A comment left on my latest Miske-case story by a reader using the name “Shoeter” raised questions about the reason that my reporting on the case stands out.
Shoeter wrote:
Why aren’t the other outlets here following this incredibly complex and dramatic criminal investigation and looming trial? I noted the same thing with the Kealohas’ prosecution.
It seems as if local print and TV here are neither ready, willing, and/or able to commit any resources, which yields this presumption/suspicion that an excessively sycophantic, cozy, and/or other unprofessional relationship exists here between the local press and these high-visibility “bad actors”.
It stands to reason then that local media is part of the same “bradduh-bradduh” network that includes criminals and corrupt politicians.
I respectfully disagree.
In my view, it really has nothing at all to do with anyone’s “excessively sycophantic, cozy, and/or other unprofessional” relationships.
The reason is much more basic. Money. And money determines how many reporters are available, and what they are assigned to do. The fact is that remaining newsrooms have fewer people expected to produce more than ever before. Quick and simple is preferred over long and complex. That’s just economics, plain and simple.
For decades, local news has been under the gun, and repeated rounds of budget cuts have hit newsrooms of all types, whether print or broadcast.
I’m more familiar with the newspaper side. I was given an opportunity to do investigative reporting for the old Honolulu Star-Bulletin, back in a day when even a local newspapers was able to justify releasing me from most daily responsibilities in order to pursue stories that took more time to research and report. It was an exhilarating time. It’s also a time that has passed.
If you hadn’t noticed, newspapers have been closing at an alarming rate. It’s a national problem. The NY Times reported that 2,500 U.S. newspapers have closed since 2005, about 25% of all newspapers. Remember that Honolulu had completing daily newspapers until 2010, when the Gannett newspaper chain, itself under financial pressure, decided to sell its Honolulu Advertiser, which was merged with its rival, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, to create the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. And the resulting decline of local reporting, not only here but across the country, is widely recognized as a significant national issue threatening the future of our democracy.
I’m not employed by Civil Beat. I’m not given “assignments” for future stories. Technically, I’m retired, and comfortably so, but my own drive keeps me digging into and writing about things I’m interested in. And this unusually significant and complex case is one of those things. I even stopped billing CB long ago, so that I consider my reporting to be a contribution to its efforts to keep in-depth local reporting alive and well.
I’m a contributing writer, and as such I’m free to follow my nose, so to speak. Being retired allows allows me to devote much more time to the intricacies of this case than any rational editor would be able to allow if I were on the payroll, where time is money. And that allows me to provide you, the readers, with more intricate descriptions and, when possible, explanations of what’s going on in the case, and what is slowly becoming known about the underlying crimes the government alleges, all while the case creeps towards an eventual trial.
I would encourage you to contribute to Civil Beat’s nonprofit efforts. I would also highly encourage everyone to subscribe to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Perhaps it’s not the newspaper we would ideally like to have, but we would be far worse off without its daily news coverage, which is often quite good, despite all the constraints.
Just for the record, I tried to post this reply directly on the Civil Beat site, but found that I had exceeded the upper character count allowed for comments. So it appears here, where I allow myself as much room as necessary.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you for your work Ian.
Some people need to stop “shooting” their mouths once in a while, especially when they have no clue about what they are talking about.
A 3rd grade teacher taught me that. ????
I really love to read your in depth reporting and I appreciate all that you do to keep us informed.
Ian, thank you for your continued research and writing pro bono. I fully understand and appreciate the intensity of your quest for information and your desire to share it, because, like you, I have no institutional affiliation, and share your situation “I’m retired, and comfortably so, but my own drive keeps me digging into and writing about things I’m interested in.”
Why is it that many news media today (newspapers both print and online, radio and TV stations, etc.) often report only parts or limited aspects of events, and display relentless bias regarding which stories they choose to report at all and/or the selection of factual information about those stories and/or the wording and manner of writing whereby they propagandize a particular viewpoint? At least 2 explanations are plausible: (1) Staff reductions and financial cutbacks; (2) Behind-the-scenes conspiracies between editors, owners, donors, advertisers, etc. to plant or block or distort reportage. You assert #1 is the reason and you deny #2. But many news consumers, both on the left and on the right of the political spectrum, acknowledge #1 but assert that #2 is at least as important and probably a more significant determinant of what gets published and how it gets presented.
The Associated Press news agency gets its stuff republished in hundreds of news media in all states and many foreign countries, and is blatantly and laughably biased in its “news reports” about Trump, for example. On a relatively minor case, I know from experience that for many years AP coverage of the Akaka bill almost always included OHA’s propaganda that “Native Hawaiians are the only indigenous group lacking federal recognition” [implying “How horribly unfair that is! Congress should give them justice!”] when in fact there are hundreds of wannabe tribes that have tried to get fed rec for many years and failed. I repeatedly tried to contact AP with proof that phrase is absolutely false and please stop repeating it; but without success. Finally I came across a news report in a southern Louisiana newspaper that a small wannabe tribe in Houma had just been rejected for fed rec again after many years of trying — and it was a newspaper with AP connections. So I persuaded the editor to send his news report to an AP manager, along with my cover letter with my proof of hundreds of similar wannabe tribes and my request to stop republishing the lie; and that finally succeeded. Same situation over the years regarding the lie that “Hawaiian language was made illegal after the overthrow of the monarchy” — I kept reminding editors about the Hawaiian language newspapers freely published continuously from 1834-1948, and also sent information about the Territorial legislature in its early years publishing bills in both English and Hawaiian; and about Dept of Ed. expenditures for Hawaiian dictionaries in the Territorial schools; but it took many years to get them to stop repeating that nonsense.
Honolulu Civil Beat has suppressed more of my (wannabe) online comments than they have published, and it is solely because of viewpoint censorship. I do not use foul language or make personal attacks, but I do state opinions, often bolstered with facts, that contradict Civil Beat’s relentless leftwing propaganda, especially on issues related to Hawaiian history, language, and sovereignty. Years ago a CB editor flatly denied that they engage in viewpoint censorship; and even said they don’t screen comments before posting them. (obvious lie because their comment counter indicated more comments than actually got posted!) In recent years they now confess they do screen every comment before posting it; and they sort of confess that there are certain topics where they engage in viewpoint censorship.
Star-Advertiser has a robot which automatically rejects any comment containing certain words — even non-controversial words that were included in the news report being commented on! That’s kinda reasonable to prevent cussing or porn. But what’s inexcusable is when a comment does get posted and then a little while later some editor comes along and deletes it, entirely because of viewpoint. Regarding both CB & SA I have considered creating a webpage to be called “Salon de Refuses”. Allowing online comments but engaging in viewpoint censorship of them is actually a form of false advertising intended to give the impression that “this newspaper is a marketplace of ideas devoted to freedom of the press and open discussion” when in fact it is not.
Mahalo nui Ian for your hard work and dedication in getting out accurate information to the public and this is the reason I always look forward to and enjoy reading your articles!
Reading your investigative
reports is like seeing a jigsaw puzzle being put together piece by piece slowly revealing it’s true image that can only be assembled with a trained eye, an abundance of patience, off-the-chart determination, and assistance from other puzzle solvers.
Mahalo, Ian for all your time and efforts. As well as those who offer you assistance rather than resistance in your pursuit of fleshing out the details of your reports that more often than not would stay buried and scattered!
It’s unreasonable to expect mainstream media outlets to continuously charge down the rabbit hole of complex, often-inconclusive, and not-terribly-newsworthy minutiae that is of interest to a very limited audience. That will change when something significant happens in the case.
My thanks also to Ian for his reporting.
Ian –
You are a great asset to the community. I know you spend a lot of time following up on the Miske drama in addition to various side stories of keen public interest that come along. That and updating us cat fans on the latest shenanigans of the Lind household kitties!
I wonder if you might have considered mentoring one or two aspiring future investigative reporters (if there are any left) depending on your time/interest/patience? It would be invaluable.