Yesterday, the Mizzou College Republicans hosted the Central Missouri Tax Day Tea Party in Jefferson City.
Yes, it was a tea party event — one of many in the national movement spurred by Rick Santelli’s call to action in February. Local legislators and several attendees spoke at the podium on the south steps of the state Capitol building. All but one were Republicans or like-minded as such.
I somewhat reluctantly covered the event for The Columbia Missourian.
“Reluctantly”?
That’s correct.
I’d heard about the event a few days ago and knew I would have to check it out and probably write up an article about it. But until I heard my editor Phill ranting and raving about the event and then found out The Missourian did want a story, I wasn’t very serious about covering the tea party.
Let me make this clear from the start: My reluctance had nothing to do with any of my personal political affiliations or fiscal beliefs, both of which I always do my absolute best to distance from the quality and breadth of my reporting. (Side note: as a political reporter, I make a point of not revealing either my political affiliations or fiscal beliefs in public forums.)
Rather, my reluctance was due to the nature of the event. Whether Republican or Democrat in nature, politically-oriented rallies hold very little journalistic attraction for me. Providing coverage to such rallies seems almost like providing free PR and media attention to politically like-minded people who happen to be exercising their First Amendment right to free speech in a public area.
Or, as Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, put it:
It doesn’t have any meaning. The whole reason they did it was so you and I would have this conversation. And you are buying into that by having the conversation. So it’s a clear media manipulation. You have been successfully manipulated.
Again — I cannot emphasize enough that I would agree without Rep. Kelly about political rallies organized by either Republicans or Democrats. My reluctance truly goes either way.
It’s a strange line to try and tread, that line between journalism and PR. I feel the same reluctance when I discuss certain bills or other kinds of legislation. One of the best ways for me to resolve any natural slant for the political party whose views are being strongly promulgated via a rally or legislation is to include comment from the opposing party. But it can be difficult to prevent the article from becoming simply a political crossfire.
Words and Light 
I feel this way about not just political events, but any event you know people *want* you to cover. Oftentimes, I’m all-too eager to cover an event until I see how much the event’s sponsors really want/need me there.
So… those who choose exercise their First Amendment right to free speech in a private area, in small groups, are somewhat more newsworthy? I agree with you that these “tea party” events seemed to be pandering to the media (conservative media in particular), but I disagree with you that just because a group wants coverage, they are undeserving. For instance, would you have covered the Nuremberg rallies? These were politically-oriented rallies that were providing free PR and media attention to (supposedly) politically like-minded people. Don’t journalists have a responsibility to tell people’s stories, even if those people are clamoring for their version of the story to be told?
To Public Area —
Your questions — especially your last one — are exactly what I was wondering when I wrote my post. I think journalists have a responsibility to report on issues and events that people care strongly about.
But as a journalist who’s been reporting on hard news wherein legislation (or speculation about legislation) has the potential to effect actual change, I found it difficult to switch gears and report on a group of people who simply called for change rather than tried to enact it. (I don’t mean that to be a criticism of those who have been attending these tea parties, since their capacity to enact the kind of change they want is almost strictly limited to their voting for public officials.)
This kind of reluctance isn’t limited to rallies/gatherings of non-politicians. I felt the same way when I heard about a rally the Democrats were having in Columbia, Mo., the night before Election Day. All the Democratic candidates running for statewide office — including current Gov. Jay Nixon — were there, which is the first time they were all in the same place at the same time before the election. I went to the rally simply to snap some photos for file purposes, but the paper didn’t want to run any photos or stories about it because it was just a rally — basically, a call for attention, my editor said.
In short — I would have covered the Nuremberg rallies. And I won’t be surprised if I cover more rallies and political gatherings in the future. But for now, at least, I still remain vaguely uncomfortable with doing so.
One thing that I think journalists continually fail at is providing proper context to opinions and movements. For instance anti-war protests often get far more turnout then the Tea events but only a fraction of the coverage. Was this the largest demonstration in years? Do they have a unified or fractured message? Should larger demonstrations get larger coverage? Coverage also failed to provide much context, someones taxes are going up, but who, by how much, how does this compare to other times in US history etc.
And I know I sound like a cynic when I say this, but Journalism and PR get closer and closer with each passing day. The only difference is that PR always wants the subject to look good, and objections to the subject to look bad, Journalists only want for their subject to look true, or as close to true as possible.
Kevin —
Very good points. I certainly agree with what you said about context — wish I’d thought of that when I was writing up the article. In this case at least, the contextual side of things was covered by an AP article my newspaper published and linked to my own.
Re: journalism and PR — I would hope that journalism tries to incorporate all sides as well. With PR, it’s expected that only one side will be positively/thoroughly presented. With journalism, I should hope that things are a little more balanced at least.