At first, I just wanted the saga of the
grandmother Minuteman member to go away.
I knew early on that this story was bad
news. It had the potential to bring negative publicity for my hometown of
Kansas City. It promised undue publicity
to the Minutemen organizations. And I could see it becoming so mired in emotion
that the very real issue of immigration reform would be sideswiped.
All that and more happened when the
cycle of news began to unfold. It began in June, after Kansas
City's mayor appointed a member of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps to a
prominent city board. The appointment, and its aftermath, seeped into the pages
and Web site of The Kansas City Star.
It has been quite a ride, with challenges for nearly every section of the
newspaper.
In hindsight, most criticisms and
discussions boiled down what should always be the basic goals of the news
media: clarity and transparency. We need to be extremely clear with the public
about how decisions are made within the paper. We should explain about how we
deal with letters to the editor, guest columns, editorial board opinions and usage
of terms like "vigilante," as well as the focus, the content and the
placement of news stories.
Although I was free to give my opinion
because I'm a columnist and member of the editorial board, I was keenly aware
that people needed solid, straightforward information upon which they could
base their thoughts.
Foremost among the challenges was how
to cover groups like the Minutemen. They promote themselves as having a benign
advocacy against illegal immigration. But their rhetoric draws sharp rebuke from
many civil rights groups.
Here is the crux of the story. In
June, a new mayor appointed the woman to the coveted Parks and Recreation
board. She did not apply for this spot. But he gave it as a payoff for working
on his campaign. The mayor did not know Frances Semler was a Minuteman when he
made the appointment.
When the story broke of her
affiliation, Semler offered to resign. The mayor refused to accept it. Those
tidbits are part of how the story quickly became mired in politics, focused on
the gaffes of a new mayor and detailed his subsequent refusal to back away from
a decision.
Pressure for the mayor to oust his new
commissioner came first from leaders within the local Latino community. Unable
to get a satisfactory answer from the mayor, they threatened to force a future
convention from the city — the 2009 National Council of La Raza, a
leading civil rights organization. In solidarity, the NAACP said it would also considering not coming to the city
if the woman remained on the board. Together, the loss of the conventions was
estimated to be $15 million.
The Star's editorial board, of which I
am a member, urged a resolution. It said Semler should resign. Star readers
quickly began taking sides. The editor, who edits letters from readers, became
inundated. Most letters came from writers who supported the mayor's firm stand
behind his appointment.
The preponderance of letters in support
of the Minutemen dismayed some readers. It became imperative to explain that
the letters page prints in direct proportion to what it receives. The guest
columns the paper ran on the subject were chosen to give all sides an airing.
Soon, the issue morphed into one of
free speech. People argued that Semler had the right to belong to anything she
wants -- a take that neatly sidestepped the original issue of immigration.
And as I noted in one of my columns, "Clearly many people saw the boycott threats as a bunch of minorities
throwing their undeserved weight around. The edge of 'Who do those people think
they are?' is an attitude that didn't just form after the parks board
appointment."
A few Latino leaders mired the
issue in more divisive terms. They labeled as a racist anyone who sided with
the Minutemen's message.
I tried to draw distinctions. I wrote
that "… disagreeing with someone of a different race does not always mean the
disagreement is about race. Lots of people have limited understandings about
immigration processes and the workings of our borders. That doesn't make them
racist. It just means they are uninformed."
Just who is labeled a "Minuteman" was another issue. As I explained in one column, there
are two organizations of Minutemen. Several splinter groups also call
themselves Minutemen. Some of the more incendiary commentary about immigrants
comes from the splinter groups.
The news side led most of the coverage.
It deftly attempted to explain the stands and activities of both the Minutemen
and the National Council of La Raza. La Raza operates like an umbrella
organization for many non-profits around the nation working to aid Latinos.
To some, anyone who would be associated
with the Minutemen must be a racist. To others, the National Council of La Raza
was racist group because of its advocacy for Latinos. Both views are an
inaccurate usage of the term racist.
The ombudsman for the newspaper, Derek
Donovan, kept a keen eye for fairness in the news coverage. He used his bi-weekly
column to address a common concern: the paper's usage of the terms "militant" and "vigilante" when writing about the
Minutemen. Both terms are loaded with connotations. I don't think "militant" is the right choice for a news story. But I have no problem
with "vigilante."
Like it or not, the issue of illegal
immigrants will be with us. The nation's news organizations will be addressing
the issue of how illegal immigrants are viewed, portrayed and yes, protested,
for a long time.
What violence are Minutemen engaged in and how are they...
