The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) recently gave Time magazine an award for a two-part series on tribal casinos that ran last December.
“What makes this project worth the trouble is that it involves millions of federal tax dollars that are not going to the people they are intended to help,” said SPJ judges. “A real gotcha.”
Yes, indeed.
James Kelly, Time‘s managing editor, reveled in the award. Time promoted its recognition May 16 under the headline “Kudos from Our Colleagues.”
“We’ve always felt that our 4 million subscribers are the most important judges of the magazine, but it’s nice when our colleagues recognize our work.”
But the story and its accompanying award reveal something more — a gotcha moment worth further examination.
First, the story had nothing to do with “millions of federal tax dollars” not going to Indians.
Second, it belies journalists’ inability to tell a good story from a bad story when looking for depth and meaning in Indian Country news. Some basic building blocks require an understanding of constitutional history, tribal sovereignty, commingled with a general knowledge of
contemporary Native peoples.
Native stories — moreover those about tribal casinos — often get covered as if white reporters just witnessed the 1876 Battle of the Little Big Horn — a one-sided view of history.
It’s enough to make a modern day warrior feel under constant attack.
Ernie Stevens Jr., National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA) president, joined a gambling panel discussion in June during the 19th annual Native American Journalists Association conference. The NAJA student newspaper covered the story with a headline titled “Inaccurate media coverage paints negative picture of Indian gaming, tribes.”
Stevens said that in the Time story, few, if any attempts, were made to provide tribal leaders, and the NIGA, with the opportunity to respond to Time‘s preconceived angle. The story relied heavily on isolated incidents.
If given the proper context, Time‘s stories were certainly worth reporting.
Gambling enterprises are transforming Indian Country. They are charting a dramatic new course for Native peoples. It seems this has caught many off guard.
In 2000, casino tribes made up only 16 percent of this country’s gambling revenue, including Nevada, Atlantic City, and the ever-lucrative state lottery system. But as relative newcomers, they’ve generated a storm of media attention.
Here’s some other news worth telling. Some reporters have taken a fair and balanced look into who’s benefiting from casino profits. Andy Mollison of Cox Newspapers is one reporter who has conducted a statistical study of Indian gaming. His stories on how casinos have affected tribal communities were published April 27.
It wasn’t the “Gotcha!” approach, just bare bones reporting.
Mollison recently appeared on a panel at the NAJA conference. He explained how he wrote “Casinos Lift Indians Closer to Other Americans.” He compared census data from 1990 to 2000, examining the change in tribal economies.
During that time period, per-capita income on casino reservations increased 50.7 percent compared to non-gambling reservations, where per capita income rose 16.4 percent, while U.S. per-capita income rose 15.6 percent.
At the same time, casino-reservation unemployment dropped 17 percent compared to an 8.8 percent drop on non-gambling reservations, while the U.S. unemployment rate dropped 28.6 percent.
The Time piece bemoaned the fact that some investors had made a lot of money from tribal casinos, yet this country still had poor Indians. That is true.
Per-capita income on casino reservations is $13,309, while non-gambling reservations are at $11,525. Both lag far behind U.S. per-capita income of $21,587, reported Mollison.
He also noted how gambling overall has passed U.S aid as an income source for tribes with successful casinos. As a collective group, casino tribes in 2001 brought in $12.7 billion in revenue. The federal Indian budget that same year was $5.3 billion.
In this case, SPJ is right. Millions of federal tax dollars aren’t going to Indians. Apparently the judges never figured out that wasn’t the real story anyway.
Meanwhile, misinformation about casinos abounds.
Take talking head Bill O’Reilly. On June 16, he invited William Thompson, a University of Nevada at Las Vegas professor, and Time casino reporter, James B. Steele, to share their thoughts on the Indian gaming industry. The stage was reminiscent of an old Western movie — all kinds of talk about Indians
but none in sight.
O’Reilly pulled his pistol first: “What’s the worst thing about the (Indian gaming) business Mr. Steele?”
Steele: “Probably the fact that it’s not regulated.”
O’Reilly continued: “Now, when you say no regulation, that’s because Indian land is sovereign territory. They don’t have to go by United States law…”
Now that might have been true in Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer’s day. But today, Native people are enmeshed in overlapping, federal, state, and tribal jurisdictions. As for regulation, tribes, states and the federal government all have a say in tribal casino regulation, with tribes owning the lion’s share of responsibility.
If casino regulation is not understood, journalists should find sources that can explain it.
O’Reilly suggests — as did Time — that tribes take the path of a socialist state by creating “a uniform pool” of money to help all poor Indians. Would they suggest successful white business owners pool their money and funnel it to Appalachia?
As it is, casino tribes contributed $70 million last year to charitable causes, Native and non-Native.
“We’d love the opportunity to talk with people and provide balance,” The NIGA’s Stevens said of O’Reilly’s show.
Maybe they’ll be afforded the opportunity. Until that happens, a void will continue to exist about this country’s indigenous people. For now, the Gotcha! approach seems to be prevailing as the standard for award-winning journalism.
Is that the direction we want to head?
It reminds me of a scene from “The Paper,” a comedic film about the cutthroat world of newspaper journalism. In one scene, a metro editor played by Michael Keaton tries to convince a cop that he needs to speak up or mangle the future of two youths wrongly accused of murder. He informs the cop about the next day’s front-page headline: Gotcha!
“You know what, if you’re all right with ‘Gotcha!’ as tomorrow’s headline — fine,” explains the editor. “That’s what it’s gonna be. See me — I can’t live with it. But if you can, OK.”
The cop replies: “Gotcha? Ahhh, come on!” He agonizes about the repercussions.
“The Paper” is only a movie. It deals with fictional characters.
The Time piece deals with Native people. And in this case, we’re talking about repercussions that affect real lives.
Editor’s note: This is Jodi Rave’s last appearance as a regular contributor to the “Journalism with a Difference” column. Rave officially becomes a Nieman Fellow next month. She will be spending the next academic year studying at Harvard University. We will miss her voice and we wish her
well.
