A Case Study of The Cincinnati Enquirer
Threads of Influence: The Underground Railroad Freedom Center
and Mayor Charlie Luken's Vine Street Project
By Jaclyn Giovis and David Greber
Case One: The Cincinnati Enquirer's Coverage of National Underground
Railroad Freedom Center
Explanation of the Thread:
Below are essential elements to understanding the plan for The National
Underground Railroad Freedom Center. Many of these elements are hinted at in Serrin's
"rules." They are as follows (information from www.undergroundrailroad.org):
* The Enquirer's President and publisher, Harry Whipple, is co-chair on The National
Underground Railroad Freedom Center's Board of Trustees. The other co-chair is Judge
Nathaniel Jones of the 6th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals.
* The office for the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center is located at 312
Elm Street, which is the Enquirer's building.
* The National Underground Railroad Freedom Center has a $110 million-dollar capital
campaign goal: $42 million from private sources and $33 million from the government.
The Center hoped to receive a total of $55 million from private sources and $55 million
from the government.
* The 158,000-square-foot Freedom Center, located on the banks of
the Ohio River, will use various mediums, including interactive exhibits, film, environmental
theatre, artifacts and discussion forums to tell freedom stories, beginning with
those about the Underground Railroad through contemporary freedom movements. Groundbreaking
for the Center is scheduled for June 10. The Center is expected to open in 2004.
* The Freedom Center President is Ed Rigaud. Rigaud began the
project on loan from P&G, where he was worked for 35 years and served as vice
president of government relations for North America. He retired in July of 2001 to
continue working on the project.
* Former P&G chairman John Pepper is working on The Freedom Center's capital
campaign to help raise support funds.
* Distinguished founders, contributing more than $1 million include, among others:
The Boeing Company Charitable Trust, Cincinnati Bell Foundation/ Convergys Corporation,
city of Cincinnati, Cinergy Foundation, Hamilton County, Federated Department Stores
Foundation, Federal Government, Firstar Corporation, Mr. & Mrs. John E. Pepper,
Harold C. Schott foundation, State of Ohio and Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America,
Inc.
* Other major local and national public figures are involved either as organizers
or supporters or both.
In light of the information noted above and the data collected on Cincinnati's demographics
and local economy and the Enquirer as a media outlet, the Enquirer had the potential
to, at least indirectly, effect the future success of the Freedom Center.
Obviously, Harry Whipple sitting as co-chair on the Center's Board of Directors and
the Center's location in the Enquirer building could have an effect on the coverage
of the issue. In other words, did Whipple make "suggestions" as to when
and how the Center should be covered, or chastise employees for certain coverage
of the issue? Did his position on the Center's Board of Trustees subconsciously influence
reporters to frame stories? Did Enquirer employees get first dibs on the Center stories?
What did the paper's editorial page have to say about the project? Was the issue
given prominence in the newspaper over others? These are only a few of the questions
I needed answered to determine the Enquirer's influence.
Another question was whether or not advertising from certain companies (like P&G,
Cinergy, Federated Department Stores, etc.) increased or decreased as the project
developed? This was also a potential influence, since many of these companies were
donors to the project, involved in the project's organization or support efforts
(along with Whipple) and have been large Enquirer advertisers in the past.
After examining the Enquirer's coverage of the Freedom Center and
conducting a series of interviews, I have determined that Whipple and the proximity
of the Center's office (located in the Enquirer building) did not influence the paper's
coverage of the project. However, The Enquirer's positive coverage of the project
did have an impact on the issue at large.
Empirical Data/ Interviews:
Since 1997, The National Underground Railroad Freedom Center has received a lot coverage
both locally and in national newspapers like USA Today, The New York Times and The
Miami Herald. Despite the sporadic criticisms of the ever-growing fund campaign,
coverage of the project has been positive and generally supportive of the project's
goals and plans for achieving those goals.
Like its competitors, The Cincinnati Enquirer has pursued the story since its beginning
in December of 1997. More than one thousand Enquirer stories mention or detail news
associated with the Freedom Center. In 2001, there were over 200 stories written
about the Freedom Center in some capacity.
Because The Enquirer covered the Freedom Center through its every stage and so many
stories were written about the project, a sampling of articles dating back to 1997
was examined for content, context and trends associated with The Enquirer's coverage
of the project for this report. Next, 2001 articles were reviewed and compared to
the sampling, as in some months there was no mention of the Freedom Center in the
paper, while in others there were multiple mentions or stories written about the
project. Research on this material did not yield results that proved Harry Whipple
or The Enquirer's proximity to the Center's office as threads of influence in the
stories' coverage. On the other hand, positive coverage from The Enquirer and its
competitors has probably affected the project at large by bringing in more private
and government funding and making the project seem attractive to readers.
Although no one at The Enquirer would comment on Whipple's role as co-chair, his
involvement in the Freedom Center's planning or whether or not he or the Enquirer
has given money to support the Center, all said that his position on the Board of
Directors did not impact their decisions to cover a story a certain way.
Whipple did not return any of phone messages to reach him for comment.
According to Ernest Britton, director of executive services for the Freedom Center,
Whipple sets policy for the Freedom Center and is responsible for the "financial
health" of the organization. In other words, Whipple is responsible for handling
the funds coming into the organization and the management of those funds.
He said Whipple donated office space, telephone and computer access, and use of joint
meeting rooms when Board of Trustees members of the National Conference of Christians
and Jews Greater Cincinnati chapter (of which Whipple was a former Board member)
were asked to offer resources in support of the future project.
Whipple privately donated money to support the Center, but the Enquirer (as a news
organization) has not, he said. He would not reveal how much Whipple privately donated
to the project.
When asked who wanted to run a full page advertisement for the Freedom Center on
March 4, 2002, the day Cincinnati's collaborative agreement on race issues was released,
Britton said it was Crew's idea. He noted that after two weeks of persuasion Whipple
donated the March 4th advertisement to The Freedom Center. He said the value of the
ad space was about $10,000 and that The Enquirer has donated two similar advertisements
that ran in the summer of 2001.
According to Rosemary Goudreau, Enquirer Managing Editor, advertising revenues are
not what they were, and "We have naturally cut costs and that makes our job
hard."
However, research conducted for this report shows that the major Cincinnati companies
that have always advertised are continuing to advertise. Many of those are associated
with the Freedom Center, but given the facts above, there is no justification for
the premise that they are advertising for the sake of the Freedom Center or Harry
Whipple.
While there were no features or articles explaining Harry Whipple's involvement in
the project, (if his name were ever mentioned in a story, it was only to say that
he is co-chair of the Center's Board of Trustees) the Enquirer Freedom Center stories
covered events, other prominent figures associated with the event or project and
local residents with an Underground Railroad story.
For example, there were about 20 stories about the Center needing more funds and
receiving funds in 2001. Since 1997, there were more than 30 features done on the
project, including those on major contributors Crew, Rigaud and Pepper, as well as
other national and local figures supporting the project either financially or through
lecture series' and other social events.
The Enquirer Freedom Center articles were given optimal prominence on section covers
with art and photo accompanying them; or else they were buried briefs or slight mentions.
In 2001, approximately 25 stories were given section prominence or were accompanied
by art.
Managing Editor Rosemary Goudreau said that the Enquirer is not considered a national
newspaper, like The New York Times or The Washington Post, and therefore, it is able
to place local stories on the front page.
"This is a local newspaper," she said, "and we'll do that."
She added: "Our coverage has been positive...I'm not sure we've really gotten
into (the Freedom Center) story. We've covered it as it has reached (the) news."
Examples of some of the news story headlines include: "Freedom Center to be
striking/ Details released for riverfront focal point," "Engineering the
Freedom Center/ P&G exec works tirelessly to keep Underground Railroad on track,"
"Thousands raise cash for center," "Real stories make slavery personal:
Freedom Center family stories," "Meet the Freedom Center's executive director/
Crew's opportunity: Bringing history to life," and "Bengals tackle racial
healing: Brown teaming up with Freedom Center."
Assistant local news editor Annie Blair said that The Enquirer may have coordinated
an agreement to donate office space and computer and telephone access, in exchange
for receiving the information first, but Goudreau said that no such agreement existed.
"No, there wasn't any quid pro quo," she said. "There was never any
understanding that we would get (a story) first."
Still, the Freedom Center gives priority to The Enquirer most of the time, Britton
said. He noted that this is because "what's in The Enquirer basically leads
the television news and...(most people) pretty much do not pay attention to what's
in The Post."
Reporter Kristina Goetz said, in general, The Cincinnati Enquirer does not have to
face tough competition for stories.
"We're the biggest paper in town, so you're going to bring (a story) here first,"
she said.
When asked if Whipple was a reason that The Enquirer got Freedom Center scoops, Goetz
said: "Maybe (sometimes) we get the story first because of (Whipple), but has
he ever said, 'Cover it this way'? No. Sometimes he does that about obituaries, but
not about the Freedom Center."
Ironically, or perhaps not, there was an obituary written for Walter Scott Blackburn,
the lead architect of the Freedom Center in 2000 and earlier (1998), there was one
for a 28-year-old man involved in the Center's planning.
Nevertheless, all Enquirer reporters and editors interviewed
in this report said that Whipple did not make suggestions as to how the Freedom Center
should be covered.
"No. He didn't (make suggestions)," Goudreau said, "and
the publisher would never ask us to do that."
Even Britton said Enquirer reporters and editors are not impacted by Whipple's position
on the Board of Trustees.
Britton said The Enquirer has practiced balanced reporting and has portrayed the
Freedom Center in a positive light "in large part but not always."
"The Enquirer has been more critical that other local papers," he said.
In fact, The Enquirer, compared to local competitors like The Post or The Business
Courier, did write more critical stories through the years (though there were only
a few).
The most recent example was printed on March 9, 2002. Headed, "Freedom Center
to open in red," the article chose to focus on the financial toll the museum
would face based on low admission projections.
But two weeks later, The Business Courier printed an article that pointed out that
there are other financial factors besides museum admissions to consider before judging
the Freedom Center's future success, like fundraising.
Perhaps this story is evidence that The Enquirer frames stories in order to be more
critical than other papers. On the other hand, Enquirer editors like to see writers
keep to a certain formula when writing their stories and many times they tell reporters
to "cover (a story) a certain way," said Goetz.
The formula, which she says is Gannett-wide, requires the first five graphs of the
story to tell the audience the news, context, impact and human dimension.
"This is not a writer's paper," she said. "This is an editor's paper.
That's why I get in trouble all the time. Because I'm like, 'That's not the angle.
That's not the angle.'"
Goetz was critical of another Enquirer practice called "mainstreaming."
Mainstreaming, she explained, is when a reporter is directed by an editor to get
information and quotations from racially diverse individuals in hopes of appealing
to the "mainstream public." She said that editors often require reporters
to do this even if those individuals are not at a particular scene or do not happen
to be intricately involved in the issue being reported.
When asked if The Enquirer frames stories Goudreau said, "We absolutely frame
stories." However, she defined framing in a structural sense and the question
was meant to refer to whether or not the Enquirer pursues stories with a pre-conceived
notion of the story before the story is even reported.
She said: "I think it's important to frame stories because we're not starting
with a blank slate. It's important to have a direction and have a key issue and listen
to people and make sense of what it is we want to explore. "
Even editorials and columns written at The Enquirer are carefully crafted and are
subject to editing.
The editorials and columns on the Freedom Center (25+) or those that mention the
project are supportive and make some mention of the Center being a tool for healing
racial divides or an opportunity to celebrate the city's African American culture.
On Wednesday, March 13, a column by Cliff Radel stated, "The center is vital
for what it represents and what it could become. Give it the right location. Put
it on the riverfront, across from the Kentucky shore where the slaves crossed over.
Infuse it with the spirit of the quest for freedom. Do all that and the center could
represent for slavery, that shameful chapter in America's past, what the U.S. Memorial
Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., does for that blighted period in European history."
These editorials and a dozen others that lend support to the Freedom Center project
in the context of the larger Cincinnati riverbank construction initiatives may subconsciously
put pressure on lawmakers to support the project's goals and lobby for government
funding at the state and federal level, especially when coupled with the Center's
persistent lobbying.
According to Britton, the Freedom Center is lobbying hard for state funds, as it
has only received $4.3 million of its desired $15 million from state sources. He
is confident that the Center will receive the funds and meet its $110 million goal.
"I know that the Governor favors the project," said Mary Anne Sharkey,
Governor Taft's press secretary.
In the meantime, Goudreau said, The Enquirer is picking its priorities with regard
to stories (as ad revenues decline and staffing concerns worsen). One of these priorities,
encouraged by Gannett principles, is to further public service and investigative
reporting on race issues. She noted the Neighbor to Neighbor initiative as one of
the ways the ways they are aiming to do this.
"It may not help us sell papers, and yet, it gets at public service and investigative
reporting," she said.
However, she suggested that stories about the Freedom Center (that have the opportunity
to do public service) are few because of such enterprise decisions.
"We take people from other things, so this means we put our resources behind
it... We are in a position to put issues on the public agenda," Goudreau said.
"It's not so much about creating news. It's about creating opportunities for
people to talk."
Needless to say, by opening doors for some to talk (Neighbor to Neighbor), The Enquirer
is also forced to limit the depth of some stories, or skim over issues by focusing
on one angle. This appears to be the case in The Enquirer's Freedom Center stories.
In practice, The Enquirer then frames these stories by deciding to keep them as positive
centerpieces or brief mentions. And as a result, the project is by in large publicly
and financially supported.
Case Two: Mayor Charlie Luken's Vine Street Project
Explanation of the Thread:
The Enquirer's covers issues that are recently affecting Cincinnati
in a variety of ways. Mayor's Luken's Vine Street Project and issues dealing with
the Race Street Tenants Organized Cooperative (ReStoc), are written from the perspective
of City Council because the stories are products of beat reporting. The purpose of
this case study is to prove that the practice of framing has a negative effect on
readers. This is because angles of stories are derived from one point of view-generally
City Council-instead of the community. The Enquirer had their work cut out for them
this year when the city aired its dirty laundry.
On April 7, 2001, Cincinnati witnessed the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man
when he ran from police through the streets of Over-the-Rhine. The incident (involving
14-year-old Timothy Thomas and Cincinnati police officer Stephen Roach) ignited some
of the worst racial tension the city has seen since the late 1960s with over 800
violations leading to nearly 600 arrests. The tension escalated into three days of
riots and mass national media attention of Cincinnati's poorest neighborhood (Stories,
April 9-11).
Earlier that year-five months before the city's bout with the unrest-in the Nov.
11 issue of the Cincinnati Enquirer, a story entitled, "The struggle for Vine
Street," referred to the area as "ripe for development," and directed
attention to a divided topic among residents: economic development versus the possibility
of gentrification (Struggle, Alltucker).
Just 11 days before the story ran, City Council approved a compromise with the Race
Street Tenants Organized Cooperative (ReStoc), a 26-year-old nonprofit housing developer
who seeks "development without displacement," that gave them (ReStoc) $770,000
to complete a $4.2 million package that included state loans and money from investors
who were seeking tax breaks by helping pay for the low-income housing.
ReStoc currently owns 47 buildings in Cincinnati, 14 of which are vacant, according
to the article. ReStoc is part of a nationwide movement to provide safe, decent and
affordable housing. All ReStoc tenant fees are reinvested back into the housing and
tenants, upon living in ReStoc housing for at least a year, have an automatic voting
position on the ReStoc board, so they have input into ReStoc decisions (Disagreeing,
Trapp).
ReStoc was founded in 1977, and since then, has worked in conjunction with the Drop
Inn Center and thousands of volunteers from around the city to offer racially integrated
housing for low-income individuals and families. It also works to increase the livability
of the neighborhood by building community gardens and sponsoring tenant meals, as
well as constantly advocating for the rights of the low-income.
ReStoc operates 161 units of affordable housing, including both the 20-unit Recovery
Hotel and 20-unit Buddy's Place; named after its founder, who was shot and killed
by a mentally ill client at the Drop Inn Center in 1996. It reaches out primarily
to the homeless and ill housed in Over-the-Rhine. They are both located on Vine Street,
which serve people who are homeless and disabled (http://www.overtherhine.org/restoc/).
ReStoc founder Buddy Gray lobbied intensely until the city adopted an Over-the-Rhine
Urban Renewal Plan in 1985 that named creating a minimum goal of 5,520 low-income
units as the neighborhood's top priority. This decision helped to shape the city's
support for the housing groups, and ReStoc took full advantage, becoming Over-the-Rhine's
second largest property holder.
In 1993, the city changed its Over-the-Rhine policies to help spur development, especially
along its Main Street district, located just east of Vine. A series of restaurants,
bars and nightclubs opened for business, increasing the number of younger professionals
who desired to "live and play in downtown." (Struggle, Alltucker)
In his first State of the City Address as a strong mayor-the first time in over 75
years for Cincinnati-Charlie Luken announced a plan to help clean up the historic
divider between east and west sides of Cincinnati. In naming his "Vine Street
Project," Luken deemed the area important because it connects the riverfront-part
of a recently completed multi-million dollar project that Council hopes will attract
more of the community downtown-with the University of Cincinnati and surrounding
historic Clifton area. Mayor Luken proclaimed that a clean-up of the 1.5-mile stretch
would "be a signal that Over-the-Rhine is a neighborhood for all, not just people
at the lowest income level," according to Luken in an article that appeared
in The Enquirer on Jan. 11, 2002 (Luken focuses, Korte).
In an article that appeared in The Enquirer two weeks later, the mayor criticized
ReStoc's performance on keeping its promises for building development. Reports say
the mayor called the nonprofit housing developer an "obstacle" for his
project. He even went a step further and threatened to cut funding if the group failed
to meet previously agreed standards.
According to The Enquirer, the next week ReStoc and City Council collaborated on
a deal that allowed eight vacant buildings on Vine Street to be redeveloped, one
of which was sold at that time by ReStoc to the city for use in market-rate housing.
(Luken may, Korte).
Democrat Councilman David Pepper was the lead vote on a plan that would not force
Council to back out of the deal that gave the housing group $770,000 to develop its
properties. After the vote, ReStoc and the city were able to come to an agreement.
Led by Pepper, the arrangement called for ReStoc to:
•Sell at least 10 buildings, and use the profits to fix up others.
•Commit not to buy any more buildings through 2010.
•Redirect the group's focus toward home ownership.
•Cooperate with the city in developing business activity on Vine Street.
•Agree to hire a professional property manager for the "Vine Street Project."1
Empirical Data/ Interviews:
The practice of story framing is common. I wanted to discover whether or not The
Enquirer consciously frames stories, so I poked and prodded around the newsroom,
speaking with reporters, photographers and some in editorial positions about what
goes through their minds when sitting down to write or edit a story. Entering into
the researching phase of the project, I understood that the Vine Street Project was
an issue that the city was not alien to. In fact, the Vine Street Project gave way
to more than 30 articles in The Cincinnati Enquirer over the span of just a few months.
Needless to say, Over-the-Rhine, and more particularly Vine Street, have received
a great amount of attention from all of the Cincinnati media; appearing as a "hot
topic" on various local radio talk shows, or a "Top Story" on local
television programs, or front page headlines in The Post, The Enquirer as well as
Cincinnati's alternative news paper/magazine, City Beat. Mayor Luken's Vine Street
Project received further special attention in a Channel 9 (WCPO) program entitled,
"Visions of Vine Street" on Dec. 13. The reporter on the project, Miami
alumnus, Laure Quinlivan, was one of the recipients of this year's George Foster
Peabody Award as a result of her investigative work (Ch. 9, Kiesewetter).
Both The Enquirer and Post supported Mayor Luken after his 2001 re-election, this
time to a stronger mayoral position. On Jan. 12, 2002, the Post featured an editorial
entitled, "A street that unifies, again" claiming the issue of a Vine Street
revival a "splendid ambition."
"Luken was on just the right track when, in his State of the City address...he
proposed to revitalize the Vine Street corridor...It's a welcome initiative. If it's
successful, the rest of Over-the-Rhine will fall into place," said the piece
(A street, Post).
In an Enquirer editorial that appeared on Jan 13, 2002, the paper labeled the mayor
as "tough, upbeat and double-dare-you determined to turn this town around."
It even went so far as to compare him to former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani.
"The theory is that fixing little things-small-time crime, junk cars, abandoned
buildings, broken windows-rescues derelict neighborhoods. It works," said The
Enquirer (Tough, Enquirer).
Both papers were highly supportive of the chief executive in the city's new system
of government. They stood by the idea that the city did in fact, need change and
that it was time for implementation to be tested. But while The Enquirer failed to
point out even one negative aspect of Mayor Luken's new initiatives, The Post was
critical of his focus, saying they'd rather see a limited spectrum with a high success
level instead of broken promises.
"Mayor Charlie Luken laid it out perfectly this week: Vine Street, he said,
is the gateway between Cincinnati's two biggest employment centers, Downtown and
Clifton. And between those points it passes through the city's most troublesome neighborhood,
Over-the-Rhine," said the Post editorial.
It continues on to say, "Still, we'd rather see Luken limit his focus and deliver
on his promises than to talk of ambitions that will never be realized."
The coverage of the Vine Street Project has been very particular from the beginning.
The Nov. 11, 2000-story, "The struggle for Vine Street" did a complete
job of addressing a number of views that are essential to the topic, among the most
important, gentrification and middle- or raised-income housing. After a hiatus of
about two years, when the topic appeared once again on the government docket as a
part of the mayor's new plan, The Enquirer failed to quote a resident of Over-the-Rhine
in all but one story.
That story-"Luken focuses on Vine Street," Jan. 11, 2002, A1-marked the
first of the coverage on Mayor Luken's Vine Street Project. It quoted barber shop
proprietor Phillip Irby of Over-the-Rhine as saying, "All these boarded up buildings
have the potential to be someone's business-whether it be a cleaners or day care."
This statement does not represent a majority of the residents in the area. Because
a high percentage of the Over-the-Rhine population falls below the poverty level,
raised-income housing will mean that few will be able to remain in their homes (Census,
2000).
The following articles in The Enquirer either having to do with the mayor's project
or ReStoc featured statements from Mayor Luken, other council members, city managers
and coordinators and ReStoc administration. This information points to a major criticism
of The Enquirer: that coverage is oftentimes pro-council or pro-development and does
not equally represent the residents that are most affected by these issues, according
to residents.
Reporters also agree with this statement, but declare that the stories are written
from the perspective of the City Council beat. Therefore, their main focus is City
Hall rather than the community. Despite this fact, the issues that are covered as
beat stories have a direct effect on the city. The job of the reporter is incomplete
then if he/she simply covers City Council's practices and not the repercussions of
those practices.
The Enquirer's coverage, much like the media on a national level, set up this opposition.
During election time, mainstream media work to focus on the "Race to the White
House" or a one-man-against-another approach without paying a great amount of
attention to candidates' particular stances on issues.
Similarly, The Enquirer looks at the Vine Street issue from the perspective of Mayor
Luken and City Council or ReStoc and property owners instead of residents of Over-the-Rhine
or concerned citizens from surrounding neighborhoods.
At a peaceful march at Cincinnati's Fountain Square on April 7, 2002-the one-year
anniversary of the death of Timothy Thomas-Sister Victoria Straughn of the New Prospect
Baptist Church in Over-the-Rhine openly criticized the city's mainstream media (i.e.
local news programs, radio talk show hosts, The Enquirer and Post), and praised City
Beat for not only taking an "objective and balanced approach" to Cincinnati's
racial and economic problems, but naming Timothy Thomas' mother, Angela Leisure,
their "Person of the Year" (March for Justice).
"Angela Leisure('s) calling extorted from her the price of exactly one human
life: her son's.
"At Cincinnati's defining moment in 2001, the world looked not to the city fathers
for signs and hope but to a grieving woman whose poise and strength made her the
closest we have to a mother of the city."
This reaction followed a number of articles that focused on Mayor Luken's Vine Street
Project as well as ReStoc. The pieces are long and in depth with an average of about
2,000 words. Often taking a supportive angle of Over-the-Rhine residents and ReStoc,
City Beat analyzes ReStoc's building process and its history of productivity with
those properties. Since the issue was covered in City Beat, the paper has decided
to look at what they call their "Blight of the Week," where the staff picks
one particular property, and provides ownership information, original sale prices
compared to current value and a synopsis of the property's history (Blight, Smith).
In one case in particular, City Beat comments that, "1828 Elm St. is part of
a nine-building plan called 'Findlay Market Housing Initiative One,' including buildings
along Elm and Elder streets. The request for development went through 14 months ago,
and the details are just now being finalized with the city and the developer, Sheer
and Sheer." This building happens to be owned by the city of Cincinnati, however
the paper does not solely report on city-owned housing, but on ReStoc and private
owners as well (Blight, Smith).
This practice of "framing" stories-whether consciously or unconsciously-is
something that The Enquirer actively participates in, according to managing editor
Rosemary Goudreau, who said the paper "does it all the time," as in the
case of City Council.
Goudreau is quick to point out, however, that framing a story is something essential
to reporting on situations like racial unrest or an analysis of the Cincinnati Police
Department. In fact, there are influences that affect every story, she says.
These include what questions to ask, who does the reporting (is he/she black or white?),
where a story is featured in the paper and how much attention is paid to a certain
topic. Despite this, The Enquirer does not write for a target audience, according
to Goudreau, but tries to focus on how the city will be most affected by a certain
issue.
City Hall reporter Robert Anglen also admits that much of the coverage of ReStoc
or the mayor's project do have a council slant, instead of taking a resident's perspective.
This, according to Anglen, is not something The Enquirer worries too much about .
"The story is written from council's perspective because that's what we're reporting
on: council meetings," he said.
"We try to stay away from 'street people' because they all say pretty much the
same thing," he continued.
In addition, Anglen states that many of the Over-the-Rhine residents concentrate
on their situation myopically. That is, they focus on the task at hand-the "problems"
of everyday life-instead of whether or not they'll be without a home in the months
to come.
"People don't look under the hood," Anglen said.
He also explained that the city is currently offering vouchers to the inhabitants
of the dilapidated buildings, which they are reinvesting in dwellings outside the
city, in surrounding neighborhoods with less poverty.
"Why would they take free money, money given to them to improve their lifestyle,
and continue in the same conditions?" Anglen said.
Most recently, the topic of racial tension is obviously the largest thread of the
"cloth" that makes up the Cincinnati Enquirer. Based on volume of coverage
alone, The Enquirer has worked diligently to "cover all the issues." If
anything, the amount of coverage is extensive. To what degree of effectiveness is
another question. Reporters admit their target audience resides mostly outside the
city in surrounding suburbs.
"Those are the people who buy our papers," said Anglen. "But that
doesn't mean we write to suit their interests."
The Enquirer's parent company, Gannett Co. Inc., promotes a civic journalism approach
to all its papers. However, with The Enquirer failing to involve the community on
issues that directly affect citizens, civic journalism doesn't seem to be high on
their list.
That is not to say that The Enquirer completely turns its back on the idea of helping
the Cincinnati community. In fact, the paper recently finished its year-long Neighbor
to Neighbor program. Neighbor to Neighbor is the first program of its kind to be
sponsored by The Enquirer, and is believed to be one of the first ever attempted
by a newspaper nationally on such a scale. It was endorsed by dozens of community
organizations, churches and corporations, as well as the Cincinnati Media Collaborative
(Neighborhoods, Hofmeister).
The program was set up after the racial unrest during the spring of 2001. Its purpose
was to promote discussions about race in different parts of the city. These meetings
sparked grass-roots volunteerism and community action. Upon completion, The Enquirer
found that more than 2,100 people from nearly every Tri-state neighborhood had broken
their silence and engaged in difficult conversations on race. There were a total
of 145 meetings in 109 communities in and around Cincinnati (http://cincinnati.com/neighbors/).
After each meeting, The Enquirer ran an information box that included responses from
participants. The final product was a story about the project as a whole. Questions
that were answered included where participants agreed or disagreed and whether or
not they decided to meet again.
Despite the fact that Neighbor to Neighbor received a high level of praise, there
was a strong opposition. Some felt that the program was pointless, feeling that simply
talking would accomplish little. Others felt that The Enquirer was creating its own
news.
A Case Study of The Cincinnati Enquirer
Threads of Influence: The Underground Railroad Freedom Center
and Mayor Charlie Luken's Vine Street Project
By Jaclyn Giovis and David Greber
Introduction
• Community Profile
• Company profile • Case Study • Conclusion
|