of reporting carries a cost and often weakens the narratives and stories newspapers want to tell. But it still has value. And I only bring it up because it seems to be an art that is being sacrificed for the sake of expediency and narrative convenience. Nuanced, balanced, and complex reporting doesn’t mean sacrificing the position you hope for, or that others hope for, although it may mean sacrificing that platform in an individual story for the sake of the process and institutional standards. But the victories won under those conditions are victories worth winning, and playing a part in telling those stories with integrity that can be respected by everyone (regardless of their initial position) is truly a job well done.

Thank you for your time and your dedication to your work.