Siouxbooster#33

Well, I feel much better, and I feel more informed.

I agree with much of what both of your posters are saying. I think the very minor divergence of opinion is where we draw the line -- if there is any line to be drawn at all -- of journalistic ethics. I would draw the line at a member of the press using his/her editorial access to pontificate repeatedly on one side of one subject. I believe insertion of themselves into a story by the editor of a daily news media source (a media source upon which resides much public trust) is unethical. Not illegal. And since this is a private for-profit media outlet, the public are free to stop purchasing the paper, and stop reading the paper, if they wish. The wonderful free market allows for both pontification on one side, and refusal to listen on the other side. If it hurts business, then the media outlet will have to address the matter (or not -- its ultimately the private media outlet's decision). Ethics is a funny, fuzzy term. And I appreciate views on the presence of ethics, and the imaginary ethical lines which can be drawn, will differ. But I tend to beleive the Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Dennis do not merely hold jobs as editors because they can accurately spot punctuation and spelling errors better than others. These men ( and most editors everwhere) are gatekeepers of information. they keep a hawk-like watch over their writers. Part of their job is dedicated to hunting down editorial content in news stories. Part of their job is to attempt, as best as can be accomplished, to erradicate bias from news writing. Part of their job is to make sure that their reporters, and through them their newspaper, do not become part of the story. Once the newspaper reporter and writer become part of the story, they compromise the silent contract that exists between the media and the citizenry in this country: The newspaper will tell you the facts, and the citizens can assume that the facts are not tainted by pique or gain or interest on the part of the newspaper. Part of their job is to ensure that the dignity and integrity of the newspaper is not compromised by "taking sides." The editorial slice of the newspaper is the refuge from this contract. But this refuge is not absolute. The silent contract cannot be simply turned off when the reader flips to the editorial section. And while citizens like myself are more than willing to let any editor say what they wish in the editorial section. Content is lovingly protected on the editorial page. We can disagree with the content, but we generally allow newspaper editors the freedom to print the editorial. So where is the line? When does the campaign by the editors compromise the central mission the media outlet -- providing the news? This is NO small item, in my opinion, because most nations in the world do not enjoy freedom to access of unbiased and uncompromised news. So if the editors are engaging in a whole-hearted campaign -- and now inserting themselves into the story and into the narrative of the event -- that is a problem. If this editorial crusade can be so easily linked to the nature and content of the alleged "straight" news stories on this same topic (the nickname) elsewhere in the paper, their editorial actions are now calling into question their editorial role in ensuring unbiased and uncompromised news coverage. And I believe that as a major source of news and information in this region, the editors have a duty (small "d" duty, not a legal duty) to the community in which they serve to protect the news. Their continued crusade and failure to protect the news from being compromised (and in probably most cases blessing the compromising of the news through their "straight" editing), is ethically questionable. And they would both be much better served leaving this issue alone instead of writing chicken little panic editorials about UND scheduling woes (on the same day UND announces an ESPN basketball game contract with Kansas, btw). A newsroom is no place for panic and fearmongering, let alone desperate campaigns. The people who rely upon the news media deserve better.

I would consider their editorials ranging into unethical not because of the content, but because of the drumbeat repetition of their editorials on this subject. As an example, each election cycle the editorial board presents the list of canditates which the board / editor supports. I have no problem with that -- an editorial by its very nature is the one rare instance (theoretically) that the editor can take off his journalistic ethical and professional restraint and speak his/her mind and give an opinion. Often times, the Editorial opinion relates to a top of the week. Often, the Editorial (in theory) will present a coutner-point to a hot issue in a measured and calm, allegedly third-party-outside-opinion. Sometimes the Editorial can give voice to a side of an issue or debate in which one side is unable, or unwilling, to defend a position for themselves in the public discourse. And I don't think there is anything wrong with this process. Furthermore, I'll go a step beyond and say that as a rule, I think Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Dennis do a very good job picking topics upon which to editorialize, and they do a decent job attempting to present a reasonable discussion. I don't always agree (often strongly disagree) with their opinions -- but I have no problem with the editors expressing their views. BUT, when does an Editorial opinion, as described by myself above, cross over the dangerous line to journalistic advocacy? I think Mr. Dennis and Mr. Jacobs work very hard, and I am sure that they hammer the importance of ethical journalistic integrity to their younger employees. Consider the example of the political recommendation. What if Mr. Dennis wrote not just one political recommendation editorial, but instead wrote 5, or 6, or 10, all in favor on ne candidate. Every other month, or sometimes every month, Mr. Dennis wrote blistering editorials supporting only one candidate and attacking, frequently, the opposing candidate? What if Mr. Dennis uses his Editorial position to simply mirror and parrot the campaign talking points? Thus my claim: Mr.s Jacobs and Dennis, and regularly contributing editorial commentator Mr. Omdahl -- are not merely submitting Editorials for the public discourse. They are engaging in a long campaign on one particular issue. And they are not merely presenting their opinion. They are presenting their opinion again, and again, and again, and again, and again. Year after year. Week after week. They have left behind any semblence of journalistic ethical restraint years ago on THIS topic. This year alone, Mr. Dennis and Mr. Jacobs have personally written multiple anti-Sioux name editorials. Then they publish multiple (at least three I can think of) editorial submissions from Mr. Omdahl on the same topic. Last week, Dennis, Jacobs, and Lloyd all submitted anti-name editorials in one week. This drum beat, this endless parade of anti-name editorials is when they cross the line from "merely giving their opinion on a matter of import in the public discourse," into advocacy. They are not making recommendations, nor are they taking up the cause of a side whose views and opinions are silenced. They are on a campaign. They are taking up the cause. And that is unethical (in my opinion). And my point is -- rather than engage in this repeated unethical journalistic activity, these two experienced and expert newspaper men (and Lloyd), should step away, before their integrity is shredded entirely. The have written all the Editorials they should ever write on this subject. 50? 100? Since the early 1990's? At least? They need to step back and leave the issue to the partisans involved in the fight. Their editorial practice has made THEM a partisan in the fight -- and that is a serious breech of their journalistic integrity and ethics. They have inserted themselves into the story -- and I think if these two otherwise very honorable men took a step back and realized this, they would probably agree.

Agreed. Mr. Omdahl has been steadfasstly against the name for 30 years. For him to have the nerve to write this article is almost beyond words! He, along with Mr. Dennis and Mr. Jacobs, have been on a crusade for over 20 years to end the use of the name. They have thrown out every name, insult, accusation, and doomsday threat in the book -- all attempting to hook a few followers here, a few followers there. I cannot imagine more gaul, more outright bile-filled gaul, than for this man to have the unmittigated NERVE to declare he has anything but outright contempt for the name? Hogwash. Do not for any instant, ever, think that his goal has ever changed: He has written at least three-four articles a year, every year, for MANY years, extolling the necessity of killing the name. Meanwhile, UND scheduled Kansas in basketball today. Hmmmm . . .. yup . . . . those sanctions are killing us. Required Reading for those who wish to listen to the Herald Editorial Opinions on this particular topic: http://www.archive.org/stream/remarkablestoryo00bostiala/remarkablestoryo00bostiala_djvu.txt

I must disagree. The NCAA capitulated with all of the above listed schools, INCLUDING North Dakota. The settlement agreement came at the earliest of stages in the litigation. Discovery was barely complete, if completed at all, when the NCAA jumped into the settlement. The NCAA also capitulated even earlier with the other schools. The NCAA has yet to ever take a school to trial over this matter. The NCAA has yet to even get as far as a summary judgment argument with any school over this matter. The closest the NCAA came to court action over the indian-name-issue was North Dakota, and that case settled almost instantly (instantly when looking at the legal time-line and procedural process). The NCAA has a significant track record of capitulating on this issue. Florida State, Illinois, Central Michigan, Utah, and North Dakota -- any school that challanged the NCAA on this matter actually won. You can agrue the merits and quality of the settlement reached between ND and the NCAA. But in the end, the NCAA SETTLED. The NCAA has never attempted to take this issue to an actual trial. The NCAA has never even attempted to take this matter to a summary judgment discussion. The NCAA has never even risked taking this issue to mediation. The NCAA has done everything possible to avoid media scrutiny of this issue (up to and including cancelling simple fact-finding meetings in Bismarck, North Dakota, if the doors were open to the public). One has to wonder how dedicated the NCAA is to this cuase if they are unwilling to open their opinions to the media. This is not pro-nick-name rose-colored glasses. These are actually facts. Just disagree with the concept of the NCAA not giving-in on this issue. All they have done, since they enacted this absurd and arbitrary ruling, is give in.

It is a shame that our local media is so dedicated to its ancient cause, that it can't take a moment to consider the absurdity of the NCAA's position. The journalistic integrity of the Forum/Herald on this particular matter is so thoroughly questionable that their own professional journalistic ethics should preclude them from making further comment. They are journalists who are so fully and totally compromised that I charge their recent spate of editorials and columns are unethical, and deserving of being told -- via e-mail and letters to the editor, that their behavior on this issue is damaging their credibility on many other subjects, and they should -- for ethical reasons - refrain from future comment.

Always with the negative vibes, Moriarity.

All of them, at one point in time. And Minnesota / Iowa / Wisconsin's scheduling policy is not tied to the NCAA. And yet . . . these schools all continue to play, nickname and all.

Is there proof that UM, Wisconsin, and Iowa will not schedule the Sioux? I see no proof, and in fact Wisconsin has scheduled the Sioux in basketball and softball in the past year. I don't care about Iowa. Push comes to shove, I really don't care about playing UM, UW, or Iowa --- if it means selling out our name to make some people on those campuses happy. I think that is selling the name pretty cheap. But any proof of these schools refusing to schedule UND? As for Minnesota . . . I am not in that group of people who feel that playing Minnesota in non-hockey events is some measuring stick of any serious value. Minnesota is a low-ranked, pathetic excuse for a Big Ten athletics program. I would prefer that we keep the name and play more Western-based schools rather than wring our hands in enrvous worry that "Big Minnesota might not like us." This includes hockey. I am not living my life, nor am I willing to sell my ideals, so cheaply just to make the regents of the University of Minnesota pat us on the head and say, "There's a good boy." But I ask again ---- any proof of any of this, are is Faisson spouting the doom and gloom party line? I see no proof, I only see cheap parlor tricks disguised as logic. I only see a shell game and three-card-monte. I only see a pack of left-leaning PC police officers frustrated that not enough people are taking them serious. I only see a gaggle of left-leaning Crusaders from the 1970s (Glassheim, Tom Dennis, Mike Jacobs, Omdahl) so entrentched in their long-long-long war against the name that they have totally lost their bearings. In place of logic and proof to support their debate, they and their converts have resorted to knee jerk nonsense, sky-is-falling rhetoric, and "boogey man" bed time stories meant to scare the little ignorant children who are unwilling or unable to understand these people are lost in the haze of their crusade so deeply they just can't see daylight. And these people have dominated the conversation for so long, without being legitimately questioned, that their hyperbolic responses stink of decayed ideas long discredited, stink of panic, and stink of fear. Deep, serious, fear. The children don't believe their bedtime stories anymore. The children are growing up. And they are having a hard time getting traction on their doom and gloom silliness. Where is the proof that any of the defenses raised by Mr. Faisson will happen? There is none. Only a performing clown acting out the pathetic last act of a death sequence to the great PC dream in North Dakota to strip the name from UND. Its been such a dedicated cause for them for so long they don't realize the kids aren't afraid -- they are laughing at them. These silly old men sputtering spittle from their senile chins, still ranting about Nixon and the Ford Pinto. And Mr. Faisson, nice man that he is, is sadly playing the part of the dutiful leftist public servant, spouting the party line and propping up these decaying old 1970 social class warriors for one more run. He is neither smart enough, nor brave enough, to anything else.

I do not see anywhere that Central Michigan, Utah, Florida State, or Illinois are having any trouble, in any way, filling out their schedules in every sport. The biggest problem I have with the doom and gloom apocolyptic view of consquences of keeping the UND Fighting Sioux name is that the doom and gloom apocolyptic view is not based in too much reality. Instead, the doom and gloom seems to flow like water from the minds of those who oppose the name -- supported by nothing but speculation, fear mongering, and hand-wringing. In fact, on this very message board, fellow posters have revealed that the Minnesota policy is a lose policy, not a dictate. And the committee that formed the policy against playing schools with native nicknames declared that ultimate scheduling authority rested with the Athletic Department. Perhaps the doom and gloom side of the room would like to present some proof of all of the disasters they blithely announce (as Gospel truth) that will befall UND? Or perhaps the doom and gloom side of the room would like to point to one school -- one -- which used native names and/or imagery, and which refused to change, and which the NCAA did not settle and back down? One school that got any measure of the "death" penalty from the NCAA? Any? What school right now is on sanctions from the NCAA for using a native American name? What school right now is officially having trouble scheduling athletic contests because of their native-based name? Name one. Please. Anyone? The doom and gloom is easy to spew -- literally impossible to back up. e..g . . . Mr. Faisson is full of manure when he speaks of scheduling problems caused by the name. He claimed that the pistols used by Pistol Pete would harm attendance at NMSU because the guns scare children. Also deeply-layered manure. He holds a PC leftist position on this issue -- and rather than having the courage to stand up and declare his non-majority moral views, he hides behind unsubstantiated blither, which is lapped up by too many who are too easily swayed and too easily willing to be easily sucked into his too-easy explaination. Mr. Faisson is not exhibiting courage or moral integrity in this name fight.

True . . .to a point. Faisson left the AD position for a position higher up at NMSU. And a simple review of the resources on the internet (I know . . . I know . . . not exactly scholar-level research) shows that Faisson, not Boston, was the driving force behind the administration's desire to drop Pistol Pete. I apologize if my time-line was not as air tight as I appear to have made it seem -- I didn't mean to mislead and make it appear as though Mr. Faisson left NMSU immediately for UND, with his mascot-killing CV tucked in his back pocket. The only point I sought to make was this: Mr. Faisson has actively changed (or worked with others to change) a beloved mascot at another school for fluffy and unsubstantiated PC reasons (Pistol Pete). And Pistol Pete reappeared very, very shortly after Mr. Faisson left NMSU. And now, here is Mr. Faisson engaging in similar actions. No, he didn't start this fight. In all likelihood, Mr. Faisson probably never heard of UND or the Sioux name issue until he applied for the job. And Mr. Faisson could be, and may continue to be, a very good AD for UND. The same internet research regarding Pistol Pete will also reveal that Faisson moved NMSU athletics light-years forward with massive fund raising, building and re-building of facilities, and managed to move NMSU into the WAC at a time when conference moves were rare, and the WAC was considered a (more) legitimate D-I conference. And all you have to do is scan through some of the NMSU releases and articles from the time Faisson was at NMSU to see the enormous impact he had on the athletics therein. But he spoiled his stay ay NMSU with his Pistol Pete nonsense. Similarly, he is spoiling his stay at UND with his Fighting Sioux anti-name nonsense. He could -- as I noted -- just as easily sat in Grand Forks and announced that the process will paly out, and he will take whatever marching orders he is given by the State and the President. The SBOHE literally HANDED him this cover, when they announced time and again that THEY, the SBOHE, and not Mr.s Faisson (or Mr. Kelley) have any final word on the name issue. I personally think its too bad. I personally think Mr. Faisson has the chops to help guide UND Athletics into a great new era. Do not forget, this is the same man who managed to leverage a Big Sky invite -- and was smart enough to accept. But he is in a position of being more than a bean counter, and more than a director. As the AD, alumni, students, and former athletes expect -- fair or not -- that the AD will not bad mouth our school. And when you preach doom and gloom and devisiveness, and you defacto agree with the NCAA that our name is hostile and abusive -- in the opinion of many you are badmouthing our school and our dedicated and loyal alumni and students (most of whom support the use of the name and disagree strongly with the hostile and abusive allegations). And when you are so willing, so earnestly and diligently willing, to toss the school under the bus in the name of Political Correctness, then many people are not going to give a good hoot in hell whether you are a Star Administrator.

Even a fool may be counted as wise when he holds his tongue. Perhaps the AD might have considered that. Same for President Kelley. There was no requirement that either of them testify in Bismarck. The name is, as they always declared, out of their hands. So if the name stays, its the name they deal with. If the name must go, its the marching orders they deal with. But they cannot have it both ways. Either they are merely following orders (Cool Hand Luke: Saying its your job don't make it right, boss); or they are actively against the name. I don't think there is much evidence left to support either men support the name in any way, shape, or form. I think its pretty clear both men have taken every chance and opportunity to bad mouth the name. So in my opinion, Mr. Faisson cannot hide behind the SBOHE on this issue. If he wanted that exit, it was easily provided to him: just sit in Grand Forks and tell reporters, "We are allowing the process to play out in Bismarck, and we will do what the SBOHE and any other leading organization in the government requests, within the law." He didn't. Now his job is, I truly believe, shaken. This was the same man who was a tremendous success at NMSU, but ran afoul of alumni and students when he took the pistols out of the mascot Pistol Pete's hands. He turned their mascot into Lasso Larry (rope instead of gun). Finally leaving campus under pressure, Faisson landed in North Dakota. Literally within a week of Faisson leaving NMSU, Pistol Pete returned, and Larry was dumped into the trash.

I suspect this will get the Royal and Imperial Under the Carpet Treatment. Don't expect any serious investigation by the Herald or its ilk.

If indeed any and all anti-Sioux name forces were only taking their orders directly from the SBOHE, I would accept that statement. Last I checked, there was no requirement, nor demand, nor request, from the SBOHE that Mr. Kelley present himself and others in Bismarck to testify against the name. If this was truly a position he adopted at the behest of his employer, or if this was truly a position he adopted to please his employer -- then why appear in Bismarck, via the University's plane, using the University's money, joined by a hand-picked collection of anti-name members of the administration and school? Why not take a "No Stance" position, or even better how about, "This matter is out of my hands. Its a legal and legislative issue. I have been ordered to retire the name by the SBHOE. Until that changes, I cannot and will not comment on this particular bill." Sure, a few of the pro-name supporters would howl at his waffling, at his refusal to support the name. But on the whole, he could sit in Grand Forks and do his day job of running the University -- for which he is paid quite well. No, Mr. Kelley is not a mere pawn in the game. He is an active player. He actively and passionately appealed to the SBHOE to retire the name EARLY . . . for the Summit League? He has never once mentioned supporting the name. He has testified before Congress in Bismarck --- TWICE -- spreading a colleciton of half-truths, misinformation, and outright scrare-tactic doomsday scenarios. And he made sure he brought a collection of like-minded University people with him, via the college plane, to support and back up his anti-name rhtoric. He has called the legislation a "Speed Bump to retiring the name." He is, has been, and will always be against the name. No reason to sugar coat the matter and give him cover. He has not sought cover from the issue, and he should not be granted cover. Now, what does this mean? If he is anti-name does that mean he should be fired as the President. I think not. But what if he has improperly used Foundation and school funds and materials, transporting students, professors, and administrators to Bismarck, to lobby along with him against a particular bill in Congress? Hasn't UND made the statement in the recent past how the school will not pay, or reimburse, anyone who chooses to testify in Bismarck? And why did the President not extend this free travel opporunity to a cross sectiont that supports the bill?

Truly said. Is anyone really surprised? I think the only people who could claim actual shock would be those who believed President Kelley was ever neutral on the Fighting Sioux name. For whatever his reasons, he has made every effort (or agreed with every effort) to remove the name. He has never spoken even half-heartedly in any positive manner about the name. He has never publically acknowledged that possibly he and his like-minded personnel were sharply in the minority. Furthermore, as was witnessed just a short while ago in Fargo, Unviversity Presidents seem to have this wierd bubble around them, allowing them to think their otherwise questionable financial actions and decisions will never come back to haunt them. I am not saying that Flight-Gate is as yet on par with President's House-Gate, but it solidifies a few simple truths the pro-name crowd has long believed: 1. The UND administration does not hear the majority. Does not care about the majority. The UND administration does not care about its alumni, its students', or its supporters' deep felt desires. Instead, the Administration has taken great pains to spread doomsday scenarios and misinformation as feeble excuses for their minority opinion status, and as a means to divide and conquer the otherwise-strident name support. The UND administration is a left-leaning PC bureaucratic beehive which is so insulated and isolated from reality that the name controversy legitimately confuses them. I believe they were, are, and will remain stunned at the legislation and the massive support. And was anyone shocked that pro-name UND people were NOT invited to speak via the University plane? 2. The "serious" media outlets of the Herald, Tribune, and Forum, have NOT asked the tough questions of the administration or the anti-name people. They have long ago taken sides, and their bias on this issue is so absurd that most people do not trust any of the stories these new agencies publish on this issue. These media outlets repeatedly give cover to whatever anti-name person might be spouting off. These media outlets do not ask the tough questions regarding these absurd doomsday scenarios. This is a simple little story. I am watching to see if any of the Big Three pick this matter up -- or has their bias on this issue blinded them so completely that they are being "scooped" by a small underfunded online daily? So -- UND's anti-name position careens all over the road, tossing threats, bombs, nonsequetors -- spending University money, Foundation money, tax money -- fighitng a bill that the majority of alumni, students, and natives want to pass. And the local media gives them 100% pass. Tom Dennis and Mr. Omdahl, where is thine rage? So I picked up the Herald and did I see anything about Plane-Gate? Hahaha --- nope -- just another letter from Erich Longie. That makes letter #143 of Mr. Longie published by the Herald. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sick.