VOICES
Learning Curve
Learning to Cover Native Americans
A Syracuse Post-Standard reporter showed up at a crime scene in central New York last June, only to be told to get off the property. He has been banned — the third Post-Standard reporter to have that distinction — from land owned by the biggest enterprise in two counties: the Oneida Indian Nation.
The reporter, Glenn Coin, hadn't plagiarized, misquoted someone, or misrepresented himself. His crime, in the eyes of the Oneidas, was to write three stories that the Oneidas didn't like. David Hollis, communications director for the nation, writing in an op-ed article, said Coin's stories showed a pattern of seeking only negative comment on Oneida projects from "dubious" or "disgruntled" sources. An Oneida official, Kandice Watson, went so far as to say that Coin "must come from a bigoted family."
Why should we care?
- Because the Syracuse case is not an isolated one. Access problems
have arisen in the past ten years with the Shoshone-Bannock
in Idaho, with the Spokane tribe in Washington, with the Zuni
Pueblo in New Mexico, and almost certainly in other cases that
we never hear about.
- Because as more Indian nations become flush with gambling
money, they are becoming the biggest story in town for many
communities.
- Because American Indians are among the most underreported minorities in the United States, and because newspapers could provide a window into lives few Americans will experience first-hand. American Indians, numbering some four million, according to the 2000 census, deserve to be covered.
Conflict between the press and American Indians has been a constant for a number of reasons. These nations enjoy the benefits of sovereignty, making them essentially independent within the borders of the United States. They are not bound by most federal laws except in cases of federal crimes or overlapping jurisdictions, and so the press can't sue the tribes directly or file Freedom of Information requests to tribal governments. Reporters covering tribes, in effect, are akin to foreign correspondents covering a foreign country.
American Indian nations, meanwhile, have their reasons for stonewalling the press. Historically depicted in mainstream media as savages, drunks, and welfare freeloaders, many nations feel singled out and defensive. Some have developed a bunker mentality with regard to the press.
Mark Trahant, chairman of the Maynard Institute and a member of the Shoshone-Bannock tribe, says most Americans don't understand the notion of sovereignty, and reporters assigned to the beat often stumble over their assumptions about Native American cultures they know little about. Reservation culture is not Anglo culture, and it can't be covered effectively over a phone. Few newspapers have an American Indian on staff to help add nuance.
On the other hand, these nations need to learn the ways of the press. Many seem to have a slim grasp of the role of the media: to present all sides fairly, not to be one side's mouthpiece. They should be careful in labeling the media racist when they disagree with coverage. In the long run, banning a newspaper is counterproductive and the Indian nations undermine their own story.
For their part, reporters need to be aware of how tribes have been portrayed. And as with any beat, reporters need to spend more time on the reservation. Building trust takes time.
Enjoy this piece? Consider a CJR trial subscription.
