by Michael Guillén Over the years, I've developed a certain taste for comedy. It has to be clever and above all, smart. I believe good comedy gives the audience credit for being intelligent enough to figure out the punch line and enjoy the joke without being directly led. After the Chappelle's Show abruptly ended in 2005, Comedy Central scrambled to find another minority to showcase. The network chose Carlos Mencia. When I first heard of Mencia, … Read More

via Being Latino Online Magazine

This is just a suggestion: NABJ members should not have to join another association to get the membership rate at UNITY 2012.

NABJ members who choose to attend UNITY 2012 will either be doing so in addition to the NABJ convention that year or instead of it. While I would encourage NABJ members to support their association by attending NABJ 2012, I would also encourage them to support UNITY.

A strong NABJ membership showing at UNITY 2012 is a concrete way to show that support. UNITY should do whatever it can to encourage it.

Would NABJ members attend two conventions? It wouldn’t be unprecedented. I know Black and Latino NLGJA members who make room for two conventions a year (and I’m sure there are those in NAJA and AAJA who do so as well: I just don’t know them).

The bottom line is that this is no time to nickel and dime NABJ members who might want to attend UNITY 2012.

We are still allies.

The withdrawal of NABJ from UNITY was avoidable. Borrowing a line from Bill Clinton’s first inauguration speech, I wrote recently that there was nothing wrong with the UNITY coalition that could not be fixed by what was right with the UNITY coalition. This alliance survived tougher existential questions in the past. Its formation overcame more obstacles than its undoing. It should not have come to this. NABJ could have made just as strong a statement passing a resolution declaring that it will withdraw from UNITY after the 2012 conference.  Such a move would have sent the same message without putting the former partners in the position of staging a competing conference.

The withdrawal of NABJ from UNITY is regrettable. When we formed this coalition, we did not add the strengths of NABJ, NAHJ, AAJA and NAJA. We multiplied them. But what NABJ warned against, it has now made a reality through its action: NABJ and UNITY will now be in direct competition for dwindling sponsorship dollars. Not that we should let our media sponsors dictate our direction, but they were urging us to work together more frequently, not less. Now news organizations that planned to attend UNITY’s convention in 2012 (looked FORWARD to it, from a financial perspective) will either have to attend two conferences or choose one. From that standpoint, there won’t be many winners in 2012.

Another reason I find the split regrettable is that, in my opinion (and I hope I’m wrong), it diminishes our moral authority to preach diversity to the profession when we show an inability to work through our differences and achieve a consensus.

The withdrawal of NABJ from UNITY is reversible. UNITY should extend membership registration rates to NABJ members who sign up for the UNITY convention in 2012.

It should turn this crisis into an opportunity to rebuild UNITY from the bottom up. Create a new framework for the alliance that includes rotating 2-partner conventions and a more focused mission. NABJ should be a part of that discussion.

NABJ may no longer be a UNITY partner, but it will always be an ally.

Don’t let it end like this.

1. Pop Goes The World (Men Without Hats)

Everyone remembers “Safety Dance,” but have you ever wondered why Men Without Hats is not included in lists of one-hit wonders from the 1980s? In the U.S., it’s because they had a second hit. “Pop Goes the World” was just as much fun as its predecessor, but did not climb as high up the charts. Shame. It’s catchy.

2. Run, Run Away (Slade)

You’re forgiven if this tune reminds you a little bit of “Angel is a Centerfold” by the J. Giles Band. It’s not. It’s just one of those numbers that got stuck in my head one afternoon and never left. I may have heard it on the radio once, may have seen the video once. And then it was gone, and whenever I tried to describe it to people, they always thought I was talking about “Angel is a Centerfold.” That’s life.

3. Life in One Day (Howard Jones)

I’m cheating with this one. It belongs on the list, don’t get me wrong. I don’t know too many people who remember it. Thing is, I have heard it since the 1980s. In the late 1990s, I confess, I became re-addicted to this song at a particularly rough patch in my life. “Pretend the water is champagne and fill my glass again and again” got me through 1997! Many remember “Things Can Only Get Better” and, of course, “No One Is To Blame.” This number was from the same album. (This isn’t the official video. The official video, unfortunately, kind of ruins the song. Dig it up for yourself if you really want to see why I say that).

4. You Take Me Up (Thompson Twins)

The moment you hear the garish harmonica intro, you realize that the team that brought you “Hold Me Now” and “Doctor! Doctor!” has made, well, a mistake. Keep listening, though. In fact, listen to it about two or three times. This song grows on you. It grew on me.

5. Strip (Adam Ant)

This is another song I thought disappeared off the face of the Earth after the mid 1980s. Adam Ant is well-remembered for the song “Goody Two Shoes,” (“don’t drink, don’t smoke, what do you do?”), but point a gun at someone’s head and demand another song title from the same artist, and you’d better be ready to pull the trigger, because 99 percent of the public doesn’t remember this catchy number (and this video may be the cheesiest of the decade, although I guess that’s another post).

6. Margarita (Wilkins)

Take a really bad movie with a nothing plot, add a not-half-bad song and you get… memories that don’t last very long. At least not in the U.S. “Salsa: The Motion Picture” was an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of Dirty Dancing and a Latin explosion that, sorry, had not quite taken place yet in mainstream U.S. culture. Starring former Ricky Martin joven-bandmate Robbie Rosa, the movie was a failure in all ways but one: it gave us this infectious Spanglish quasi-hit. Remember it? Don’t worry: if you remembered it, it probably wouldn’t have made this list.

Why did NAHJ support Rebecca Aguilar? Because it was the right thing to do.

The Media Research Center is a right wing organization committed to exposing the liberal agenda in the mainstream press. In a recent column on their NewsBusters page, one of their writers makes reference to a comment I made regarding the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and its decision not to comment on the firing of Rick Sanchez from CNN.

I made the following comment during an appearance on NPR:

Well, my history with the organization [NAHJ] - I can answer it as if the question had been posed to me three years ago. And my answer would have been we tend not to weigh in on personnel matters. If an organization fires an employee, we try to stay out of that as much as possible. [Emphasis Newsbusters'] There – are there reasons that people would expect NAHJ to say something? Sure. But, you know, when it comes to a boss firing an employee, it takes a lot for us to jump in on that.

NewsBusters writer Tim Graham then notes, accurately:

Actually, three years ago, NAHJ president Olmeda was demanding Dallas Fox affiliate KDFW reinstate reporter Rebecca Aguilar after she accused a local man of being “trigger-happy” after he defended himself against an intruder. 

Read the full NewsBusters article here.

Call me simple, but I can’t find any way to leave a comment on the story [Note: this has since been corrected on the Newsbusterd site]. So I’ll expound on the matter here.

Why did I respond to the Rebecca Aguilar situation in 2007 and then say NAHJ tries not to get involved in personnel matters? I know Graham couldn’t be bothered with anything so complicated as, I don’t know, just calling me and asking me, but I do think it’s a fair question. So here’s the answer.

A few weeks before Rebecca Aguilar was suspended from her job at a Texas TV station, she was honored as NAHJ’s Broadcast Journalist of the Year. When she was accused of ambushing the subject of a story and accusing him of being trigger happy, her station suspended her… and no one else. There were calls for NAHJ to rescind the award.

I took a personal interest in what happened and determined that

• the subject of the story told Aguilar where to find him, which eliminates the argument he was ambushed.
• the subject of the story could easily have driven off, but instead granted Aguilar an interview.
• Aguilar’s questions were not accusatory. Journalists know that some questions that sound accusatory are merely designed to provoke a response from the subject, and the subject rose to the occasion eloquently.
• the television station found her report egregious enough to warrant suspension, but did not feel the same about anyone else involved in the story. In television news, it takes more than one person to put a story together. Aguilar was singled out for punishment.

So yes, based on the fact that she was singled out for punishment (later corrected when others were given token penalties), and based on the determination that the accusations of journalistic misconduct were unfair, and based on the obvious determination that our silence on the matter would be unacceptable considering the award we had just bestowed on Aguilar, I decided after consulting with the board that we needed to stand up for her.

And I’d do it again. I defended our position on the conservative Mike Gallagher radio program.

NAHJ isn’t going to weigh in on every firing of every Latino employee. And it shouldn’t. It’s not a union. NAHJ’s members expect to be treated fairly (which also means if we bad-mouth our bosses in public, we understand that we put our jobs on the line).

I said on NPR that it takes “a lot” for NAHJ to jump in on a personnel issue. Kudos to Tim Graham for finding an example when I did. Shame on him for not showing how the Aguilar gave us “a lot” of reasons to speak up.

I tried reaching Mr. Graham to explain this to him personally. My note to NewsBusters went unanswered. Mr. Graham, meanwhile, is free to comment here.

Note: I am not speaking for NAHJ. I do not know why they chose not to make a statement on the Rick Sanchez matter and I offer my thoughts only as speculation.

Needless to say, the cost of treatment is astronomical.

Our family has raised money for ALS research, but at this time the need is much more personal.

Friends of Diane are holding a fundraiser for her at the Flying Cloud Cafe in Atlantic City on Sept. 25. 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Tickets are $20 and there will be big prizes available, including:

1st place prize: a trip to Puerto Rico or Orlando plus $300.00 cash!
2nd place prize: $200.00 cash
3rd place prize: $100.00

This will be a party and a celebration.

To all my friends in the New York/New Jersey area, I urge you to attend. Laugh a little. Dance a little. Tell people I sent you.

BUT YOU DON’T HAVE TO PHYSICALLY BE THERE TO HELP.

For specific details, please call (609) 703-9433 or (609) 965-6187: ask for Amelia. Or you can contact organizers by e-mail at gifts-for-diane@comcast.net.

ALS remains an invincible opponent, but Diane Riportella is not going down without a fight.

Please help her fight.

Thank you.

It’s not a party, being a member of the board of directors of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. It’s a lot of hard work. A lot of sleepless nights. A lot of second-guessing and a lot of being second-guessed. It’s a lot of arguing and disagreeing and consensus building, a lot of hard fought wins and painful losses. It’s a fight for principle and for passion, with very few predictable outcomes and a boatload of unpredictable challenges.

Now I’m hearing a lot about “change,” the need for it, and who would be best at providing it.

Forgive my skepticism: no one needs to “vote for change.” Change is happening in our industry whether we like it or not. It threatened like a hurricane forecast for more than a decade, and we ignored the warning signs until it was too late. The storm struck us all, hard, and it’s not over yet. In this climate, a call for change is hollow, and fighting over the title of change-agent is pointless.

Change is upon us. We don’t need you to promise it. We need you to tell us how you’re best suited to lead us through these changes. You don’t need to tear your opponent down. I don’t want to vote against him, against her. I want to vote FOR you. So talk me into it.

When I joined the board of NAHJ in 2000, 16 people took a stand, committing ourselves to a mission that was greater than ourselves. Each deserves a medal for what was endured in the years that followed. One of them was Michele Salcedo.

When I effectively left the board of NAHJ in 2008, 16 people took a stand, committing themselves to a mission that was greater than themselves. Each deserves a medal for what was endured in the years that followed. One of them was Hugo Balta.

Hugo and Michele would be fools to promise anything other than change. Change isn’t the point. Guiding NAHJ THROUGH change is the point. On that issue, decide who you trust to guide our organization through that change.

Elections force choices, and sometimes those choices are difficult. I am proud that in this election, I voted “for.” I am sorry I could not vote for everyone, but elections don’t allow us that luxury.

I made my choice, and I made it known. When I asked people to vote for Michele Salcedo, I deliberately did not portray it as a vote against Hugo Balta, because it’s not. Hugo came through for NAHJ when we needed him, joining the board by appointment at a time we were bleeding board members due to resignations and layoffs. And he stood out immediately: in the brief time I worked with him, I was grateful that he was there, willing to be one of the 16 people who took a stand for the mission of NAHJ.

Yes, I have worked with board members who have done less than was expected of them. And I dare say I have been that board member more than I’d like to admit (sometimes taking a stand means standing aside).

But you don’t commit to this mission and pour your heart into it and sacrifice your productivity at work and your time with your family to follow the trends and take the blame for an industry being torn apart by forces no one seems to be able to control — you don’t take on that job and endure it for two years, or four, or eight, without giving a damn about something worth fighting for.

In that, I salute every member of the NAHJ board of directors who preceded me, I raise a glass to those who served with me, and I thank my Maker for those who followed me. And for those who seek to begin their board service this weekend, I am in awe of you.

Because on Sunday morning, 16 people will take a stand. What would it say about me if I were anything but proud of you?

Nonetheless, I feel strongly about my support for Michele Salcedo, and I cannot be shy about expressing why.

Michele and I became friends in the late 1990s in New York, and from the beginning I saw that she was a no-nonsense leader who got things done. She did it by helping to organize numerous events that drew members to NAHJ, and she often did it with little credit.

When she moved to South Florida, she took the reins of an NAHJ region in decline after successfully putting on the 1998 convention in Miami. She turned it around and laid the groundwork that led to the area’s revitalization. She later became secretary of NAHJ and then at-large officer, always playing a key leadershipo role in surveying the membership and helping the organization set a direction to meet members’ needs.

And few can deny the masterful job she did organizing the 2006 convention in Fort Lauderdale.

If Michele had chosen then to run for president, I would likely have stepped aside to support the superior candidate. She’s running now, and I’m proud to support her.

Michele understands what our members and our industry are going through. She knows how it feels to be laid off and fight your way back into the business, because she’s done it. And I have no doubt that she will lead NAHJ into a bright, relevant future.

I am proud to see a contested race for the NAHJ presidency, and I salute Hugo Balta’s commitment to our worthy cause. But now that it’s time to cast a ballot, I cannot in good conscience be silent about my support for Michele Salcedo.

So the story ran and a reader sent this letter to the wrong e-mail address. Today, realizing the error, the reader sent the e-mail to the correct e-mail address. Here’s the letter:

Subject: Your story

I am absolutely appalled!  Since when is a lost kitten news?!  Not only is it in the Local section, but it is highlighted on page 2 of the main section!!  Are there any standards for value of a story?  This story takes up more space than “offshore drilling.”  Is this indicative of the mentality of your average reader?  Please explain this to me.  Thank you. 

And my reply:

I just got this today.

I try not to compare the space one story gets to the space another story gets unless I get a vote in placement or space. They tell me to write 200 words, I write 200 words. And my bosses say where it goes, not me.

For my part, I’m not so interested in a lost kitten as I am in an airline that loses something precious to a passenger coupled with a bureaucracy that won’t let people do their utmost to resolve the situation. That, along with the fact that the lost item is a living thing, is interesting to enough readers that I’ve had more e-mails and phone calls on this subject than I get on most stories I write.

Again, I’m not defending giving this story more space than another story, or giving this story more prominent play than another story. Just saying that it was interesting enough to get a lot of reader feedback (including, I hate to remind you, yours).

Thanks for writing.

Epilogue: the cat’s still lost, but the owner has been able to get back into the secure area, with an airline employee. The cat’s name is Rocky. She’s the one on the right. If you find her, let me know.