|
INTRODUCTION
I am
delighted that you have picked up a copy of The View from
the Grass Roots—Another Look. It’s the second in the
Grass Roots series and includes columns, articles and
stories that appeared in newspapers during 2002 to 2004 with
a couple from 2001 and one three-part series written about a
nightmare adoption experience that ran in the Greensboro
News & Record during the late 1990’s.
In my
syndicated column that I write for the New Jersey Herald,
I endeavor to carry on a conversation about life with my
readers as if they were my friends or next-door neighbors.
As your conversations are often multi-faceted, the subjects
I write about also cover a broad range of topics. Bob Price,
the man who edits my column at the Herald once
remarked, “You always know where Rummo stands, you just
never know what he’ll write about next.”
Whether
writing a serious commentary on the events of the day or
lighter fare—sports, the outdoors, food, the weather, life
at home, a recent business trip or travels to far away
places—I think you will find my view reflects that of a
majority of Americans. It is truly a view from the grass
roots.
Two recent
columns of mine will help you understand where I am coming
from. They are included here in the introduction. But you’ll
have to read the fourteen chapters which follow to really
get the full picture.
It is my hope
that this second volume will speak to your mind as well as
your heart about some of the more important issues of
life—and some not-so important ones as well.
What Makes a Journalist, a
Journalist?
October 14, 2002
In the introduction to my first book,
The View from the Grass Roots, I state: “Let me warn
you: I am not a journalist.” What I meant when I wrote that
was that journalism is not my profession. I don’t earn a
living writing a syndicated newspaper column. But it is my
passion and sometimes it borders on an obsession. If you are
beginning to sense a mea culpa in the works, you’re right.
Think of it in terms of Leonard Nimoy’s
confusing first book, I Am Not Spock, followed up
several years later by his equally schizophrenic sequel,
I Am Spock.
In the latter, the actor explains, “If
you want to get technical I am not Spock. I am an actor
named Leonard Nimoy who plays that character. At the same
time, a perfectly good argument could be made that I am
Spock…As an actor, I’ve used my own emotional (or
unemotional) resources to help create the character… I
brought part of myself to the role…”
I can empathize with Mr. Spock’s, er,
Mr. Nimoy’s vacillations. His thoughts are as clear as if he
performed the Mind Meld on me.
As it turns out, I am a
journalist and not just according to some old pointy-eared
Vulcan who elevated logic to ethereal heights. If you judge
me by the strictest standards, set by an esteemed
institution such as the Columbia University School of
Journalism, you will learn that I am eminently qualified for
my role.
Last July, The Wall Street Journal
featured a column written by Tunku Varadarajan entitled “A
Matter of Degree: Which One Makes a Journalist?”
The column ignited the old debate about
which course of study is best suited for a person interested
in becoming a journalist. Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia's new
president, had suspended its search for a new dean for its
graduate school of journalism until the school could
re-evaluate its program.
“If [our] journalism school is to do
nothing more than teach its students a ‘trade’ (writing,
reporting, sourcing, etc).—one that can be learned so much
better at an actual newspaper or magazine—does it really
belong at Columbia” he told Mr. Varadarajan.
“To teach the craft of journalism is a
worthy goal but clearly insufficient,” Dr. Bollinger added.
What is implied is that a 10-month
“workshop” that teaches only the mechanics of journalism is
simply too shallow. Better to have a master’s degree in some
other discipline coupled with the ability to write well.
Imagine a writer, with a journalism
degree trying to write an in-depth piece on the latest
advances in pharmaceutical research. Wouldn’t it be more
appropriate—and helpful—if he had a master’s degree in
chemistry, for example, coupled with a good command of the
English language?
“…In the real world of journalism, a
master’s degree from a decent university—in history, say, or
the sciences—is more likely to get you in the door at [The
Wall Street Journal] or The New York Times than a
master’s in journalism from Columbia,” explains Mr.
Varadarajan.
So, after all, I am a bona fide
journalist. With the title; however, comes responsibility.
Journalists are supposed to live up to
a code of ethics that includes accuracy, fairness and
objectivity. As America has become more ideologically
polarized, good journalism has become an oxymoron at
some newspapers.
Opinion often creeps into news stories.
Often this is blatant although usually, it is as subtle as a
writer’s choice of one verb over another. Editors can
emphasize the tone and the relative importance of a story by
the photos selected or a story’s placement—on the front page
or on page 23B. Or maybe if it’s a particularly damaging
story about “their guy” the editors will simply decide not
to run a story at all.
Not reporting the news can often be
just as biased as what is reported, where it’s reported and
how it’s spun.
When bias is evident among those who
make the claim they are objective, it results in a backlash.
Books such as Bias, written by CBS insider Bernard
Goldberg and Slander by Ann H. Coulter are two recent
examples. Couple this with the popularity of
mostly-conservative talk-radio and one is left to wonder if
true objectivity is possible.
I make no pretense about being
objective. I write an opinion column and am therefore
entitled to offer my opinions which I do unapologetically
Sometimes, I use my column as a forum to break news or to
highlight a story that the mainstream newspapers relegate to
the back pages or the spike.
When I do this it is my hope that my
readers will think and form their own opinion about a story.
And if I can make a reader think—that, I believe, is a part
of what comprises good journalism.
Biblical-world View is a Valid
Commentary
January 11, 2004
As a columnist, I get a lot of e-mails
from readers. I always encourage those who contact me to
consider writing a letter to the editor and share their
thoughts with other readers. And I do this whether the
letter writer agrees or disagrees with my point of view.
Occasionally, a reader takes exception
to the placement of my column and wonders why a
biblical-world view is allowed to appear on the opinion
page. One letter-to-the-editor that appeared in a New Jersey
newspaper last year serves as an example.
Here’s what the writer led with: “After
reading Gregory J. Rummo’s (column) the question I’m left
with is how did he move from the religion page to the
editorial page?”
The truth as a biblical-world view
belongs exactly where you are reading it now, on the
editorial page or the op-ed page of this newspaper.
I refer dissenters to the Dec. 8, 2003
issue of U.S. News & World Report in which appeared a
“special report” entitled, “The New Evangelicals.” The
editors thought it was such an important story they featured
it on the front cover of the magazine.
The article examined evangelical’s
“bold take on Christianity” and concluded that it is
“changing America.”
What I found most interesting were
these statistics cited in the article: “Today, according to
a Gallup survey, roughly four out of 10 Americans identify
themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians.”
Indeed, a biblical or a Judeo-Christian
or an “evangelical” view of life is representative of
mainstream America.
So what’s all the fuss? Why are
Christians consistently bashed in the mainstream media and
branded as right-wing fanatics or extremists? Shouldn’t a
view that reflects 40 percent of America belong on the
opinion pages of every newspaper in the country? And that
begs the question, why shouldn’t four out of 10 opinion
columns reflect a biblical-world view or portray Christians
in a positive light?
The U.S. News story had the
answer, explaining how “many outside the tradition (of
evangelical Christianity) still tend to reduce evangelicals,
and particularly prominent leaders and televangelists, to a
conveniently dismissible stereotype: Bible-thumping,
intolerant know-nothings.”
Because many “outside the tradition”
are found in places such as academia, newsrooms and the
mainstream media in general, evangelicals almost never
receive positive coverage in the news, let alone a regular
voice on the opinion pages of a prestigious newspaper. And
if an evangelical writer should be so lucky as to be thrown
a bone, an editor almost always makes sure he emphasizes
that he disagrees with the point of view - as if he might
catch the cooties—but is running it anyway as a token of
fairness or all-inclusiveness.
Earlier this year, I wrote a column
entitled “Media Doesn’t Know Boykin or Bible.” Army Lt. Gen
William Boykin is the Deputy Undersecretary of defense for
intelligence and war fighting support. You may remember he
dared characterize the United State’s war against terror as
a clash with “Satan,” and Islamic radical’s hatred of
America “because we’re a Christian Nation.” I concluded that
while Boykin’s comments may have been embarrassing to his
superiors it was only because they were fanned into a major
conflagration by a media bent on destroying anyone who takes
his Christian faith seriously that the incident even made
news to begin with.
It’s stories like these that remind me
of Jesus’ words: “If the world hates you, you know that it
hated Me before it hated you.”
Yet, I’d like to believe things are
changing, in America at least, which was founded as a nation
on the Judeo-Christian ethic.
The U.S. News story offers some
hope in this regard: “When researchers focus on ordinary
evangelicals ... they find more diversity, complexity and
ambivalence than conventional wisdom would lead us to
expect.”
But not to complain too much—especially
on this page—where the editor has, to his credit, bucked the
trend and given my evangelical view of current events a
regular space.
And whether you agree or disagree with
that point of view, you should take a few minutes to write
the editor and let him know that in a world where agendas
and spin often trump the truth, you appreciate his
willingness to feature a diversity of opinion.
|
Editorial
Reviews