July 2018

Schwan’s weekly column about integrity in journalism and ‘Fake News’

Jodi made some good points about what separates real journalism from bad journalism;

It’s not fake news just because you don’t agree with it. That’s the understanding those of us in the media have to reach with our readership.

But the prevalence of true “fake news” – accounts created by those other than journalists producing pieces designed to feel like news – puts a higher burden on all of us.

I have often been careful to tell my readers on here whether something is a fact, or if it is a rumor that I’m looking into. I never want anyone coming here saying, “South DaCola said this, so it must be true.” I try to encourage my readers to do their own research and to ask questions of their elected leaders. Ask them if something is true or not. Don’t just make the assumption that since Schwan, the Argus or South DaCola said it, it may be true or untrue.

I think I’m a little different than those ‘news’ sources, because I ask my readers to look for the real story. You may NOT agree with my editorial style or political philosophies, but that shouldn’t stop you from seeking the truth. The ‘News’ is only as good as the quality of information supplied to the reporters. That is why MORE open government and transparency only improves the quality of the news we receive. It’s easy to say something is ‘fake’ when we are not getting all the facts. Former Mayor Coors Light & Olives used blather all the time on various media sources that blogs or the Argus were ‘getting it wrong’. Well how would we know since your administration would never provide us with all the facts. This is why the Argus took the city to the SD Supreme Court over the siding settlement. What did we find out? We found out that the administration was lying about the settlement amount. This is why I tell people if you don’t trust me or another media source, look into yourself.

The only person responsible for spreading ‘fake news’ is yourself if you don’t bother to look deeper. This part-time blogger can only do so much.

Let’s compare ‘Apples to Apples’ with the West Mall Beer license

This morning on Belfrage’s show he was saying comparing the liquor license for Prairie Berry to the one for West Mall wasn’t the same. First off, it was a beer license, NOT liquor, so let’s get that straight, and secondly he is right one level. Prairie Berry is a bar/restaurant essentially (I do believe you can bring minors in the place since they serve food) while West Mall is a movie theater. But there are some similarities. Both, I would assume would ID anyone who was going to purchase alcohol, that’s the law. Also, since both allow minors into their establishments, than they would have to monitor them.

I agree with the council that it wasn’t a big deal to allow Prairie Berry a beer/wine license, that’s not the argument here. The big deal is NOT allowing one at the movie theater, and I would argue one of the most ignorant decisions this council has ever made as an entire voting body.

Why? Well lets start comparing ‘apples to apples’. Besides the fact that movie theaters throughout the country and world have allowed alcohol for decades, there is the other comparison. The Washington Pavilion, Orpheum Theatre and Events Center all allow alcohol in a ‘dark’ hall just like a theater. I would also note that it would be a lot harder for an usher to monitor someone underage drinking at an EC concert than it would be in a small movie theater. A simple solution would be to put a wristband on drinkers at the movie theatre that are reflective and serve the beer or wine ONLY in clear plastic cups. This would make it easier to identify drinkers from non drinkers in the theater.

It seems the city council has a double standard by allowing alcohol at city owned facilities that have minors present but NOT allowing a private business owner to do the same. I would encourage him to revisit the idea and remind them of this double standard.