Colleen Bradford Krantz's Blog

I’m beginning my third documentary, which we call "Unintended 1900." I’ll describe it in a minute, but please let me first tell you a story that helps explain why I do the work I do:

A few years ago, shortly after my book and first documentary, both called “Train to Nowhere; Inside an Immigrant Death Investigation,” were released, I was speaking at a rural library. Afterward, a woman came up to me and told me that a relative of hers had been killed a few years earlier. A young man who had been in the United States illegally had been convicted in the homicide. She said that watching our documentary on television had finally given her the ability to let go of some of the rage she had felt toward all undocumented immigrants. She had tears in her eyes as she explained that she could finally understand them better, and, while not condoning their behavior in entering the U.S. illegally, she could at least be sympathetic to their difficulties. And, most importantly, she said she was able to let go of her anger toward the man who had killed her relative. Our film had finally brought her peace, she said, and she wanted to thank me.

I haven’t told that story to many, but I thought during my trip home that night about how it captures exactly why I choose the sometimes-heavy topics I do for my films. I believe that good journalism should not make you feel judged for your political opinions. Those are yours and you have the right to them. They should help you understand one another so that, if we disagree, we can do so cordially. I want to try to bring about more of that open discussion that comes with accepting one another, flaws and all, and hopefully listening to each other. And this time I’m focusing on the topic of unplanned pregnancies - at least those in our distant past.

We were given a $10,000 humanities grant recently. But the funds must be matched. In the past few weeks, we have made it to 60 percent of our goal, but have only about 20 more days to finish raising the additional $4,500 that is required to complete the film! If we don’t make our full goal by Dec. 31, we don’t get any of the donations made via Kickstarter (credit cards just aren't charged). Are any of you able to help? Or do you know someone who might? The donations are tax-deductible because I’m working with Storytellers International, an Iowa-based 501(c)3 founded by the award-winning Paul Kakert, our co-producer and director of videography. All donations also come with a “reward.”

Please watch our introduction video where I explain more about choosing this topic and where you can look at the other Kickstarter campaign/rewards information:

Also, if you own a business or work at one that might be interested in a charitable donation, we have 2 advertising slots left for the beginning and end of the documentary. We can help build the ads, which are tax deductible. Or if you know a family with a personal connection to this topic and they want the sponsor ads as a tribute of sorts, that is also an option. Please email me for more information.

And please consider sharing the link with a handful of friends who might be interested in journalism, film or social issues.

Here’s the film’s description:

An upcoming Iowa/Midwest-produced film, “Unintended 1900,” uses over-the-shoulder journalism to explore unplanned pregnancies in the early 1900s. Viewers follow a journalist as she investigates century-old secrets tied to abortions, murder cases and the reaction of townspeople, from denial to anger to compassion. A teenager whose 1913 pregnancy and subsequent death shook a small Midwestern town is the common thread throughout the film, which examines various circumstances and points-of-view from another era.

My quick count is that our film’s budget (which I have partially funded) will provide paid work (yes, meagerly paid, but still) to 1 voiceover narrator, 1 web designer, 1 or 2 musicians, 1 graphic artist, 2 to 4 producer/videographers, 1 or 2 grips, and 8 to 10 actors/actresses. Please help me put their talent to use also.

Thanks so much for your time and consideration,

Colleen


Colleen Bradford Krantz
filmmaker, journalist, author
www.ColleenBradfordKrantz.com
colleen at bradfordkrantz.com

For almost everything I've done in my journalism career, I've been the primary writer. My latest project, however, was a bit different in that I had the opportunity to pair up with another author to co-write a documentary script. It has been a great experience.

We just had our premiere last week for West by Orphan Train, which tells the story of the orphan train era, which lasted from 1894 to 1929. I loved having the chance to not only tell the story of Emily Reese Kidder -- grandmother of Clark Kidder, the one who worked with me on this film -- but also the stories of still-living orphan train riders, Stanley Cornell and Bernadette Schaefer. All were amazing people, especially when you consider what their childhoods were like.

Please take time to check out our website, www.WestByOrphanTrain.com, where you can see our trailer. We hope to have it available nationally within the year.

Just over a year ago, I spoke at a state social studies conference about a project I’d just completed.

The teachers attending were the first to see a video set I’d created where I told one news story three different ways: one with what could be most simply described as a liberal viewpoint, one with a conservative viewpoint, and one where I attempted to be as even-handed as I could.

The message I got from those teachers last fall was along these lines: “We love this! It’s going to be great for students! But we’ll never pay for it.”

They were so right. The Internet is full of so many free videos that teachers have to be extremely motivated to want to pay for anything.

I drove away from the conference that day feeling a mix of triumph and defeat. Triumph because they affirmed what my instincts had told me: students and the general public need to know how to watch the news more wisely, to understand when the messenger’s viewpoint is getting in the way and what that might look like. But, I also felt defeated because I knew if I continued creating what I had dubbed video “skew sets,” I was going to go broke pursuing my passion.

I shifted plans for my startup,Skewed News Tutor, during that drive home. What if I instead created a low-priced app for teachers and parents? Could I at least recover a portion of my investment so I could continue to create tools that would help people understand why watching partisan cable news reports might not be the best way to raise open-minded children and an open-minded nation?

As you can already see, I’m more the creative type than a business strategist.

I was wise enough to convince Becky Waller Bausman, a brilliant strategic marketing expert in the Silicon Valley, to join the Skewed News Tutor team. I was not wise enough, however, to pay much attention when she kindly pointed out the long-term prospects for turning a profit at $0.99 per sale. I shrugged it off, blinded by my determination to fulfill this “calling.”

But, what Bausman already knew was this: Skewed News Tutor is about more than this one app. As a business and as a force for positive change, it is about more than initial sales performance. And if initial feedback holds true as more educators, parents, and students discover our unique mission and approach, it is a powerful teaching resource with a highly valuable impact on our world’s future young leaders.

With the launch of the first News Tutor app – featuring an interesting become-the-journalist quiz/game applicable to any social studies, English or speech class – we introduce a compelling new way to inspire and teach students to become more discerning consumers of news content. More apps will follow.

I’ll settle my bank accounts later.

Last week, I was "tagged" by The Hop author, Sharelle Byars Moranville, as part of a game called The Next Big Thing. Once an author is “it,” they answer the below ten questions and then tag other authors. This not only gives us a chance to talk about our most recent or upcoming work, but the work of other authors we admire. Be sure to go to the bottom of this posting to find out about the authors I’m tagging.

1) What is the working title of your next and/or most recent book? –- My book is Train to Nowhere; Inside an Immigrant Death Investigation, the true story of eleven undocumented immigrant who died trapped inside a railcar. Although I am exploring options for future books, I am working first on Skewed News Tutor, my new startup that creates videos and mobile apps to help users to become more discerning news viewers.

I've also recently begun planning for a new documentary about the orphan trains that brought children west in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I will co-produce this with author Clark Kidder (see below).

2) Where did the idea come from for Skewed News Tutor? –-
As a journalist myself, I used to bristle at what then seemed to be the overused claim that the media was so biased. A few years passed, though, and I began to see more examples where something as simple as choice of narration, music or graphics shifted what would have otherwise been a decent news report. I sensed the growing frustration of others as some cable network news shifted to partisan reporting, blurring the line between commentary and news. I decided that, through Skewed News Tutor, I could create simple tools to help the public make their points more clearly to news organizations, while bringing more appreciation to high-quality journalism.

3) What genre does your book fall under? --
Train to Nowhere is literary nonfiction

4) What actors would you choose to play the part of your characters in a movie rendition? --
This is a tough one, but I’d say Jake T. Austin would be good to take the role of Byron Acevedo, the young victim from Guatemala whom I chose to make the primary focus of the book. Byron’s older brother, Eliseo, could be played by Carlos Mencia because of their looks, but considering that Mencia does comedy and this is a book that leaves you thinking more than laughing, I’d probably have to let Hollywood decide.

5) What is the one-sentence synopsis of your book? –
A grieving brother from New York and Texas immigration agent form an unlikely friendship during a criminal investigation into the railcar deaths of eleven Central Americans and Mexicans.

6) Who is publishing your book? -- Train to Nowhere was published by Ice Cube Press.

7) How long did it take you to write the first draft of the manuscript? – Nine months, though I had spent several years chiseling away at the research that formed the basis of the book.

8) What other books would you compare this story to within your genre? – Enrique’s Journey by Sonia Nazario

9) Who or what inspired you to write this book? – I was inspired for some of the same reasons I was inspired to start SkewedNewsTutor.com: I believe, as a journalist, that I can tell a story involving a complicated political issue without inserting my own views. I’m a big believer in letting readers/viewers walk away to draw their own conclusions.

10) What else about your latest project might pique the reader's interest? – By May, Skewed News Tutor will launch a new mobile application that I think of as a journalism game for non-journalists. It teaches users about journalism ethics and balanced reporting. I hope it help build on what I feel is an existing grass-roots movement for more even-handed news reporting in the United States.

And the most important question: Who did I tag for the next round of The Next Big Thing?

Nicolle Schippers, author of An Airman's Deadly Affair

Book description: Senior Airman Teresa Conklin had it all - beauty, intelligence, and zealous ambition. As a young cop stationed at Winburg Air Base in Germany, Conklin seized the opportunity to further her career in the United States Air Force. But two bullets end her life, and the ensuing investigation unearths a disturbingly complex web of deceit, sex, and betrayal. Major Emma Lohrs, an attorney with the Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG), is assigned to the case. The details surrounding Conklin's murder create a twisted scenario, especially since Conklin was on duty in the well-secured base armory when she was killed. But Lohrs soon uncovers a number of bizarre clues about the victim and the chief suspects, two of whom are well-respected, decorated leaders on base. To complicate matters, Lohrs also has to deal with Special Agent Eric Myers, an egotistical military agent whose contempt for the JAG attorney is only too evident. Forced to work together, Lohrs and Myers discover Conklin's involvement in a sexual love triangle, infidelity, and blackmail. But senior officials block their every move in a desperate attempt to hide the appalling truth. With the situation growing deadlier by the minute, Lohrs and Myers must put their hostile feelings aside long enough to solve the murder before someone else ends up dead.

Clark Kidder, author of Emily's Story: The Brave Journey of an Orphan Train Rider.

Book description: It seems incomprehensible that there was a time in America's not-so-distant past that nearly 200,000 children could be loaded on trains in large cities on our East Coast, sent to the rural Midwest, and presented for the picking to anyone who expressed an interest in them. That's exactly what happened between the years 1854 and 1930. The primitive social experiment became known as "placing out," and had its origins in a New York City organization founded by Charles Loring Brace called the Children's Aid Society. The Society gathered up orphans, half-orphans, and abandoned children from streets and orphanages, and placed them on what are now referred to as Orphan Trains. It was Brace's belief that there was always room for one more at a farmer's table. The stories of the individual children involved in this great migration of little emigrants have nearly all been lost in the attic of American history. In this book, the author tells the true story of his paternal grandmother, the late Emily (Reese) Kidder, who, at the tender age of fourteen, became one of the aforementioned children who rode an Orphan Train. In 1906, Emily was plucked from the Elizabeth Home for Girls, operated by the Children's Aid Society, and placed on a train, along with eight other children, bound for Hopkinton, Iowa. Emily's journey, as it turned out, was only just beginning. Life had many lessons in store for her lessons that would involve overcoming adversity, of perseverance, love, and great loss. Emily's story is told through the use of primary material, oral history, interviews, and historical photographs. It is a tribute to the human spirit of an extraordinary young girl who became a woman -- a woman to whom the heartfelt phrase "there's no place like home" had a very profound meaning.

Some of my fellow journalists take my decision to start Skewed News Tutor as an attack on our profession. As a sign that I’ve picked up a tactic used so often with them that it becomes tedious: the condemning of the “biased media.”

When I find those peers who will listen, though, I explain that I’ve started Skewed News Tutor exactly because I love this profession so much. I refuse to see it decline to the point where we give up any attempt at balanced reporting and instead cash our big checks by becoming blatant Republicans or Democrats doing lazy politicized news reporting. Skewed News Tutor is my acknowledgment that a single journalist in the Midwest isn’t going to change the direction of the nation’s journalism unless I encourage the public to demand it – to encourage what I believe is an existing grassroots movement for ethical and fair journalism.

All of this is why I was so interested and encouraged last night when CBS made an announcement that they are changing the writing behind their television reports. They emphasized how they are going to spend more time focusing on being fair. I loved this announcement.

First, it took guts for them to offer what is essentially an acknowledgement of past mistakes in this area. Secondly, they must sense what I sense and what polls have found: journalism is going to lose the one thing we have going for us if we aren’t careful - the public’s trust.

I tweeted (from @NewsTutor) about this announcement after they made it last night, saying I’d be interested to see how it went. But then I watched CBS This Morning and found a problem already. Watch the interview of Marco Rubio that followed a recap of President Obama’s address last night. One of the anchors this morning said to him:

“Senator, you have been called the Republican savior. Yesterday, you voted against the Violence Against Women Act, you have opposed repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, you oppose universal backgrounds checks for gun buyers, you have yet to introduce a bill on immigration reform. Is that the future of the Republican party?”

This is shallow journalism. I would like to think that the writer of this bit had read the entire proposed new version of the Violence Against Women Act to see what had been added but I suspect they hadn’t. Do they understand that members of Congress regularly add in provisions to bills understanding that their peers don’t want journalists pointing out that they voted against something such as the “Violence Against Cute Little Puppies Act?”

So we in the media fall right into that and paint these politicians as being in favor of beating women instead of really digging in and examining the specific provision a politician objected to?

And don’t even get me started on the fact that CBS then dedicated time on their national broadcast to ask Rubio about the drink of water he took during his talk the night before. I almost cried at this point. In order to claim fairness, they now have to ask Obama about his feelings (“Were you nervous?”) every time he takes a drink during a national talk. And they weren't the only media outlet to discuss this.

Our country has so many more important things to talk about. Anyone have a national broadcast handy that I could put to better use?

I will say, however, that I am hesitant to do too much Monday morning quarterbacking of news reporting. I know that sometimes circumstances that we can't understand from outside the newsroom might interfere with providing a perfect report. But I do believe that we should start giving three strikes and you’re out – not for an entire news organization but the specific individual behind the report. Like any profession, there are incompetent or lazy individuals at good organizations. So I would love to know who wrote that segment for CBS this morning. And I would love to know why the anchor didn’t correct what she should have seen as a problematic interview considering the announcement the boss had just made.

But, please don’t give up on CBS yet. I can name many news outlets that are far worse, and CBS, at least, shows some signs of wanting to improve.

Perhaps CBS’s morning desk simply didn’t get the memo from last night yet.

It must have still been in their inbox while they were busy editing that hard-hitting footage of Rubio’s drink of water.

I find presidential campaigns emotionally exhausting.

If my 20-year-old self could see my 40-year-old self type that sentence, she wouldn’t believe it.

I loved politics back then, enough so that I studied political science as a minor during college, and it was second only to my love of journalism.

But once I became a full-time newspaper reporter, I began interacting with politicians who had spent time with too many journalists. I reached one certainty: as long as I was the connection to the public, I was very unlikely to know the real person behind the politician’s public persona. I grew tired of always having to be on the defensive in case the politician in front of me was going to be disingenuous or deliberately misleading.

And some of them looked at me – yet another journalist – with the same weary look in their eyes. I sensed they were thinking: “What is this one going to screw up in how I’m portrayed in the story?”

I worried that I was going to grow cynical. So I distanced myself from politics by seeking reporting jobs that would take me to out-of-the-way spots, rather than applying for statehouse jobs or gigs in Washington D.C. as I had once imagined. I wanted to interview “real people,” the ones who rarely ran into the media and spoke from the heart. Most were refreshingly honest.

But lately, I have this feeling that more and more often, the "real people” are eyeing one another the same way we journalists and politicians have always eyed each other. The distance between journalists and politicians is something I viewed as healthy for the nation. The growing disconnect between Americans is probably not so healthy.

Some journalists have widened that gap by letting greater partisanship enter what viewers or readers believe is straight news reporting (versus clearly labeled commentary). And once one media outlet lets its political positions show through in reporting, those from the opposite political persuasion feel they now must do the same in response.

It feels like a long-running playground fight between conservative and liberal media outlets, each offering their one-sided versions of the news. Those responsible journalists who step in to correct when a national story becomes too one-sided aren’t always being heard above the din of a constantly rolling news cycle.

After the 2004 presidential election, then-New York Times executive editor Bill Keller discussed whether his reporters and New York in general were too disconnected from the rest of America. He discussed opening a Midwest bureau in Kansas City. (The newspaper eventually did.)

"Traditionally, because our origins are urban, urban cultural liberals tend to come across (in coverage) as more three-dimensional than conservatives or suburban Republicans," Keller told USA Today after the elections. "But we have made a concrete effort, for a while, to make sure we are doing the America stories as well as the urban stories.”

The same article included this comment from Tom Touchet, then NBC Today producer:

“In every newsroom in every big city, people get myopic. They have to be constantly reminded that the issues here are not the same as they are for my dad who hangs out at a diner in Florida or for my sister who is in New Mexico.”

The article explained that Touchet said it might be time to focus more on how united, not divided, America is. “It seems to me it should be more red, white and blue instead of just red and blue,” he was quoted as saying.

I admired these guys. Here they were being brave enough to recognize that their media outlets might be disconnected from of a large percentage of Americans, disconnected from the culture of some Americans. Keller seemed to realize that sometimes being open to diversity of cultures might mean also be open to the cultures of rural America – without the standard approach of labeling rural Americans as unintelligent and uncultured.

But, eight years later, we are back to where we were: the subcultures within America are not listening to one another and some journalists are exacerbating the problem.

Recently, one journalist, Karthika Muthukumaraswamy, wrote a piece for the Huffington Post essentially justifying why it’s okay to give only one side a fair hearing in a news report. She made the argument that some Tea Party views are so wacky that we have to just ignore them and their messengers.

Yes, not everyone who calls into a newsroom with a tip gets a story, so we do weigh validity. But, Muthukumaraswamy then implies that journalists owe it to the public to ignore this entire Tea Party movement as a result.

While I might not agree with everyone in the Tea Party movement, I certainly wouldn’t write tens of thousands of them off in one fell swoop.

Muthukumaraswamy then wrote this about the Republican party, which includes almost 50 million Americans:

“Perhaps it was easier to keep the ‘fair and balanced’ cover and still report on some truths when both parties were in the mainstream. But with one leaning so perilously close to the margins, it is more imperative than ever for reporters to not indulge this faux ideology of fair and balanced. It is impossible to balance out something that doesn't have a counterweight.”

Isn't she saying Republicans aren’t worth being given time or space in a news report? It is as if she’s saying: “These are lunatics unworthy of being heard. We’re doing you a favor if we censor them.”

Isn’t that likely what some reporters thought 150 years ago about women and blacks? I apologize to Muthukumaraswamy, but it sure feels like she just jumped back more than a century in openness. But she’s not the only one.

Conservatives do this too. And the conservative media, especially, putting down all Democrats as a group, essentially writing off another third of Americans.

My own journalistic work isn’t perfect, but I do try to follow guidelines like those of the Society of Professional Journalists, which reminds journalists to “support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

All of this above has been nagging at me for several years. Today, I am kicking off a new initiative, Skewed News Tutor, to attempt to influence the direction of journalism. Skewed News Tutor, at SkewedNewsTutor.com, uses brief video news reports, in sets of three, to illustrate how a journalist’s feelings or preconceived notions might color a report. We release the first set today. I am also proposing that journalists considering using what I call "bias sheets," a concept we will explain more in the future.

Skewed News Tutor is a reminder to the public that while it is tempting to give up on the general media and follow the partisan media, this move only exacerbates the problem. Instead, watch these videos and others we hope to create in the future, and learn more about the nuances that separate good journalism from bad. Leave behind those media sources that don’t give both sides a fair shake. Leave them behind even if they fit your political viewpoint - maybe especially if they fit your viewpoints - and follow individual journalists who produce or write high-quality reports.

Resist the temptation to stereotype an entire media company as good or bad. Each newsroom will have good and bad journalists, just as in any profession. It takes work and diligence, but you will start finding those reporters who are consistently solid.

If you watch our first skew set and find it interesting, please share it with friends and family. Follow on Twitter @SkewTutor

I’m doing this because I still love journalism. I just don’t love where it’s going. Do you?

My dad is on a flight as I write this, soon to land in New Jersey, where he will travel to a funeral home and later watch his old business partner being buried. Walter Zimmerer Jr. wasn't a likely business partner for my dad. My dad grew up in rural Iowa, a farm kid who became a cattle rancher in the rolling hills of western Iowa. Walt was a New Jersey-born son of a home builder. He, like his father, made a living building homes. They were known for their strength and durability.

But when Walt took a break from his New Jersey development work for a few years, he wanted a new hobby. He had purchased a farm and decided he would start a herd of Angus cattle. He met my dad, Jim Bradford, in the late 1960s at a cattle industry event. The two became friends as Walt consulted my dad about his cattle from time to time.

When the 1980s Farm Crisis hit the Midwest, my dad, like so many others, found himself facing 19-percent-plus interest rates on farm debt that neared a half million dollars. We had to watch as neighbors were forced to auction off what they had, usually including the land, and move elsewhere. Suicides in the region were up. Farmers were losing land they'd had in the family for generations. Then, although I wasn't fully aware of it at the time, foreclosure was looming for my parents. As a last resort, Dad called Walt and asked if he’d be interested in a partnership. Walt, in what I suspect was a move of kindness rather than a solid business decision, agreed. Mom and Dad kept 80 acres, while the Zimmerers bought roughly 400 acres of Bradford Bros. Angus land. “After about six years, I bought it all back,” my dad once explained to me. “But, in deference to him, we named it Brad Z Ranch.”

Walt's beloved wife, Erma, died in 2006. Two years later, when I heard that he was suffering from what was believed to be Alzheimer's, I thought about all he had done for my family. And, this week, when I heard about his death, I went through my computer files until I found the letter I had mailed him around that time. I'll share it here.

November 22, 2008

Walt,

I’m writing this although I am not sure if you are well enough to read it. I understand from my father that you were not doing well last he heard. I hope your children will read this to you if you unable to do so. And I hope your health improves.

You may remember me only as one of Jim and Mary Bradford’s many children (I’m #6 if you’re wondering). I don’t know a lot about how you came to be part of my father’s life, but I do know that he viewed you as the reason we were able to save the farm during the 1980s Farm Crisis. Surely, my childhood would have been much different if you hadn’t bought into our farm, helping save it at a time when many of our neighbors faced heartbreaking farm auctions and moves to new towns or new desk jobs. This, Dad often explained, is why Brad Z Ranch now has a Z in the title. For the Zimmerer family – because of all their generosity and kindness. I’ve been told that many college students now don’t even know about the Farm Crisis. But I remember it. And I know that, without you, I would likely have lost some of those years on our Guthrie County cattle ranch – years I look back on fondly.

I think of you from time to time (especially when I heard from my parents that Erma had died), but I was completely caught off guard when your name came up in the most unexpected setting two months ago. I was on an annual weekend getaway with a group of college girlfriends in late September and, because all of us are or once were journalists, we love to write. One night we decided to read some of our favorite writings to one another. One friend – also a former college roommate - decided to read something from one of her journals. As she was about to begin, she said, “This must be fiction because I have no idea who these people would be. But I never write fiction here so it’s strange.” As she began to read, I slowly remembered how she and I had, back when we were eager journalism students at Iowa State University, traveled to New Jersey for a friend’s wedding. I remember asking if she minded a detour to visit a man and his wife who had been very important to our family. She was game. The visit stuck with us but, over time, we forgot most of the details. Luckily, they were still in her journal in a beautifully-written description of our visit. It reminded me how much in love you and Erma were. It was obvious even to 22-year-old college girls. I hope her description – which she agreed to share - is meaningful to you and your children.

I wish you a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Colleen Bradford Krantz

p.s. Remember the line from the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” about how every man’s life touches so many others? Fitting isn’t it?

My little girl and I were traveling through eastern Iowa a few days ago. We were at a rest stop along Interstate 80 when I noticed a quote etched into a monument. I can't remember the exact wording, but the message was that, while businesses are made up of people, they must also be about people.

Walt was one businessman who knew that.

For two weeks this summer, my calendar lists yet another summer camp for my children.

My iCal has a five-day long bar and the note “Camp Boredom for kids” on a week in mid-July and in early August.

No, this isn’t some agonizing camp where children are forced to sit on barren cots in an otherwise empty cabin and stare at one another in complete silence. Instead, it’s my reminder to myself to set aside time for my children to remember how to be bored. And to find their way out of it.

I put this on the calendar after talking to a friend last week who commented about how her 9-year-old son, a peer and friend of my oldest, was to the point of begging her for a chance to take a nap. He had been attending a morning sports camp – basketball, I believe – and an evening camp – basketball, I believe. She said something along the lines of, “It’s pretty bad when your kid is begging for a nap. It looked good when I planned his summer schedule a few months ago, but it feels different when you are living it.”

I completely understand. Thanks to years of hearing friends with older children moan about the insane pace of their lives as they run from one event to another, I have been determined not to let my children get sucked into that life too soon. If they don't make the pros in sport X, who cares?

Yet, somehow, we hover on the edge of that insanity already. My oldest is allowed to choose a single, week-long day camp (he chose an outdoor adventure-type camp) and one sports camp or brief session of parks and rec lessons (he chose to learn tennis). He is fine watching as many of his friends become more talented at a larger mix of sports due to more intense summer camps, while he only plays a few short seasons of soccer and flag football during the school year. He treasures that extra time at home.

But, every summer, we do feel it’s important to fit in swimming lessons, visits with relatives coming from out of state, a longer trip to the grandparents, and our own vacations and outings such as canoeing or water skiing. My younger two, ages 6 and 4, have few activities of their own, but get dragged along when their big brother needs a ride somewhere. By the time it’s all listed on the calendar, there isn’t much white space left for the kids. This is why I decided to implement Camp Boredom.

Here’s how I imagine it working: I’ll give my kids some new library books, a few new water toys, some craft project kits, a book or two with age-appropriate science experiments or project ideas, and tell them to do all those things they never have time for.

Here’s how it will really work: I’ll be ultra-busy serving as Camp Boredom’s camp counselor, overseeing somebody’s new automatic pet-feeder invention or construction of a bean bag board game. I’ll probably have at least three trips for supplies. But, if all goes well, they will remember how to enjoy that free time and follow their interests. They will explore the nearby woods again, and maybe trim the weeds back from the trails. They will catch up on their chores. They will invent games in the sprinkler and on the Slip-n-Slide.

And, because it’s on the calendar, I’ll be able to tell well-meaning friends, “Sorry, but we’re busy that week. The kids have camp.”

The “pink slime” debate isn’t about meat.

It’s about culture. We are all so busy looking at how exactly this “lean, finely textured beef” is made that most of us haven’t really talked about much besides the process.

We haven’t talked about how this is one more indication of how so many Americans have little understanding of farms and agricultural business.

And it leaves me wondering if some bloggers and some media outlets are leading the public astray as they report on agriculture, constantly throwing out vaguely defined terms (with the corresponding negative connotations) like “corporate farm” and “industrial farming.” Most let their audience assume this type of farming is representative of all modern agriculture, except for the inclusion of one or two token “good” farmers who haul their produce to farmers markets every week.

They don’t clarify that not all big farms are owned by corporations. Many of the large ones are family-run. Or, even if they are corporations, they might be family-only corporations. And not all small, family farms are well run. The size of the farm tells you nothing about how well the livestock or land is cared for. Many of these terms are meaningless if not defined, but the use of them by in the media can have an economic impact on all kinds of farms when the commodity prices slide as a result.

In reality, 98 percent of U.S. farms are family farms, set up in a variety of legal arrangements (yes, even including family corporations). And 92 percent of U.S. farms are considered small, meaning they have annual sales of less than $250,000. But you wouldn’t know it from most national conversations about agriculture.

I wrote this a week ago Sunday in my central Iowa home, having just cleaned up from an Easter visit from nearly 20 relatives. My mom and dad were among the first to leave, heading out around 4 p.m. Dad had to get home to take care of the evening chores. The cattle needed to be fed. Plus, it’s calving season. There were likely newborn calves lying in the fresh spring grass of my parents’ farm pastures. Dad would drive or stroll the pastures, checking the newest calves to make sure they were healthy, place them in a sling to lift them by hand to weigh them. He’d mark their birth date and weight in the “calving book” he carries around in his breast pocket as the calf ran off with its mother. Dad has done this every spring since I can remember.

On that Saturday, The Des Moines Register - see it here - had an article, featuring Dave Nichols, a cattle guy my dad knows well. They have both raised “seedstock” cattle (the primary product is bulls and females that other cattle ranchers buy to build their own herds) in western Iowa’s rolling hills for decades, staying with it when others quit to transform their pastures into cornfields or soybean fields.

In the article, Nichols was quoted as saying: “After hearing everything so bad about beef and livestock, I wonder why I’m such a bad guy. Some days, I feel like a tobacco farmer.”

I can’t speak for Nichols, but I suspect he, like my dad, isn’t active on Twitter or Facebook. They talk to the traditional media, but they aren’t out fighting the public relations battle on social media, explaining how they farm and why they do the things they do.

I remember my dad telling me when I was younger that farmers needed to be sure to listen to the customer. If they wanted leaner beef, cattle should be raised to be leaner. If they wanted consistency when buying beef (and if the grocery stores and restaurant chains demanded it, as a result) you bred your herd with that goal of having the cattle very similar in build and breed. But some day I wonder if that responsiveness helped or hurt the ag industry?

The public demanded cheaper food. So beef scraps were used to make this finely ground hamburger, going back to the 1970s. The public also demanded safer food; they didn’t want their families to face any unnecessary risk of getting sick. So, more than a decade ago, some in the beef industry added an ammonia rinse to kill potentially harmful bacteria. Now, we see a public backlash against the meat industry for producing the type of product the public’s buying decisions and wishes led to. People in other Iowa cities have been going home in recent weeks to tell their families they have been laid off because someone used the term “pink slime,” others spread it, and all poisoned the impression of a product that the public sought (through an interest in affordable, safe food) in the first place.

Another example: The public tends to buy chicken breasts far more than other chicken cuts so chicken producers bred chickens to have larger breasts (since this was the desired cut). Then the public (in part due to the documentary, Food Inc.) went on attack against those who responded to consumers' buying habits. Are you now buying whole chickens to help send a different message?

I see great value in some of the “new” ideas farmers are asked to pursue (even though many farmers never abandoned these ideas) – feeding animals on grass, avoiding unnecessary medication – but what I dislike is how we don’t blame ourselves for how agriculture has changed. A few bloggers, however, have started pointing out that we need to look in the mirror more often. We let ourselves off the hook too easily, and blame the food industry for listening to us.

This whole “pink slime” discussion breaks my heart because I know how this will end. I know who will lose the public relations war. People like my dad and Dave Nichols. These are farmers who haven’t promoted themselves as “sustainable” or “family farms” because it seemed silly to do so when they have been – at times - surrounded by others who work the same way.

Some of you might be in a position to resolve this disconnect between the farmers and the consumers. First, there are the high-quality journalists. For example, check out the "Food Machine" episode on a new PBS program called America Revealed; it’s a great piece of journalism looking at the challenges facing American agriculture. It can be found here. There are others doing this kind of great reporting. Pay attention to them.

Secondly, there are those who are not only very interested in where their food comes from but are also very informed about farming and agriculture. They have been wise enough to realize that if they are going to lead the country’s thinking when it comes to agriculture and food production, they better really know all there is to know about it. They might call themselves organic farmer, gardener, acreage owner or just a “foodie.” But they might also have the nation’s ear, unlike so many of today’s family farms (though there are notable exceptions). They might be able to tell the consumers what they really need to know: these farmers aren’t your enemy.

Someone needs to bridge the gap. Are you the one?


Our new project, SkewTutor, will look at how - intentionally or unintentionally - news coverage can become slanted or influenced by preconceived notions. For now, "like" our new Facebook page to hear updates as we prepare to launch the project this summer. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Skew-Tu...

The Twitter comment caught my attention.

It said: “@McDonalds #MeetTheFarmers mcd.to/zlfnM1” FUCKING BULLSHIT. How could meat which sells for less then a dollar live open ranged?@peta

I followed a link and ended up watching a McDonalds advertisement from a “Meet the Farmers” series. This particular one featured a beef producer in Illinois.

One thing struck me when the video was done playing: McDonalds had never claimed the meat was raised open range.

So why was this guy on Twitter so mad about a standard publicity move - showing the source of the product - by the restaurant chain?

Because of the disconnect; Americans seem to want, more than ever, to know where their food is coming from, but few have true access or connections to farms. One result is misunderstandings.

In this case, what most people with a farm background would have recognized was that the video not only didn’t describe the farm as a "open-range" operation, but it specifically showed the cattle being fed at a feed bunk. Yes, it showed some shots in a grassy pasture, but it also showed the cattle in the stubble that remains in an already harvested cornfield.

My guess is this farmer grazes his cattle in those pastures, but also appears to supplement with silage, a grain-plant feed mixture. Or he may feed some or many of his cattle in a feedlot exclusively with grain or silage. They don’t ever claim otherwise in the commercial.

Give McDonalds credit; they could have eliminated the shots of the kids walking along the long line of cattle being fed grain, they could have eliminated the shot of the cattle in the cornfield, and they could have only included shots in the pastures. That would have been misleading. But they didn’t cut those shots. Check out the video yourself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sjPnA...
Unfortunately, judging from this one person’s reaction on Twitter, it might not matter that they appear to have refrained from implying the cattle were purely grass fed. Not with the disconnect between farmers and others. And it doesn’t just go one way. Farmers aren’t always understanding their non-farm peers, either.

This is what prompted me to look at how we deliver messages in the media. After all, journalists are part of the public, biased by our own backgrounds and sometimes careless with assumptions or incomplete information. In this case, our view of a farm story is colored by our exposure or lack thereof to farms. Are we journalists contributing to misunderstandings, or at least failing to address them?

Can we do a better job of really helping people understand both sides of all kinds of issues? Even in this era of Tweets and 20-second soundbites?
I hope so. In summer 2012, I plan to launch a web-based video project, www.SkewTutor.com, which will examine how media coverage can become slanted, even without the journalist necessarily realizing it.