OPINION & EDITORIAL
Article right to print; claims need investigation
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jason Smathers:
- Your Christmas gift: Lighten up! (December 13, 2007)
- America in dire need of education on gender identity (December 7, 2007)
- Getting off or going down: Is porn destructive? (December 5, 2007)
- Catholic group deserves funding, at least for now (November 28, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Wisconsin Union responds to 'patently false' allegations (November 8, 2007)
- Neglecting pertinent information hurts credibility (October 27, 2005)
- Level-headed scrutiny a must (September 4, 2006)
- Letters to the editor (November 15, 2001)
- Herald unleashed childish attack on Kumar (December 8, 2005)
by Jason Smathers
Friday, November 9, 2007
After Wednesday's column, Wisconsin Union Communications Director Marc Kennedy attacked my piece as being full of inaccuracies and "patently false." At the end of a letter to the editor printed in yesterday's newspaper, he assailed my credibility and that of The Badger Herald, saying, "the article casts doubt on the veracity of the content of the entire newspaper, not merely this one piece." Readers have posed questions, and many are discussing the claims and have asked me to defend my article.
First off, let me state this clearly: I completely stand behind my decision to write and print this article.
For clarification, this was not a rush to judgment in printing the story; I learned of these allegations in the middle of July. From one rumor I was told, I followed up by asking a custodial employee who had intimate knowledge of the day-to-day workings of the Union. After discussing the simple allegation with this worker, he told me of further allegations of mistreatment, not just against the worker we call "Jorge." In order to try and corroborate these accusations, I contacted the few workers who were willing to discuss their treatment. In Jorge's case, his claims matched with the story I was initially told by my first contact, both in terms of Jorge's personal treatment and that of the more general allegations lobbed at Union supervisors.
While I understand the reasoning behind criticism that I was wrong to publish a piece from one person's account, I completely disagree. First off, most of Jorge's account was confirmed by another custodial employee. It was not something that I was told and simply accepted as valid; it was an account made by Jorge that was repeated by an employee who worked with him.
However, what has been overlooked here is the assertion that I, by writing the column, am presenting Jorge's story as the absolute truth. Nowhere did I assert that Jorge's claims are true. While I personally find it hard to believe that a legal worker would falsely assert an "illegal" status, I prefaced every claim with "allegedly" because I do not wish to lend any credence to his allegation if it is not backed by hard facts. Therefore, I decided to simply include his story, the Union's response and leave it for the reader and possibly our news department to investigate.
Yet, there are still those who may deride my integrity for printing what I agree are simply allegations. To them, I say, these allegations were too severe to ignore. In the public forum, many have claims that are shrugged off, proven wrong or accepted. However, many more have no voice in the first place. If Jorge is indeed an illegal immigrant, as he claims, then it is likely his allegations would never be voiced because of the fear of prosecution or would be derided by the public due to his "illegal" status. There needed to be someone to stand behind Jorge with a voice and say, "just hear him out." Because his claims of severe mistreatment seem so entirely egregious and shocking, the general public needs to be alerted to this so that we can all further investigate and reach the truth, whatever that might be. Without its introduction to the public forum, there are no allegations, there are no problems and there are no discrepancies. Until it's spoken, it's neither a lie nor the truth; it simply doesn't exist. Now that these accusations have been spoken, we can begin to sift through them and establish the hard and fast truth.
However, that requires attention from students and the full cooperation of the Union. The problem with Mr. Kennedy's letter is that he does not address the inconsistent statements from Union officials in Wednesday's column. Nowhere does he address the specific allegations of mistreatment. He fails to explain the discrepancy between his claim that the Union checks Social Security numbers and Human Resources Director Tomas Garcia's claim that the Union does not, as of yet, verify those numbers. The contrast of both Mr. Kennedy's and Mr. Garcia's statements are not simply confusing, but a complete contradiction. While he defends the changes made to the Limited Term Employment process, it is obvious there are still problems with the system. He claims I did not report the Union's attempt to reform the LTE process by giving these workers a living wage — that is "patently false." The point in stating, "Which, was increased to a living wage in July 2007," was to acknowledge the change in LTE policy, not simply Jorge's specific situation.
If the Union can provide definitive evidence that all of their employees are legal workers and are — most importantly — treated with the respect, attention and treatment they deserve, then the claims of Jorge may be rendered false. However, because the allegations and the Union's response placed are inconsistent at best, it requires more thorough attention and investigation.
That was the reason for printing this. Not to slam the Union — which once employed me, paid me and treated me well — not to prop up angry workers, not to further a supposed agenda, whatever that might be. I printed this story because the allegations were egregious enough and plausible enough to be placed in the public forum. Now that they are, we can't bury this issue under a mound of statements, confusion and denials. We all must acknowledge that the claims have been made and now must be proven, one way or the other. This is part of the "sifting and winnowing" for the truth. It had to start somewhere and I entirely stand by my decision to start it here.
Jason Smathers (jsmathers@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in history and journalism.
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 2:53am):
If you had this other source confirm your story then you should have said that because it lends more credibility. The problem is the opinion page is not a place to break something like this. It should have been handed off to news to investigate so they could do a more thorough job. Even if it took a year it wouldn't matter as long as the truth was found.
Your article didn't find the truth, which is the point of journalism, it just laid out a possible truth. Real journalism sifts and winnows through the half truths, false truths and real truths to get at the whole story. You didn't do that.
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 8:39am):
"If the Union can provide definitive evidence that all of their employees are legal workers"
The problem is that no employer can demand definitive evidence from prospective employees. Employers are required to accept easily faked documents at face value.
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 9:06am):
If Jason was a real student journalist, he'd be writing awful articles about unfunny moments in his life (thank you, page two of the Daily Cardinal) or nonsensical opinion pieces on how Halloween just isn't as good now that the police don't let us riot.
Kudos Jason, for writing the most relevant article I've seen in my four years here, no matter how much is the truth.
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 9:58am):
I don't believe Redford/Hoffman found the truth in one front page article of the Post. Incrementally they uncovered information, and as they did they slowly found the truth that brought down All the Presidents Men. No journalist should sit on something until they have found the truth - there is no absolute truth! A journalist must publish what they have when they have enough and hope more information will bubble because of their initial findings. As 2:53am hints at "sifting and winnowing," this is what Smathers is doing.
As for the piece running on the Opinion Page, it is because Smathers has written Opinion he must stay on Opinion - a rule of thumb at the Herald. In the real world this story would have been sent to news, but this is not the real world of journalism. There is no reason why Smathers would want to give up this gem for the sake of the paper. He is a young and aspiring journalist that needs this kind of stuff for his porfolio. For these reasons it stayed on the Opinion page. Maybe the Herald should reconsider where their staff is allowed to write, no?
Or is it that this piece appeared on the Opinion page because Smathers used alleged in every line, writing a piece that laid out the claims but never actually stated as truth that the Union had abused Jorge? An opinion section of a paper runs opinion columns so that one side of a story can be heard then, generally, the other side receives an opportunity to rebut. We saw this with the Smathers/Union situation. So many are up in arms that this ran as an opinion piece, and that it made claims without actually checking everything was truth. An opinion piece is written for the reader to weigh the different "facts" an author displays and to make a decision with what is given them by the author - what the author has been able to uncover. It is up to the reader to look further into the matter to watch as more develops on the story. It is up to the journalist to present more facts as they surface, as the story progresses closer to the truth.
Do not judge Smathers by his two short pieces on this column. Judge him by the final product, his conclusion about the alleged Union abuse situation. If he is wrong and admits it, then he will fall and probably not very gracefully. If he is correct, then he will have revealed a serious problem at our Union that should open a much larger discussion about employee treatment on this campus and the city of Madison.
Let's all hope this does not go to quickly to Smather's head. Let's not all really believe that this is only happening at the Union ...
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 10:42am):
9:58,
You do realize that Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman were playing real people... right?
Woodward and Bernstein, if not.
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 11:05am):
Bottom line, you fucked this one up Jason. You fucked it up with irresponsible journalism and lazy reporting. I mean for Christ's Sake, you didn't think to interview the supervisor himself? Have you actually taken a journalism class yet? This may have happened, it may not have, but its really not that big of a story because an opinion writer got a hard-on for a story from an illegal immigrant and took it as fact. Illegal immigrants work all over the country, the state, the city, and yes, the campus. This is no new story, and it should have been a news story. Not opinion.
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 11:10am):
To 11:05. Smathers is a much better journalist than you will ever be. Get over your vendettas. Get over your presuppositions of what journalism is and Go f*$(ck yourself dick.
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 11:55am):
Way to be, Smathers. Ignore the Union trolls. We've all heard the stories about whats going on there.
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 12:54pm):
"you didn't think to interview the supervisor himself? Have you actually taken a journalism class yet? This may have happened, it may not have, but its really not that big of a story"
people are being treated like animals and you want him to ignore that!? what if they were "legal" or it was you, i bet your opinion would have change greatly,
stop being so SELFISH and ungreatful!
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 2:34pm):
"If Jason was a real student journalist, he'd be writing...nonsensical opinion pieces on how Halloween just isn't as good now that the police don't let us riot."
Ummm, HE DID!!! Irony, gotta love it!
Anyway, Jason makes some good points, but I agree with comment #1.
Anonymous (November 9, 2007 @ 10:50pm):
I know this situation is more complex than some simple article. This is a can of worms maybe no one is ready to deal with. It's too easy to write an article in the paper instead of working on keeping these workers safe. They need the money and the union is willing to save some money. Who doesn't do this now to make ends meet? The real problem is our system in this economic downfall. We will continue to cut corners. Look at the food scares and the Chinese toy recalls. This isn't only because of one place, but it needs to star somewhere. I know, I worked there, the union needs some watchdog, but who?
Anonymous (November 11, 2007 @ 8:59pm):
Hey, 2:53. There is more depth to journalism than simply "finding the truth". Articles like Smathers raise issues and get people to actively think about them in hopes of leading them to the truth. Like Smathers said, this article can lead toward further investigations of uncovering the truth.
More importantly, whether "Jorge" was illegal or not, the most important thing is that he was treated extremely unfairly, and the union should not be allowed to treat their workers, legal, or illegal, in this manner.
Anonymous (November 14, 2007 @ 5:48pm):
simply sticking the word "allegedly" in your story a bunch of times isn't going to get you or your paper out of a libel suit.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
