Barry Graham: Illusory Flowers in an Empty Sky
 |
| Great Eastern Hotel, Glasgow |
I’ve misrepresented myself several times: I dressed in rags and pretended to be homeless in order to get admitted to the Great Eastern Hotel in Glasgow, because I wanted to examine the conditions there. When I heard that a nursing home was neglecting its residents, I pretended that I had an elderly relative I wanted to find a place for. I’ve gone on ride-along with cops who didn’t know I was a journalist, because I wanted to report what they actually said when they didn’t expect consequences. When Sheriff Joe Arpaio was acting as a “celebrity waiter” at a charity event, I went to the restaurant for dinner, pretending to be a tourist from Scotland, and asked him whether he was going to run for governor. There have been other such deceptions - these are only the ones that spring to mind right now - and the sad fact is that they are often necessary in matters of public interest. It should be exceptional, and a last resort, but as long as the privacy of individuals is not being violated, I see no ethical problem with it.
- Booklist
Since moving to the U.S. from his native Scotland, Graham has staked out the Southwest as his territory, and written about it in a way that no one else has. His is not the Southwest of scenic natural wonders, petroglyphs and ancient Indian civilizations juxtaposed with modern spiritual seekers. His is the Southwest as gritty emblem of 21st Century America, of urban blight and the dispossessed, of the people left behind.
Graham writes with corrosive honesty, giving no quarter to anyone, especially himself. This book contains his award-winning story of the two executions he has witnessed, along with other pieces that form a beautiful and terrifying portrait of a civilization in the process of collapse.
Anyone who found my claim that the U.S. is not a free country to be hyperbolic is advised to read Mac McClelland’s latest article for Mother Jones, “A Visit to the Warehouse of Soul-Crushing Sadness.”
The Associated Press has warned its journalists not to express any opinions on social networks. In a memo to staff, managing editor Tom Kent wrote:
Colleagues,
In at least two recent cases, we have seen a few postings on social networks by AP staffers expressing personal opinions on issues in the news.
This has happened on the New York Senate vote on gay marriage and on the Casey Anthony trial. These posts undermine the credibility of our colleagues who have been working so hard to assure balanced and unbiased coverage of these issues.
AP’s News Values and Principles state that anyone who works for AP must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of news. This point is contained in our social network guidelines as well.
Failure to abide by these rules can lead to disciplinary action.
The vast majority of our tweets on these stories — and on other issues in the news — have been completely in line with our guidelines. They pose no problem at all, and are consistent with the importance of AP staffers being active on social networks.
But social networks, however we may configure our accounts or select our friends, should be considered a public forum. AP staffers should not make postings there that amount to personal opinions on contentious public issues.
Please let your supervisor or me know if you have any questions on this. And thanks.
Tom
Now that Regarde Les Hommes Mourir is published, a few people have asked me what’s in the book.
It contains French translations of the best work I’ve had published so far: The Wrong Thing (under the title I originally gave it, All the Little Kids are Dressed in Dreams), How Do You Like Your Blue-Eyed Boy? and “Why I Watch People Die.” The latter is a nonfiction account of the two executions I’ve witnessed and how I came to do it. Each of the three sections is accompanied by art by Vince Larue. The book also has an essay on my work by Larry Fondation, from which the quote above is taken.
Someone asked me, “How can you report on the death penalty when you’re so openly opposed to it? How is that objective reporting?”
Good luck finding a reporter who doesn’t have an opinion about their subject. Here’s something I wrote about this last year.
Passive news reporting that doesn’t attempt to resolve factual disputes in politics may have detrimental effects on readers, new research suggests.
How could it not?
The study found that people are more likely to doubt their own ability to determine the truth in politics after reading an article that simply lists competing claims without offering any idea of which side is right.
Last year, I wrote about the fact-free formula most U.S. journalists are forced to follow, a formula that pretends to provide news in the same way that McDonald’s pretends to provide food.
The two best articles I read last year were published in the most recent issues of Mother Jones.
Charlie LeDuff’s story of a little girl killed in her home by Detroit cops is one of the best (and most heartbreaking) magazine articles ever.
Mac McClelland’s reporting from Haiti is described, by the author herself, as “disgusting.” It is, and that’s part of why it’s so important.
This New York Times piece tells the story of a photojournalist who lost his legs in a war zone. (For a different take on the motivations of war chroniclers, I recommend Chris Hedges’ book War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning).
Twenty-five years ago, Joao Silva was a troubled high school dropout on the streets of Johannesburg. His future looked bleak until the day a friend took him along on a photo shoot. Joao fell in love with the camera.
He was drawn to battle. Within a remarkably short time, his photos of conflict were on the front pages of newspapers around the world. His camera became a prolific instrument, helping the public understand the wars of the last two decades.
