The Good Ol’ Media Debate

By Savannah Russell

I am no stranger to the classroom, but I am foreign to the idea of a Republican lecturing in one. So I got a chuckle when I heard that our Oct. 10 class would be graced with the presence of Dan Proft, a Chicago-based conservative radio commentator for WLS-AM. As I awaited his arrival, I imagined what he would look like. To his credit, he did not disappoint me. He arrived looking sharp and hawkish; pressed black suit, slick back hair and oversized gold rings weighing down his “right” hand.

With my journalistic instincts in tow, I propped up and listened intently. However, after a few minutes, he began his attack on the news media and my natural defenses went up. Now the idea of a right-winger lashing out at the “liberal media” is nothing new to me, but Proft came out swinging. Not only did he argue that local news provides information with “no context or consequence,” but--get ready for this--he had the solution to fix it! His answer: start up his own Internet site that brings “intelligent audiences” issues and news that really matter.

Here are a few of Proft’s blows at the local news media. First, he said, there needs be a fall off of consumption of traditional media, simply because it is useless. “All television news is cookie cutter,” Proft said. “Local news gives you no valuable information.”

My favorite example was his point about stories on gas prices. Proft believes that these local stories are repetitive and irrelevant. “Every spring there is the same story about the inflation of gas prices,” Proft said. “I can predict what they are going to say before the story even airs.” Apparently, the fact that gas prices go up to $4 a gallon in the Spring doesn’t phase Mr. Proft. He seems to believe that this information is not worth sharing with the public. I happen to believe the opposite. Isn’t it the media’s job to give us information about things that affect our lives? I think that discussing the effects and reasons for increasing gas prices is worth reporting. Lord knows that everyone else is talking about it.

Proft also said that we should be “insulted” by what the local news media throws at us and that instead, we should look to his Internet site for valuable news. I agree that it is important to get news and information from many different sources, but I am wary of getting my information from a man who wants to abolish traditional news altogether; and replace it with news that he, alone, thinks is significant. I am also wary of putting my confidence in a man who says that, “Television news is worthless.” Besides, if there is one thing that I do know, it’s that I don’t trust men that wear oversized gold jewelry.

When It Comes to Cubdom, Practice What you Preach

By Jeff Fuldauer

I hear ya, Dan. Barack Obama waffles on issues. He flips, he flops, and often his past actions contradict his current mission to revolutionize politics. But if you, Dan Proft, take a look at your own mission to revolutionize journalism, you will find similar flaws.

With your new Web site, you are pushing a multifaceted and revolutionary method of tackling convoluted issues by adding video reports to your written ones. But your quick-hitting, knee-jerk, reactionary commentaries are perfect examples of the low-depth journalism you seem to abhor. The bread-and-butter shtick that has earned you recognition in the field of journalism is exactly what you’re seeking to eliminate. Revolutionary, you say? Sounds more like hypocrisy to me.

For example, your Oct. 1 WLS Radio commentary, “Chicago Cubs Fans: The Triumph of Hope over Experience,” couldn’t be farther from revolutionary. You spend more than 300 words on the most tiresome opinion in Chicago history: The Cubs will forever remain losers, and to remain hopeful is useless and foolish. This isn’t beating a dead horse. This is unearthing the graveyard behind the glue factory to collectively beat the most famous of dead horses.

In your presentation to the class, you preached that “regurgitating party-line talking points” is the greatest sin in opinion writing. But in bashing the North Side ball club, you’ve gone where so many columnists have gone so many times before, and given us nothing original. Of course, as a White Sox fan, you deem the Cubs as hopeless as Charlie Brown. That’s what all fans of the rival ball club believe. What you fail to do, as your mission statement suggests, is back up your argument with the “analytical detailed understanding” you say is at the heart of a successful journalism.

Instead of explaining how continual shifts in management have laid the groundwork for the Cubs’ inconsistency, you quip about a laundry list of blunders. Anyone who has studied the organization’s failure knows that neither Steve Bartman, nor Billy Sianis, nor the billy goat have anything to do with what has come to be known as “Cubdoom.” Why not mention the lack of a consistent offense or lack of leadership? Instead, you’ve committed your second favorite opinion-writing sin---delivering a piece that is, in your words, “nothing illuminating, nothing insightful.”

You slam other columnists, specifically those at the Chicago Sun Times who support U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, for “love-fest diary entries.” But your piece on the Cubs is just another page in the diary of a longtime White Sox fan.

I commend you for tackling one of the biggest challenges in journalism today, seeking to deliver more in-depth coverage and analysis with a multi-media approach. But that sentiment doesn’t carry over to your columns. Just as you have criticized Obama for not offering solutions to reform politics, you have criticized the Cubs’ futility without offering any rhyme or reason as to why they continue to struggle and why their song will remain the same.

To conclude your class presentation on opinion writing, you proclaimed, “I’m pro-hope!” and stressed that “consistency is key” in presenting a well-informed, information-packed piece. Yet your column warned Cubs fans that “hope is dangerous thing” and that it “has no use for Cubs fans.” That is hardly consistent, or pro-hope.

The next time you crack your knuckles and prepare to write a column, please practice what you preach. If you’re going to challenge a room full of impressionable students to be independent thinkers and to deeply understand the issues at hand, be ready to show that you have taken the time to do the same.

A Fast-talking New Media Solution

By Brooke Anderson

On Oct. 10 political consultant and commentator Dan Proft visited my journalism class as a guest speaker at DePaul University’s downtown campus. He arrived looking exactly how I’d imagined him-- clean-cut, fast-talking, his hair as slick as his personality. I anticipated his sarcastic, conservative insights after listening to some of his weekly radio commentaries on WLS-AM 890. I was not, however, expecting a master plan for informative communication to the younger demographic of Illinois. I was pleasantly surprised by this quintessential spokesperson’s atypical idea. It’s an answer to an important question that is at least worth considering.

Through a variety of subjects, Proft’s enthusiasm held steadfast to one topic—his new media project. He deemed local television coverage as “cookie-cutter,” fiercely objecting to predictable coverage of stories like rising gas prices. “The lobotomized content we get from local news is terrible,” Proft said.

He also expressed discontent with its ability to capture the younger audience.

“The local news does not provide context for viewers as in, why should I care? How does it relate to me?” Proft complained.

This news coverage has resulted in a young audience who is disinterested in public issues. His answer: A hypertargeted local news program distributed via the Internet, YouTube and cell phone. He plans to assign a news team to cover local issues in depth, delivering 15-minute reports in 1.5-minute increments through a communication medium of the viewer’s choice.

This will provide a quick, digestible method of absorbing policy information and becoming more informed. By utilizing popular tools such as YouTube and wireless devices, the plan will make the information process more convenient. Proft cited school funding as one future story. “The rising high school dropout rates in Illinois are a crime and must be addressed,” he said.

This self-proclaimed “untraditional journalist” said he will opt for unique methods. For example in the case of school funding, instead of going straight to the school principal for comment, Proft’s news team will dig deeper. His crew will interview teachers, parent groups and legislators to provide more understanding and context. Proft and his gang will work to illustrate ideas that are locally relevant and not driven by national TV personalities, such as Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. Instead of telling viewers what is going on, Proft’s plan is to show them and let them decide.

Coming from a guy whose last commentary was on Sen. Barack Obama’s lack of presidential potential, I was surprised that the bulk of Proft’s speech wasn’t more political. I figured he would spend most of his time ranting about his favorite candidate. It was refreshing to instead hear of this new twist to new media.

Proft is certainly an idealist. News feeds providing relevant information in concise chunks, through a timely and convenient method, could be an answer to the prayers of many. At the end of his talk, Proft advised students to have strong opinions, be independent thinkers and work to understand the issues of the day when writing columns. Perhaps if his new project succeeds, getting informed might be a little bit easier for us all.

Proft Riles DePaul Journalism Class

By George Croitoru

On Oct. 10 political commentator Dan Proft covered a variety of topics in a speech before a DePaul University graduate journalism class. Proft mentioned that he was in fact a conservative, signaling who he is was and where he is was from. He has worked in numerous political campaigns and the stories that he shared about Alan Keyes and Barack Obama would signify that he knows what he’s doing.

Some of the topics Proft covered included the current presidential race and his views on the strongest candidates. Other topics, however, riled up some of my classmates. Mainly, how Sen. Hillary Clinton is “beating Barack Obama bloody” in South Carolina and, of course, the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson.

“Jesse Jackson is a product of the white media. They are the only ones who will cover him,” said Proft. As someone of a different race, I thought there was a bit of truth to his statement, but it still made me cringe a little.

What piqued my interest was Proft talking about a Web site he is developing that will take a different approach to covering news. Based on his sarcastic sense of humor, said Proft, the site is going to read like an episode of “The Daily Show” or “The Colbert Report.”

Despite my initial reservation, I was very interested in his humorous approach towards covering the news. The Comedy Central shows poke fun at politicians and politics in general. For example, when President Bush recently said, “Helping childrens learn” in a speech, Daily Show host Jon Stewart laid into our leader for his comment. I was totally in awe after hearing Bush’s words, but was relieved that someone noted it.

“The Daily Show” isn’t anti-Republican Party. The show is anti-stupid—about the comments that people make, and that’s why I love it. I’ve always said that guys like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert will be out of a job as long as politics are around.

“The Colbert Report” (pronounced “cole-BEAR” for those at home) is a parody of FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” which jabs everyone. Colbert is supposed to be a staunch Republican on air, but is actually a liberal off camera.

Proft, to his credit, didn’t try to push his opinion on anyone during his speech, but he rubbed me the wrong way. This is probably due to my laid back approach toward politics. I’m liberal. I try not to focus on others and let them do what they want as long as I don’t get hurt.

Proft did add that being well informed makes for a better commentary. I’m not sure what Proft’s feelings about these shows are, but Stewart and Colbert are well informed when guests, such as politicians or authors, come on the show. Stewart, in particular, makes sure that he reads the books that his guests come to plug.

No disrespect to Proft, but he might feel a little uncomfortable on the air with Stewart. However, Proft would do quite well with Colbert, where conservative banter is welcome.