“A rough estimate for the mayoral primary is approximately $550,000,” stated Williams. 

In Mallory’s budget recommendations, he wants to eliminate the gas light fee that had some City residents upset by the extra expenditure.  That would have generated $100,000 annually.  In other words, less than the price of this pointless, special election.

It costs approximately $340,000 to keep the pools and recreation centers open.  That costs less than one expensive and obscure special primary for the mayoral race.

Here’s how ridiculous our system has become:  mayoral candidates run all summer, and then face off in a September primary about which most people know nothing.  The top two vote earners then face off for the November general election.  By why waste all this money for the extra step?  Why not just have all the candidates face off in the general election?  This will still result in the direct election of a strong mayor!

Mallory wants to create a Co-op Coordinator position to help the future of City government.  He says it will cost $61,000.  In other words, one excessive and bloated mayoral primary costs what could fund that position for eight years.

To save money, Mallory wants to cut $30,000 to the Cincinnati Arts Consortium.  But cutting the mayoral primary could provide that level of funding for over a decade!

Starting to get the picture?

Now, getting rid of this would be rather simple.  City Council places it on the November ballot and we get rid of it, saving this money from now on.  Why wouldn’t the City do this?  It is the fiscally responsible thing to do for the long-term health of Cincinnati.

This and past cartoons also available here

Let me be clear:  I am not saying that Obama should not be given that choice.  I am suggesting, however, that the choice is not one we have, as a culture, realistically extended.  So people like Obama, or Tiger Woods, are forced to make a decision between being multiracial or African American.  But what would we do if such a person decided to be white?  Is that a decision our media, for example, would be willing to accept?

Recently, The Enquirer’s Peter Bronson found an old copy of a stylebook and he wrote about it for his column.  I found this excerpt most noteworthy:

The list of prohibited redundance includes “true facts,” “high noon,” “completely destroyed,” “blazing fire,” “loud din,” “old adage” and “invited guests.”

Under “Bromides,” Wiley advises, “Beware of the following trite expressions. They are worn out.” He lists “point with pride,” “spread like wildfire,” “like rats in a trap,” “rumor has it,” “whipped out a revolver,” “bury the hatchet,” “news leaked out,” and “hail of lead.”

“Hail of lead” is not as trite as it used to be. I guess newsrooms weren’t the only places that were more exciting in 1928.

But some things never change. “Accuracy is essential,” Wiley insisted. Still a true fact.

Accuracy.  With the case of a multiracial person like Barack Obama, it looks like modern media stylebooks have traded accuracy for preference—but I think there are some unspoken rules regarding these preferences.  I do not believe the media would refer to Obama as “white” if that’s what he said he is. 

Interestingly, we cannot turn to a place like the AP Stylebook to find an answer.  They do not have entries for “multiracial,” and their definitions for things like “white,” “Caucasian,” and even “African-American” are not totally clear and thorough in terms of providing accuracy—that essential element from newsrooms in 1928.

So, AP Stylebook editors, if you are reading this, I challenge you to update your book with a “multiracial” category—and I dare you to make clear and accurate definitions that make sense.  I’d love to know if you’d let Obama be another white president, if he felt like it.

The vigil on December 4 will be the debut the local WhiteKnot campaign. Gaining national prominence immediately following the JoinTheImpact.com protests on November 15, WhiteKnot.org has spearheaded a movement for people to wear a white ribbon tied in a knot as a show of support for equal marriage. From their website, “The White Knot is the symbol for marriage equality. It takes two traditional symbols of marriage—white and tying the knot—and combines them in a simple way to show support for the right of gays and lesbians to marry.”

Local organizers for IMPACT Cincinnati are optimistic about future events after the tremendous success of their City Hall protest. Aside from the vigil, plans are in the works to preview the movie MILK, set to be released in Cincinnati on December 12th, travel to Washington DC to be visible Midwest activists at the Obama inauguration, participate in several local and regional LGBTQ conferences, and take a regional leadership role in a national protest planned for June of 2009. 

IMPACT Cincinnati believes that true LGBTQ equality will only be achieved when every interested person has the opportunity to engage and participate in their wider movement and community. IMPACT Cincinnati, a grassroots network of community activists, strives to energize LGBTQ and allied people in Greater Cincinnati, link dedicated volunteers to a wide range of opportunities to generate change, and supports the efforts of local organizations working for equality. All are welcome.

So if you can give today, please give today—and if you’d be so kind, leave a comment about the amount so we can add it to our tally (or email me:  dean@cincinnatibeacon.com—I’ll keep your name anonymous if you desire).

Full disclaimer:  I do not work for the Freestore Foodbank, I do not know anyone who does, and I do not get anything out of this fundraiser (except bragging rights).

But if you need a reason why to give on behalf of The Beacon, and not Pepper’s blog (or one of the other participating blogs), the answer is simple:  as the second place fundraisers, we have the best chance of catching up to Pepper.  And, since we all know Pepper is a fierce competitor, he will be forced to step up his own efforts if he perceives we have become a threat.  And that’s the whole point!  To raise more money for the Freestore Foodbank!

So what are you waiting for? Give to the Freestore Foodbank today!

The following comes from Gannett’s policy for correcting errors (my emphasis placed in bold):

Correcting errors

When errors occur, the newspaper has an ethical obligation to correct the record and minimize harm.

* Errors should be corrected promptly. But first, a determination must be made that the fact indeed was in error and that the correction itself is fully accurate.
* Errors should be corrected with sufficient prominence that readers who saw the original error are likely to see the correction. This is a matter of the editor’s judgment.
* Although it is wise to avoid repeating the error in the correction, the correction should have sufficient context that readers will understand exactly what is being corrected.
* Errors of nuance, context or tone may require clarifications, editor’s notes, editor’s columns or letters to the editor.
* When the newspaper disagrees with a news subject about whether a story contained an error, editors should consider offering the aggrieved party an opportunity to express his or her view in a letter to the editor.
* Corrections should be reviewed before publication by a senior editor who was not directly involved in the error. The editor should determine if special handling or outside counsel are required.
* Errors should be corrected whether or not they are called to the attention of the newspaper by someone outside the newsroom.
* Factual errors should be corrected in most cases even if the subject of the error does not want it to be corrected. The rationale for this is rooted in the Truth Principle. It is the newspaper’s duty to provide accurate information to readers. An exception may be made – at the behest of the subject – when the correction of a relatively minor mistake would result in public ridicule or greater harm than the original error.

As this code of conduct makes clear, The Enquirer should have corrected its headline calling Obama an “African American” due to the “Truth Principle.” The truth is that Obama is multiracial, and accurate reporting means calling him that.

Additionally, as stated in the code, the “Truth Principle” trumps the desires of the subject in question, so long as the correction does not cause ridicule or harm.  Callinan would be hard pressed to show that Barack Obama will be harmed with the truthful and accurate label “multiracial.”

But what about the Associated Press Stylebook?  After all, this is the defense Callinan provided, allegedly crafted by the copy desk chief.

The 2008 AP Stylebook defines when the term “African American” should be used:

African-American

Acceptable for an American black person of African descent. Black is also acceptable. The terms are not necessarily interchangeable. People from Caribbean nations, for example, generally refer to themselves as Caribbean-American. Follow a person’s preference.

The term “black” is acceptable for a person of the black race. (Use Negro only in names of organizations or in quotations.) Do not use colored as a synonym. See colored, nationalities and races, and race entries. (2/20/08)

Barack Obama is not an “American black person.” He is an “American multiracial person.” But to be clear on what “black” means in the context of the AP styleguide, let’s just look at the 2008 entry for “black”:

black

Acceptable for a person of the black race. (Use Negro only in names of organizations or in quotations.) Do not use colored as a synonym. See colored, nationalities and races, and race entries.

Barack Obama is not a “person of the black race.” He is a person of mixed racial ancestry, and as such he is “multiracial.”

In the interests of being thorough (a lesson I suggest for Callinan and The Enquirer), here is the AP Stylebook entry for “race”:

race

Identification by race is pertinent:

—In biographical and announcement stories, particularly when they involve a feat or appointment that has not routinely been associated with members of a particular race.

—When it provides the reader with a substantial insight into conflicting emotions known or likely to be involved in a demonstration or similar event.

In some stories that involve a conflict, it is equally important to specify that an issue cuts across racial lines. If, for example, a demonstration by supporters of busing to achieve racial balance in schools includes a substantial number of whites, that fact should be noted.

Do not use racially derogatory terms unless they are part of a quotation that is essential to the story.

While Obama’s election is “a feat” that has “not routinely been associated” with non-whites, this aspect of the stylebook supports the accurate labeling of Obama as “multiracial.” The fact that Obama’s mixed racial ancestry is so widely known makes the conclusion even more obvious.

Some may indicate that Obama has, in the past, referred to himself as black—like when he said, “If I’m outside your building trying to catch a cab, they’re not saying, ‘Oh, there’s a mixed race guy,’” or when he referred to himself as “a skinny black man with a funny name.” But he has also referred to himself as a “mutt,” specifically:  “our preference would be to get a shelter dog ... a mutt, like me.”

Obama may have as many ways of describing himself as he desires, but a professional news organization adhering to a stylebook and a code of conduct should be held to their own professional standards. 

I still await a timely correction.