Elizabeth Kucinich: Why women should vote for Dennis

A brief webcam interview

Post-debate comments: Bill Richardson

Speaking with reporters in the Blackburn Center after the debate:

On rebuilding relationships with the Muslim world:

1. Would have a "Marshall plan" to help rebuild the region.
2. Would ask allies such as Saudi Arabia to stop teaching anti-American messages in schools.
3. Would take US out of Iraq. Says that if the US withdraws there won't be civil war.

On China:

US must be more aggressive in pushing China on human rights, Darfur, trade practices. Because of the country's economic importance, we should encourage them to be responsible.

On engaging young voters:
"I want to bring young voters into the campaign." Says his positions on cutting greenhouse gasses, paper ballots, and education should appeal to young voters

The candidates before the debate

From earlier tonight: All smiles before the contest begins:

Comments from two young African American voters

Here's what two young African American voting-age citizens (22 and 21 respectively) have to say about the debate so far:

What do the candidates think about the impacts of age discrimination in a country where 18 years are dying in both iraq as well as in the streets via violence and disease? It is also the young people ,disproportionately uneducated, who suffer from the decisions of policy makers who determine their fate without asking for any input whatsoever.

What have the candidates done to listen to the voices of african american youth instead of just the stats?

That will incite us to vote.(Right now, it feels like what they think doesn't matter nor does their vote)

First Katrina question

Martin: Would you push for a law guaranteeing a right of return to New Orleans and under UN Human Rights standards for internally displaced persons?

Once again, the responses give you a clue how deeply they've thought about the issues.

Kucinich -- New Orleans is a symbol of racism -- or else the levees would have been repaired. We have to give them something to come back to.

Gravel - Yes, and we could pay for

Clinton -- "We have got to rebuild New Orleans." Bush administration has been "criminally negligent." We have to rebuild infrastructure. She talks about her 10-point plan.

Richardson -- Yes and he supports the Katrina Recovery Act.

Edwards cited his volunteer work in New Orleans,

Obama -- awarding contacts to Halliburton, etc. compounded the problem. Applause line.

What a difference three years makes

During the 2004 Vice Presidential debates, moderator Gwen Ifill stumped candidates Dick Cheney and John Edwards by asking what they would do to combat AIDS among African American and Latina women. Tonight, her colleague, Michel Martin asked a very similar question.

At the time, I wrote:

It is an indictment of the national press that Ifill was the first to raise this question with less than one month to go before the election. It is an indictment of both parties that their responses reflected such ignorance and ineptness. The press should repeat Ifill's question at every opportunity.

Ifill didn't grandstand, but she was firmly in control. She let the candidates show themselves for who they are, and the people get to make up their own minds. But by raising the question about the AIDS crisis and specifically referring to women of color, she served notice that "the people" includes all of us.

This time, at least the candidates had answers, and some were able to address policy issues. Hillary Clinton got the applause line: "If HIV AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between 18-24, there would be an outraged outcry!"

Gravel is the uncle they usually hide in the attic

Gravel said Democrats have been making promises to improve education forever, and have not delivered. "All of us on this stage are guilty!" He's the Sophia Petrillo of the debate.

Paying homage to history.

A listener to the Tom Joyner show won the contest to ask the first question. Referring to W.E.B. Du Bois' Souls of Black Folk, is whether the color line is the problem of the 21st century. She asked in particular about the Supreme Court decision ratifying de facto segregation.

The candidates' responses are telling. Most of the candidates were quick to condemn the Supreme Court's decision, and some referred to the legacy of slavery. Obama paid tribute to Thurgood Marshall. Kucinich talked about Jesse Jackson Jr.'s proposal to make access to equal education a constitutional right. He also called for a repeal of No Child Left Behind. Dodd said he would work to reverse the latest decision. Gravel didn't address the Supreme Court at all, but said he would treat drugs as a public health problem, not a criminal problem. While he got some applause, this was not the audience for promoting decriminalization.

Introductions

9:06 Preliminary introductions are underway in the Cramton Auditorium at Howard University, and the banquet room at the nearby Blackburn Student Center is cramed with attentive journalists and bloggers. Moderator Tavis Smiley was introduced his long-time ally, radio host Tom Joyner.

Joyner said tonight's event is testament to the
"power of black media, power of black America." He and Smiley stressed that while black Americans cared about the same things that all Americans cared about, but experience some problems more acutely. "When America catches a cold, Black America catches pneumonia," he said. He then cautioned that neither party can take African American votes for granted.

Smiley echoed Joyner and paid tribute to those in the audience who contributed to the Covenant With Black America.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick was introduced to thunderous applause. After stressing that discontent with Republicans was not enough to elect a Democratic president, he introduced the candidates. The biggest surprise was the strong applause for former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

Live from Howard University: Interview with Danielle Holley Walker

Danielle Holley-Walker is an assistant professor of Law at the University of South Carolina, specializing in civil rights law. She's blogging tonight for FeministLawProfs.org In this video clip, she shares her expectations for tonight's forum.

How the candidates stack up on the Covenant's Issues

The upcoming Democratic Candidates' forum is unique because it originated from the series of summit and town hall meetings that resulted in the creation of the Covenant With Black America. I created an online spreadsheet that offers a side-by-side comparison of the candidates' positions on the issues identified in the Covenant. I'll work on making it better looking, but it's functional for now.

What I did was read the candidates' websites to find position statements that seemed most closely related to issues identified in the Covenant. In some cases, this was a stretch -- none of the candidates' environmental positions specifically addressed environmental justice, for example.



However, it is remarkable to see the range of approaches to such problems as health care, and the dearth of attention to issues such as police accountability or rural development.

Finally, I don't pretend that this is comprehensive. I had to work to find some of the candidates' positions on some of these issues. If I've missed something, I welcome additions and corrections.

A slight modification

Like my dear reader, Prometheus 6 smells a fox.

Are candidates -- and press getting "played" at Democratic candidates' forum?

A long-time Professor Kim reader asks the candidates:

Do you feel played by PBS and the Tavis Smiley show in that your debate is going to be analyzed by Republican pollster Frank Luntz? So, after making a principled stand about not being treated unfairly by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and FOX News, you are still going to be treated in that way? Did you ask for a Democratic pollster? What can we the public do to ensure that we’re not being constantly spun by broadcast media?

and she has this message for me:

I believe that Fox is coming to the Democrats via the back door. Frank Luntz is a Republican pollster who is frequently on Fox News trashing Democrats. So, Fox wins after all.

And I’m sorry to see that you’re going to play a part. I know that you’re attending as a journalist but I thought you should be aware of how you’ll be seen by others. I’m appalled that both PBS and Tavis Smiley are being played in this way.

Here's what has her, and many others, upset. Luntz is a so-called "pollster-pundit" with a long list of powerful business and Republican political clients who has been criticized for deceptive practices. He came to prominence for his use of technology that helps clients fine-tune their messages by collecting instant feedback on audience reactions to each phrase. He was reprimanded for his unwillingness to reveal polling data that he said showed widespread public support for the 1994 Republican Contract With America.

During the 2004 Presidential race, he was dropped by MSNBC after it was revealed that he was still doing political work for the Republican Party. In recent years, he has reportedly fallen out of favor with GOP, calling its current leaders "an ethical morass," among other epithets. A Feb. 2007 article by Bill Berkowitz for MediaTransparency.org says, "Luntz, who has been a major player in crafting the great partisan divide in Washington, takes no responsibility for it."

Media Matters is protesting Luntz's involvement in the debate, Their open letter to PBS and Tavis Smiley says, in part:

"While we recognize the importance of analyzing the performance of the Democratic field, it is unconscionable that someone with Luntz's partisan history, open disdain for Democratic priorities and candidates, and record of reported reprimand and censure by his peers would be chosen by PBS for such an important role in a Democratic presidential primary forum."

Prometheus 6, who has supported protests against a Democratic debate sponsored by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus, says he is sure PBS will do the right thing.

Even without his shady past, Luntz seems like an odd choice as an analyst. I don't see any evidence that he is familiar with the issues or constituencies at the core of this particular debate. Ronald Walters or Jennifer Hochshild would have made a lot more sense. We already have too much emphasis on candidates' performance and strategy. How about analysts who can provide some context and critique on the issues instead?

As for me, I hope my coverage will make my intentions clear. No one is paying me to blog this event, and no one has put condition on what we cover. In fact, it's costing money. Having committed to cover this story, I won't back out. What I intend to do is to cover this, as thoroughly and fairly as I can, given the time and resource constraints involved.

Do you think my integrity is compromised by my participation in this forum?

And here are more questions for the candidates.

Professor Kim Goes to Washington...

I'm one of about two dozen bloggers credentialed to cover this week's Democratic Candidates' Forum which will air live from Howard University on June 28, 9-10:30 pm. The forum will be moderated by Tavis Smiley as an outgrowth of the Covenant With Black America (more information about the forum here) After the forum, we'll get to ask questions of the candidates. My live coverage will be available here, through BlogHer and as part of an aggregated feed from all of the live bloggers at the forum sponsored by the Media Bloggers Association. I hope you'll check out the coverage, and offer your feedback as well.

I'm still interested in your questions for the candidates. Please share them here.

Questions for the candidates are posted here on PBS's website for the June 28th Forum. Interesting to compare them to the questions readers have posted here.

Paranoia starts deep

Black Looks has a thought-provoking survey of efforts by nations around the world to live behind walls.

It's all about context

How much do white Americans think it “costs” to be black in our society, given the problems associated with racial bias and prejudice?

The answer, it appears, is not much.

When white Americans were asked to imagine how much they would have to be paid to live the rest of their lives as a black person, most requested relatively low amounts, generally less than $10,000.

In contrast, study participants said they would have to be paid about $1 million to give up television for the rest of their lives.

The results suggest most white Americans don’t truly comprehend the persisting racial disparities in our country, said Philip Mazzocco, co-author of the study and assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus.

“The costs of being black in our society are very well documented,” Mazzocco said. “Blacks have significantly lower income and wealth, higher levels of poverty, and even shorter life spans, among many other disparities, compared to whites.”

But read the rest to find out what the price becomes once the costs get itemized.

Have you seen this man?

The Thin Black Duke is looking for his brother, Michael Patrick Vaughan. It is possible that he is somewhere in California. If you can have any information, please contact Kevin.

What would you ask the Democratic candidates?

Bloggers have a chance to be part of the press pool at the June 28th All American Presidential Forum for Democratic candidates. The forum is an outgrowth of the Covenant With the Black America project. A similar forum will be held for Republican candidates September 27. What would you ask?

For your dig-me-Daddy consideration

I read that phrase in one of Maya Angelou's books and every once in a while I feel the urge to use it. Anywho, here are some things I've been reading and thinking about:

• 
  At BlogHer, I'm asking, Ok, so Nifong's disbarred, but has justice been served? I'm wondering whether the attention that the failed Duke lacrosse rape prosecution has brought to the wrongfully accused will translate into an effort to punish other prosecutors found to be unethical or overreaching.


• 
  Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, marked the 792nd anniversary of the legal doctrine of habeas corpus, which was abrogated last fall by the Military Commissions Act. According to Gay News Bits, England may be close to discarding this most basic of civil liberties as well. More from the ACLU's Find Habeas site.


• 
  You knew this had to happen -- the US Attorney scandal is screwing up prosecutions far and wide.


• 
  Meanwhile, Sherrilyn Ifill draws attention to the way the US Justice Department has altered the mission and work of its Civil Rights Division under AG Gonzales.
  
• 
  Check out Theo Johnson's podcast on the importance of fathers and the issues brothers face today. Good conversation and good links.


• 
  Seymour Hersh's latest expose on Abu Ghraib is a must-read. The key question now is, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"



• 
  Been a while since I touted Negrophile. Go there. It'll be good to you and good for you.

I am a Daddy's Girl

Anyone who knows me knows that Jesse Pearson, Sr. is the living hero in my life. He is my dad and I am his first-born, his one and only daughter. He has been my role-model, my confidante, my teacher, my cheerleader, my rock for 50 years.

My father is the seventh of 12 children born to a couple of Georgia sharecroppers whose parents were slaves. I have written before about my slave ancestors. His parents left the killing fields of Hancock County for New Jersey, where racism was not necessarily enshrined in law, but was deeply ingrained in practice. His maternal grandparents lived in their home, and he heard about slavery first-hand. Even though he lived in the North, he did not need to be told about Jim Crow.

Like many young people born during the Great Depression, he worked to help his family from the time that he was eight years old. Like many young people of his generation, he had to leave high school to work full-time. Ultimately, he was drafted into the Army and ran a motor pool during the Korean War.

Then came the responsibilities and struggles of marriage and fatherhood. He was not perfect, but he never faltered in his commitment to doing right by his children. He thought long and hard about what he wanted for us, and what he wanted us to learn to want for ourselves, and he worked hard to create the right environment and set an example.

It was while working at the Post Office in the early 1960s that my father learned that he could go to Temple University, get his GED and eventually enroll in college. He later told me that at the time, he didn't know the difference between college and a trade school, much less, the various types of colleges. He was 30 when he went back to school. I was five.

We pursued our educations together. He progressed far enough to become a doctoral candidate before abandoning that quest to maintain the four jobs that kept me at Princeton, my brother in prep school, and a roof over our heads. To this day, discussing ideas is our favorite form of play.

He has done all of the traditional Dad things, too. My body still has the muscle memory of him tossing me, giggling, to the ceiling. I still remember doing the toddler strike -- when you decide you want to be picked up and you stand in front of Daddy with your arms upraised -- and him laughing at this little girl making demands. He taught me how to ride a bike. He suffered a considerable amount of teasing from me, my brother and stepmother about his dancing ability, his seriousness, his propensity for getting lost in thought. He let me play with his stuff. We watched baseball together. Along with my brother, we learned how to clean a car and do basic maintenance, how to do basic plumbing and carpentry, how everyone had to work together, why family comes first.

A squeeze of my elbow and a hoarse, "Congratulations!" let me know he was proud of me when I got my high school diploma. A barely audible "I love you" let me know how he felt after he lifted my wedding veil and gave me to the man who became the father of my children. He was there for my hip replacement surgeries. He has been there for as every triumph and tragedy in my life.

He became a professional educator because he knew that Philadelphia school children needed to see black men in the classroom. He taught in Philadelphia schools for 27 years, then taught for and administered the academic program at Berean Institute, a church-owned proprietary school. He also became an entrepreneur for a time, owning an accounting business and a hair salon.

He came from a generation where a man's job was to be the provider and the lawgiver. He taught us to be stoic, as he is. For years, we might have wanted him to be more demonstrative, and of course we had our list of grievances against him, as most children do. I won't share them here. On balance, and given that his children are functional middle-aged adults who wouldn't trade him for the world, they don't matter.

Retired now, he remains active and engaged -- currently, in a comprehensive study of Western philosophy. A fitting activity for a man who read Meno aloud with me when I was nine, and who handed me Bertrand Russell when I was 12 and asked him if he had ever asked why we are here. It may seem curious to give a child a copy of Why I Am Not a Christian, but he knew the strength of my mind. When I chose to become a woman of faith, I was able to make a commitment with my heart, soul and intellect.

I am a thinker because from the time I was a small child, my father treated me as one. I had children's books, but I always had real books, with small print and few illustrations. I learned to read them with his encouragement and the help of my stepmother and my first-grade teacher, Mrs. Maria Jefferson of Kearney Elementary School, may she rest in peace. He bought me chemistry sets. When he took geology in college, he went on a fossil dig and brought me back two petrified brachiopods that fascinated me so much that for a while, I fantasized about being a geologist or paleontologist. We did not have money to see the world, so he labored to bring the world to me.

I have had the encouragement of many people in my journey from a place where the world saw just another little ghetto Negro to where I am today -- not Oprah-rich, but strong enough to make my way in fields of endeavor that never imagined me. But my father has been most prominent among them.

I am a professional writer because he saw the ambition forming in me and told me I could do it. I continue to rise, work and aspire because I look to his example. I am blessed that I can still pick up the telephone and talk to him about the news of the day, share the highs and lows of my own parenting journey, ask his advice, argue with him, and hear about his daily routine. He still tells me what he thinks I should do, and I still let him, even though we both know that I'm good and grown and I am going to do what I think is right.

But as the years have passed, we have also been blessed to develop an adult relationship, and he has learned to let me know that he respects me enough to trust my judgment. He has even learned how to hug now, and sometimes, in parting, a quick, "I love you," and a slight smile escape his lips.

I love my mother and my stepmother dearly, but I am my Daddy's girl. To this day, I treasure the smile in my father's eyes when he sees me, as well as the mild rebuke that I could come around more. I am my Daddy's girl, and I have lived and grown enough to make him proud of me, and blessed enough for him to tell me so.

Happy Father's Day, Daddy. I can never tell you how much I love you.

Michel Martin tells me more

National Public Radio's Michel Martin has a gold-plated
mainstream-media resumé that stretches back over 25 years. High-profile reporting stints at the Wall Street Journal, ABC News' Nightline, and PBS' NOW with Bill Moyers, are just a few of the highlights. She's covered the White House, US embassy bombings in Africa, and garnered an Emmy award for her reporting on the international effort to ban the use of landmines.

When the time came for her to develop her new NPR show, Tell Me More, one might think that Martin's wide-ranging professional experience would be more than enough. But Martin and NPR took the novel approach of making pilot segments of the show available via blog and podcast, building an online community that weighed in on how the show should be formatted, what it should cover, what its name should be, and even the quality of Michel's interviewing and vocal delivery. Since its debut in April, Martin and her staff continue to engage listeners on the show's blog.

Even before I appeared on one of the pilot segments in March, I was fascinated by the process. Call it another data point for the view that the debate of bloggers vs. journalists is oh-so-over.

Michel took some time out to talk to me recently about what it's like to create a radio show with your listeners, and more.

Tell me more about Tell Me More.

When I came here, Ed Gordon was hosting, “News and Notes,” particularly focused on stations for whom NPR is not the primary news source. You know, there are 800 NPR stations. Some cities have two stations. And they all don’t take the same programming. The stations decide what programming they want. We have a number of stations who are primarily music providers, who don’t feel that the existing programming meets their needs. Or, you’re in a market where the news offerings may or may not speak to your audience.

I kind of had the idea that – you know, before I worked at ABC News, I was at the Wall Street Journal. The philosophy of the Wall Street Journal is that by the time you read our paper, you’ve already read another paper. You’ve already seen the headlines. You’ve already watched CNN. What else can I tell you that you need to know? What else can I tell you that meets the particular need that you have because you are coming to my program?

So, that’s kind of the philosophy I have in mind. I don’t see this program as being the primary news provider of everything you need to know to function as a citizen. But I do see us as being a complement to the headline-driven flagship programs that are in drive-time. Because we’re on in the middle of the day.

So I see it as asking the question you’re not getting somewhere else. I see it as bringing people to the table that you are not hearing in other places.

And I try to lift voices and issues up that are of interest, but that are not necessarily the ones that everybody’s going to. And obviously, you’ve got to hit some of the markers of what’s topical, because if you’re not talking about what’s topical and interesting, then why are you a news show?

And yes, there’s a heavy emphasis on the voices of women and people of color, for the very simple reason that those are not voices you are hearing in other places. I don’t care what anybody says, and I’m not trying to be argumentative about it, but survey after survey shows that, if you look at the people who are mostly being quoted in most general-interest media, it is men, largely. It is still mainly men, and it is still mainly white men. They are the main figures who are still consulted as experts and authorities. It’s really quite remarkable.
I'm not trying to be politically correct, but what I am trying to do is offer you a different perspective.

[Author's note: Here's one survey, and here's another. Also, Alicia Shepard has more background on the under-representation of women and people of color in the news industry and the tendency to ignore them as authoritative sources.]

One of the unique aspects of your show is that you involved listeners in the process of developing your show by making segments available via blog and podcast. Can you talk about how that came about?

Yeah, that was very fun. Now, that was not my idea, but I was happy to do it, and we were the first show at NPR developed that way. The idea was -- you know, the normal process for developing a show is that you tinker in your garage, and then, when you're ready, you kind of open the door and drive the car on the street. Well, our thought was, "Okay, why don't we just leave the door up? Leave the door up, and just see what happens?" And I thought that was fun, because this is my fourth start-up. This is my first full-time radio gig, but this is my fourth start-up as a broadcaster. Day One at ABC was my first startup,
I did a start-up, a PBS show called "Life 360." Then I had a spin-off show for a time called "Nightline: Up Close -- I was a correspondent for that show."

I kind of thought, you know, I never really saw the logic of acting like everything was perfect.
Like, when I was in television, we made a big point out of hiding the wires to the microphones. And I always thought, "why?" The logic was that [the wire] was distracting. But I also thought it was kind of dishonest. You're talking to these people somehow.

When I was working on that PBS show, Life 360, one of the things I liked about it is, we used the work of different filmmakers, independent filmmakers, who had different ways of telling stories. One of the things that some of them did -- some of it was like making a virtue of a necessity -- they would kind of show you the process by which they did it. I always got a kick out of that. I always felt, "that conforms with my perspective on this," which is why do I want to act like, it's all perfect, when it's not?"

One of the interesting things about your blog is that you sometimes talk about disagreements behind the scenes. Why did you decide to do that, and how has your audience responded to your candor?

Oh sure. When we did this blog on the Rough Cuts site, we would talk about what we were doing and why we were doing it. In fact, this week (in early June), I blogged about the fact that I did an interview that I wasn't very happy with. I wasn't successful at it because I felt like I didn't really get to the core issue. And it didn't occur to me until later -- I'm sure this happens to you, and it just makes me crazy -- it was after the guest had left, I said, "Daggone it! This is
what I should have asked." It just bothered me, so I blogged about it, and said, "I just don't think we quite got it. Do you have any ideas on how we could re-visit this issue?"

It's been interesting, because I've been criticised on some blogs -- not in a mean way -- but it's a journalist who blogs, and he wasn't picking on me personally, but he was just saying, "I hate this. I think this is journalists handing over their editorial function to someone else." And I just could not disagree more. Because, people are not voting on what I should cover. Frankly, they vote on what we should cover anyway. They're called ratings, okay? People decide every day whether they want to listen to us or not. But we don't hand over our editorial function to people.

What I do say is that I see it as one big reporting project. It's like doing MOSes [Man-on-the-Street interviews] on the street. It's like going out on the street to say, "What do you think about this? Did you watch the debates last night? What'd you think?" I don't see it as any different. You just have to understand what it is you're doing, and not be confused about what that data is showing you.

How do audiences respond?

It's very interesting. I think as your audience grows, I think sometimes the response changes. Initially, people were very passionately engaged, because they really did respond to the idea of being in on something at the beginning. We got some people who were really passionate on both sides. I think people really love the idea of being involved in the creation and offering their input, but what I quickly noticed is that it broke down along the lines of people who liked what we were doing and people who didn't like what we were doing.

The only negative side of it is that some of the people who didn't like the direction the show was taking felt betrayed. And I tried to tell them, "that's like being mad at wine for not being beer." It is what it is. I'm not doing anything to you because I'm not taking your suggestion; I'm making a different choice.

On the other hand, we got a lot of the passionate affection from people who did like what we were doing. We still have some really loyal respondents who are very connected to, and listen to the show closely, and offer interesting feedback and so forth.

Now of course, as our audience has increased, people get picked on for ideological reasons.

For example, we've been on a lot of blogs because the week Cindy Sheehan made her announcement on Memorial Day that she was going to withdraw from public activism. We thought that was interesting, because on Memorial Day, we decided to report from Arlington National Cemetery. We visited with several families who were visiting the graves of loved ones there. We asked them to talk about the person, and how they were dealing with their loss.

Then, after [Sheehan] made her announcement, we thought, "Well, gee, wouldn't that be interesting to talk to other mothers who have started to channel their grief into political activism. So we got a group of them together. Well, one of the quotes got picked up on a lot of the blogs. So now, of course, it's an ideological thing, because the conservative blogs are trashing me, and the liberal blogs are passing it around. So I decided for Friday when we do a little segment every week about what people are talking about on the blogs -- we decided there was so much activity on other people's blogs around what we reported that we're going to invite two people from other people's blogs to come in and talk about what they're talking about. One of them hates me, and the other doesn't. It just seemed like the thing to do.


I wanted to ask you about that interview with a group of Gold Star moms who protested alongside Cindy Sheehan, because at one point, you let some personal feelings out. That’s a departure from the traditional journalists’ stance. Is that something you worry about as a journalist?

My colleague at ABC [used to say], "Nobody's mother gave birth to a journalist. Everybody's mother gave birth to a human being." I don't think I was expressing any political sentiment. I think I was expressing the sense that I'm a mother, too. And if I lost my child, i would want someone to say, "I'm sorry." And that's all I'm saying. I mean, I have no political brief on their activism and how they choose to express themselves politically; that's not my job. But, these women are pouring their hearts out to me about people in their lives they love the most, for whom they're grieving. I could have chosen to not say that, or I could have chosen to cut that out, but I still felt like, I don't see how you talk to someone who had their child killed and not say, "I'm sorry that happened." I respect people who make other choices, but it just seems polite to me.

Just like, whenever I interview a service member, I always say to them, "Thank you for your service." I interviewed Shoshana Johnson on Memorial Day also, who as you know, is the first African-American woman prisoner of war in our history that we know of. And, I said to her at the end of the interview, "And thank you for your service." I just think that's appropriate

You know, in our training as journalists, there's some ambivalence about how much of humanity we let show. That's one of the reasons I brought that up.

Yeah, I understand that. It is part of your training, I just don't know how else you say to somebody, "I'm sorry." I don't see how you can not say to someone, "i'm sorry for your loss when they talk to you about something like that."

In reading your bio, our religion editor noted that you have attended a seminary. Does that inform your work as a journalist?

I would hope so. (laughs) Clearly, yes, absolutely.

How?

First of all, I have an awareness of the text, which some people don't have. How can I put this? When people quote Scripture to me, I know what they're talking about. And, when people quote Scripture to me inaccurately, I know what they're talking about. That's thing one. I have an acquaintance with the text.

It's also a point of connection with people. I mean, religion is one of the great animating forces in American life. and I'm just very grateful that I've had the opportunity to connect with this source in both a personal way and a professional way.

One thing I would say about journalists -- and I think one reason why a lot of people in society don't like us -- is that to be effective, we have to have a tolerance... for lots of different beliefs and behaviors. The very fact of having that tolerance -- unless you're an ideological journalist, whose whole purpose is to win for your side. And I am not that. I don't see myself as one of these people who, "I'm out here trying to win points for my team." I see myself as
a teller of peoples' stories. So I think anything that helps you understand peoples' stories makes you a better journalist.

Also, profound religious belief doesn't scare me, the way that it seems to some people. I think fervor of any kind is frightening to some people. I think that's one of the fault lines in American society, is that some people find the fervor that is animated by religion to be dangerous. I don't.

How did you like the outcome of American Idol? [Note: Michel asked me and fellow blogger Josue Sierra to opine about the show during our interview in March.]

Oh, my goodness gracious! You know, I have to be honest with you. I only got involved with American Idol because my babysitter is hooked on it. She's absolutely hooked on it! And she would have to give me updates. So, I finally decided to just get into her headspace, and see, because everybody's talking about it. It was kind of like peer pressure.

I was okay with [the outcome]. I thought the more talented woman got eliminated earlier, but maybe I'm hating. Maybe I'm hating because the girl's [Jordin Sparks] 17, I don't know.

This is terrible, but you know those journalists who say they don't vote in elections because they want to be so pure? I think that that's ridiculous, the idea that I'm going to give up my franchise.
Now, I don't register a political party, because I feel that's appropriate, even though that does effectively disenfranchise me in the District of Columbia. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. But what I'm not willing to do is not vote at all.

But for some reason, I felt like I couldn't vote in American Idol. I felt like that would be wrong! Even though I wanted to. I wanted to take my girl over the top because I felt she should win, and I felt that all the teenyboppers were going to vote for Jordin. But I just couldn't do it, I just couldn't do it, because I thought, "No, that would be wrong. I have to remain pure. I have to remain above it all." I've given this way too much thought.

You wanted to vote for Melinda?

Yes! I just thought she was the best! I thought she had it all, but what do I know?

Well, that's all I have. Is there anything that you wanted to say to our audience?

Just thank you for the opportunity to talk about the program. I'm looking for ways to keep the connection going.

I don't know whether this is relevant, but the thing I don't like about the blogosphere is the shrillness of it. I did a piece a couple of weeks ago -- I had Jasmyne Cannick on and Wonkette -- Ana Marie Cox -- talking about the fact that women are the subject of very vicious commentary in the blogosphere. I would argue -- I don't know, I don't have numbers on this -- that there's a lot more personal, sexually-oriented commentary. Now, we have a moderated site, so I don't have to experience this. But I do want to find ways to have a safe place for people to talk. I just feel that there is a coarseness to our public discourse that has to be challenged. I do think that women get chased out of public discourse unless they are willing to tolerate a level of abuse that I don't think is fair or correct.

So that's one of the things I'm looking to try to do. I just want to be a place where people can talk about difficult things at a level that allows the conversation to continue, that doesn't drive people away.

I had a really interesting experience. We did this piece about the long-standing practice of not allowing men who have sex with men to donate blood. I didn't know anything about this, until it was brought to my attention. One of the producers found it, because the FDA recently reiterated their policy. So we pursued them, but they wouldn't come on the program. We pursued them for several days, and they said, "We're busy," which I found very odd.
But we pursued the story anyway, because I decided, "You know what? I can't have one party telling me what story I can do, just by refusing to participate. Then I'm handing them my editorial authority, and I'm not having that. So we pursued the story, we did it, and a got a ROCKET back on the blog from a listener who was really annoyed. He had some interesting ideas; he had some good ideas, but it was just this rocket. And I fired back. I said, "Hey, you had an interesting idea here. I appreciate the feedback, I appreciate the attempt, but I don't get the intensity around this. Why do you feel the need to talk to me like this?

He wrote back! And he said, Hey, I'm sorry, maybe I overdid it. I was reacting to X, not Y, and thank you for writing me back. I felt that was a victory, and I felt, this is what I'm trying to do here.

Obviously, you can't do that in every case. But I learned something. He told me something I didn't know. He gave me an idea for a story that I could pursue in the future. I just thought, cool, I'll pursue that, but you don't have to yell at me to get my attention.

Cross-posted at BlogHer

Photo: ©2007 NPR, by Stephen Voss. Used with permission.

Where I've been.

I missed some blogging time here over the last couple of weeks, as I prepared for a major presentation of my research project on multi-threaded interactive storytelling at the annual summer conference of the New Media Consortium. Here's an introduction to the project. I'll be posting the slides from that presentation to the Nancybelle Project blog soon.

More to come...