Tweet
While the issue ended up front and center in the Honolulu Mayor's Race thread, and while it will probably end up the hot topic at a separately announced upcoming HCMC forum (planned before all the excitement), I thought we could start a new discussion here specific to the Hawaii Reporter coverage of Jennifer Toma Bainum, its real effect on politics, and perhaps most specifically, the mainstream media's reluctance to touch the story.
Did the mainstream media make the wrong call in suppressing the story?
The "story" could have been what Zimmerman was reporting about Jennifer Toma Bainum, or it could have been how that reporting (relevant or not) was having an impact in the election. Instead, neither angle was addressed.
The fact of the matter is, Zimmerman's reporting was the talk of the town. Though its rapid spread might have been politically motivated, I think by most standards it would've been newsworthy. Instead, it was the elephant in the living room no one would talk about. Every single one of our major media outlets were reading, listening, and researching, but seemingly without exception, there was decisive "news judgement" applied in favor of suppressing any mention of the controversy.
So, when everyone interviewed on election night publicly denounced the "smear" campaign, it was fascinating to watch all media outlets have to go back and include "background" about what had been happening. They had to explicitly say, "We knew about this, but decided to leave it alone." I recall KHON's Kirk Fernandez explaining the next day, "We did look into it and did interviews and research, but decided that it did not meet our standards for broadcast."
But the impact of this "underground campaign" was real. So the decision to suppress deserves to be scrutinized.
Biased reporting or "smear"?
The other question that deserves scrutiny is the whether Malia Zimmerman's work constituted a "smear." Believe it or not, I don't think it was.
Her motivation for publishing may be suspect... but I sincerely believe if she found something noteworthy in Hanneman's network she would've reported it too (both were essentially Democrats, after all). What did got out of control, what approached the "smear" level of fervor and scandal, was what people were doing with her work. Though some might disagree, I'd say the report itself was not the "smear." The "smear" was the fast-and-furious e-mails (one I saw included a photo and the text, "she looks like a gold-digger!") that seized upon it... and the way the gossip network works, I don't think Zimmerman or Hanneman's staff had any control over it.
Zimmerman, as I've mentioned elsewhere, works harder than some "real" journalists out there. And while she is biased, she is unapologetically and publicly so. Some would say reporting from such a perspective actually has its place -- rather than trying to read between the lines, the reader knows exactly what's behind the reporting and can filter it accordingly.
Zimmerman is seizing on technology to do work and cover things she feels are ignored or distorted by the mainstream media. There's nothing stopping anyone else from doing the same. And unlike some overtly partisan publishers on the web who are too lazy to do so, Zimmerman often uses actual on-record interviews, public documents, and serious research... something even some working journalists would rather avoid.
In the Jennifer Toma Bainum pieces, much of what Zimmerman worked from was "true" insofar as it's based on public documents. To me, how she interpreted those facts, and her reliance on sources biased against Jennifer Toma Bainum, clearly stem from her partisan leanings, but fall short of a "smear."
We should be able to look at the source and determine for ourselves whether it is credible, and look at the story and determine for ourselves whether it is relevant. The same standard would apply to a story on the front page of the Honolulu Advertiser.
Frankly, to me the "credibility" of the mainstream media might have taken a hit here. Whereas whatever you thought about Zimmerman before, you probably feel the same way after. The net change on her side is simple visibility.
Anyway, in part because of the mainstream media's suppression of this whole mess, I find it odd that the bubbling debate now is whether what Zimmerman did was "true" or ethical... when what should've happened, long before election day, was the public discussion of whether the information was relevant. In my crazy, idealistic fantasy world, voters would easily have been able to say both "that's interesting" and "I ain't voting to choose a first lady."
Of course, I've been known to overestimate the electorate before.
By the way, in one of the latest pieces posted on Hawaii Reporter, it is alleged:
Could someone point me to these local media web sites where such swarming occurred? I feel like I'm missing out on the good stuff! 
Did the mainstream media make the wrong call in suppressing the story?
The "story" could have been what Zimmerman was reporting about Jennifer Toma Bainum, or it could have been how that reporting (relevant or not) was having an impact in the election. Instead, neither angle was addressed.
The fact of the matter is, Zimmerman's reporting was the talk of the town. Though its rapid spread might have been politically motivated, I think by most standards it would've been newsworthy. Instead, it was the elephant in the living room no one would talk about. Every single one of our major media outlets were reading, listening, and researching, but seemingly without exception, there was decisive "news judgement" applied in favor of suppressing any mention of the controversy.
So, when everyone interviewed on election night publicly denounced the "smear" campaign, it was fascinating to watch all media outlets have to go back and include "background" about what had been happening. They had to explicitly say, "We knew about this, but decided to leave it alone." I recall KHON's Kirk Fernandez explaining the next day, "We did look into it and did interviews and research, but decided that it did not meet our standards for broadcast."
But the impact of this "underground campaign" was real. So the decision to suppress deserves to be scrutinized.
Biased reporting or "smear"?
The other question that deserves scrutiny is the whether Malia Zimmerman's work constituted a "smear." Believe it or not, I don't think it was.
Her motivation for publishing may be suspect... but I sincerely believe if she found something noteworthy in Hanneman's network she would've reported it too (both were essentially Democrats, after all). What did got out of control, what approached the "smear" level of fervor and scandal, was what people were doing with her work. Though some might disagree, I'd say the report itself was not the "smear." The "smear" was the fast-and-furious e-mails (one I saw included a photo and the text, "she looks like a gold-digger!") that seized upon it... and the way the gossip network works, I don't think Zimmerman or Hanneman's staff had any control over it.
Zimmerman, as I've mentioned elsewhere, works harder than some "real" journalists out there. And while she is biased, she is unapologetically and publicly so. Some would say reporting from such a perspective actually has its place -- rather than trying to read between the lines, the reader knows exactly what's behind the reporting and can filter it accordingly.
Zimmerman is seizing on technology to do work and cover things she feels are ignored or distorted by the mainstream media. There's nothing stopping anyone else from doing the same. And unlike some overtly partisan publishers on the web who are too lazy to do so, Zimmerman often uses actual on-record interviews, public documents, and serious research... something even some working journalists would rather avoid.
In the Jennifer Toma Bainum pieces, much of what Zimmerman worked from was "true" insofar as it's based on public documents. To me, how she interpreted those facts, and her reliance on sources biased against Jennifer Toma Bainum, clearly stem from her partisan leanings, but fall short of a "smear."
We should be able to look at the source and determine for ourselves whether it is credible, and look at the story and determine for ourselves whether it is relevant. The same standard would apply to a story on the front page of the Honolulu Advertiser.
Frankly, to me the "credibility" of the mainstream media might have taken a hit here. Whereas whatever you thought about Zimmerman before, you probably feel the same way after. The net change on her side is simple visibility.
Anyway, in part because of the mainstream media's suppression of this whole mess, I find it odd that the bubbling debate now is whether what Zimmerman did was "true" or ethical... when what should've happened, long before election day, was the public discussion of whether the information was relevant. In my crazy, idealistic fantasy world, voters would easily have been able to say both "that's interesting" and "I ain't voting to choose a first lady."
Of course, I've been known to overestimate the electorate before.
By the way, in one of the latest pieces posted on Hawaii Reporter, it is alleged:
Bainum’s staff swarmed the chat rooms on local media Web sites and made calls to local mainstream media trying to discredit the Hawaii Reporter story...
Comment