Don’t work hard–work smart

By Michael Tune (NLGJA executive director)

I met with one of my mentors recently. She asked how I was, and inquired if I had been working hard. (For the record, I have three mentors, and I don’t think any of them realize who they are.) For her, your work is the most important thing. It serves as exhibits A through Z of your life to prove that you were productive, that you contributed to humanity in a meaningful way. For her, work comes before most anything else.

I paused, and risked displeasing her when I finally responded with the simple statement, “I’ve been working smart.”

Whenever I have a meeting with someone who is late, they always respond with, “Sorry, I am just so busy,” as though they are the only one in this restaurant/coffee shop/phone call who is actually busy.

The truth is, everyone is busy: That’s what Americans do. They work … busily.

To say that you’re busy is akin to saying, “Sorry, I’m late. I was brushing my teeth.”  Who doesn’t brush their teeth? What you’re really saying is that you can’t seem to organize your life well enough to arrive on time, or that you’ve over-committed yourself.

If you find yourself in that situation, might I suggest you need to learn how to work smart. To start, prioritize, and learn to say “no” so you’re not biting off more than you can chew.

I’m the “no” guy. I say the word “no” a lot in my work. It drives people crazy, but it drives me calmly. I know my limits; know yours. The truth is, if I were to say “yes” to every request, proposal and project, I’d just be lying to the requester, proposer and project creator. And as we all know, lying never leads to anything good for anyone.

Spend the time you need to prioritize your overall work, your day and your life. Be realistic. For example, I haven’t worked at a job that required a timecard in years, but I still often find myself keeping strict written records of how long it takes me to do Project X. It not only helps me remember how long Project X actually took to do, it helps me better understand how much free time I will actually have next Thursday when I’m working on Project X again.

Working smart doesn’t mean you won’t work hard. It means you’re focused on your priorities, and more likely to be happy with the finished result. And as an added bonus, you’ll probably be on time to a lot more meetings.

What are your tricks to working smart?

Jenna Wolfe’s big news: She’s pregnant (and gay)

By Matthew E. Berger (NLGJA board member and vice president of Dezenhall Resources, a crisis communications firm in Washington, D.C.)

It’s been a pretty big week so far for LGBT news, with the much anticipated two days of hearings before the U.S. Supreme Court on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. But I was also struck by the other LGBT media news of the week, how it was handled and what the headline was not.

Jenna Wolfe, the weekend anchor of NBC’s “Today,” announced on air Wednesday that she was pregnant and having a baby with fellow NBC News correspondent Stephanie Gosk. In the segment, Wolfe bantered with Matt Lauer and Savannah Guthrie about buying strollers and breast pumps, and said she’d be blogging about her pregnancy adventures. Then they went to commercial.

It was typical for a morning program, and not unlike what had happened several months previously when Jenna Bush Hager announced her pregnancy on air (although George W. and Laura Bush didn’t call in this time).

Here’s what wasn’t said: Wolfe and Gosk, who was not in the segment, never mentioned the previously undisclosed news that they were both gay.

While not a household name like Anderson Cooper or Sam Champion, Wolfe is seen regularly on television, yet hadn’t been the subject of rampant rumors. She was choosing to make an announcement of her pregnancy, not of her sexual orientation, and she did it not because of outside pressure or as an act of advocacy, but because she had something exciting to share, and presumably because her audience was going to notice.

Wolfe, Gosk and NBC News didn’t shy away from the fact that the two women are lesbians. But it was never said, not because of shame or embarrassment, but because it wasn’t a big deal. By focusing on the pregnancy and the impending birth of their daughter, they skipped the “coming out” step, as if they’d been out all along.

(Disclosure: I worked for NBC News in 2007 and 2008 as a campaign reporter, but do not know Wolfe or Gosk).

I have always been very conflicted about the public coming out of any celebrity, but particularly of journalists. On the one hand, I am a big believer that having out LGBT people in the public eye is essential for raising a bright light to the civil-rights issues we face and providing role models for the next generation. That’s why I am part of NLGJA.

But at the same time, there has to be a middle ground between being in the closet and announcing you’re gay on the front page of a magazine. Many people live openly gay lives without making headlines. They are out to their family, friends and colleagues, but either do not warrant a public announcement of their sexual orientation or leave that type of advocacy to others. That’s certainly true for some LGBT journalists, who take their role as an objective arbiter of facts seriously and shy away from disclosing personal views and details of their private lives.

We should not assume that the only options are “closeted” and “gay icon.” Many actors, politicians and journalists are out, but just haven’t told you. It was as if Wolfe and Gosk were saying, “I never told you I am straight, so why should I tell you I am gay?”

Wolfe, Gosk and NBC are perhaps making a bigger statement in their handling of this news than if they had the two women on the couch announcing that they are lesbians. What they are saying is that having two gay correspondents shouldn’t make headlines. But that doesn’t mean anyone is ashamed of who they are.

Transparency, HIV Stigma And Accountability

By Todd A. Heywood (Senior Reporter, The American Independent)

LANSING - The conversation went something like this:

“You mean you would report my HIV status?” the man asked.

“If it was relevant to the story, yes, yes I would,” I told him.

The man stared at me in disbelief. “You can’t do that. I don’t want anyone to know I am HIV positive,” he said. Yet, he was appointed to a public body to represent people living with HIV in determining how the state would spend federal HIV dollars in addressing the epidemic in Michigan.

I was attending the Michigan HIV/AIDS Council meeting on March 14, and at issue was a required confidentiality agreement. The agreement had to be signed to attend the public meeting of a public body – a big no-no under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

But the principle of confidentiality in relation to disclosing a person’s HIV status is, in fact, an important part of addressing HIV in the state. So this incident led me, in conversation with my editors at The American Independent and Between The Lines, to ask “shouldn’t we be transparent about how we determine to disclose or not disclose the name of a person living with HIV?” And, of course, we should.

Disclosure of an HIV status is a serious concern with implications going beyond the instant moment and can impact employment, relationships and civil rights. I know, because I am living with HIV. Many activists say that one incredibly important tool in fighting stigma and discrimination is for those living with HIV to be out about their status. However, that decision has to be – except in very rare, narrowly defined situations – a personal decision.

So how do we as news agencies go about reporting a person’s HIV status in a news story?

It is essential to understand that generally, reporting on someone’s HIV status will be predicated on their permission. In many instances, if someone’s status is important to the story, but disclosure could negatively impact that person, I will offer anonymity to the person. That decision is reached after discussions with both the subject, editors and sometimes with ethics experts.

As an ethical rule, we will not identify, by name, individuals charged under various HIV disclosure, exposure and transmission laws. Why?

First, as the Poynter Institute has told us in phone interviews, it is unethical to identify the alleged perpetrator and not the alleged victim in a case that is predicated on an act, usually sexual, that is consensual. Either both are named or neither will be named. It’s that simple.

Secondly, in multiple instances, police have charged a suspect under various state laws, naming that person as HIV-positive. But further review finds that the person is, in fact, not living with HIV. That disclosure, once made, cannot be taken back in this world of online permanence, and can lead to significant negative impacts on a person who is presumed to be living with HIV. It’s unfair, it’s unethical and we won’t do that.

Thirdly, in these cases, if the accused is willing to talk to us on the record and disclose his or her status, with his or her name attached, we will report that person’s name. We have in the past reported the stories of those living with HIV who admit to breaking a state disclosure law, but we have not identified them. Why? Because the story they have to tell about stigma and how it impacts their thinking in relation to disclosure is more important than the identity of the person – and identifying the person could lead to them facing criminal charges.

The media is not, and never should be, an arm of the police. It is not our job to help police embark on witch hunts to find additional alleged victims of HIV-specific crimes. The police can do that all on their own with a bevy of legal powers at their discretion.

Ultimately, we embark on very difficult conversations every day about when, if and how to identify those living with HIV, or those alleged to be living with HIV. We very carefully weigh the public’s right to know with the privacy of the person living with HIV. It is not an easy balancing act to perform, but it is essential to reporting about HIV in the United States and assuring our sources that we respect and value their privacy. These are just examples of the process we undergo as we evaluate reporting, and how we determine who to identify and when. We believe we regularly strike a solid balance between those conflicts of privacy and public policy, and drive for transparency on the public policy issue, not the details of whether or not a person is living with HIV.

This article was originally published on Between the Lines.

Do Values = Profit?

By Michael Tune, NLGJA executive director

I recently attended a session of the NLGJA monthly webinars, entitled “Follow Your Inner Leader” with leadership coach and journalist Robert Naylor. The session was fascinating, and reminded me of some of the core skills it takes to differentiate between managing a situation and leading a situation.

Robert included in his discussion a push for creating core values for one’s self. What ideas, for example, best reflect what is important to me? As I answered that question on my notepad, I began to notice differences in marketable core values and non-marketable core values. Robert promised we could write him one-on-one and ask questions, and so I asked him about it.

He responded, “Core values are essential to doing business in an ethical way and they really should be part of every process. However, they are commodity only in that they form the basis of how we do business, not what we do to make money.”

Robert went on to compare the dilemma to opening a coffee shop. “[John Doe] could decide to sell fair trade organic coffees in what otherwise looks like a gallery space in which local artists are allowed to exhibit. The furniture could be refurbished from salvage yards because he doesn’t want to contribute to the carbon footprint by purchasing new items. [Values] could form the basis of how he treats employees, making sure they are treated and paid fairly, and the way he greets customers. In that sense, he would not be just selling coffee, he would be selling his ideals.”

Robert recommended not abandoning our core values in order to make a profit, but rather incorporating them into “something tangible” and “make them the foundation of [your] business practices.”

The truth is, we can’t always turn our passions into profit. Making enough money to eat is important, but it’s just as important we make enough money to eat for tomorrow and the next day and the next (that retirement is calling).

What I learned from Robert is that I can still incorporate my personal passions and core values into my work, without necessarily sacrificing my future.

If you are itching to learn something new yourself, join us for the next one. The NLGJA webinar series is free for members.

Bloomberg Businessweek Cover: Blame the Latinos for your problems?

By Hugo Balta, NAHJ president

Bloomberg Businessweek Cover: Feb.25

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then what can be said about the Bloomberg Businessweek cover, The Great American Housing Rebound? It’s insensitive and ignorant. It stereotypes. Discriminates. Demonizes. Scapegoats. And it’s misleading.

Faces of color are cast as caricatures and the greedy benefactors of the housing crisis — when the truth is that Latinos were disproportionately the victims. With the United States’ economic crisis far from over, the magazine’s cover feeds ignorant fears that Latinos are to blame for the nation’s problems. This leads to feelings of resentment that can act to incite violence and hatred against Latinos, which is what has been happening when it comes to issues of immigration in this country. All this for a story in which race and ethnicity are not factors and are not even mentioned.

The truth is that Latino and African American homeowners and borrowers were more likely to be the victims of unscrupulous banks and mortgage companies. Wells Fargo had to pay $175 million for participating in predatory lending practices against people of color. Bank of America/Countrywide paid $335 millionfor similar tactics.

Bloomberg Businessweek’s cover also raises questions: Why didn’t anyone see that this cover was a problem? Where were the safeguards to make sure this kind of thing did not happen?
Josh Tyrangiel, Bloomberg Businessweek’s editor, has apologized, saying, “Our intention was not to incite or offend. If we had to do it over again we’d do it differently.”
That’s a start.

The National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) offers its assistance to Mr. Tyrangiel. NAHJ extends its hand to Bloomberg Businessweek to help in meeting their commitment to excellence in journalism, championing diversity and the fair portrayal of Latinos.

Hugo Balta
President, NAHJ

Hugo Balta is a the President of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and a Coordinating Producer for ESPN. This blog post was originally published on the NAHJ Website.