Indian Country politics and public policy

Commentary by Mark Trahant

Trahant Reports

The Kalinago Territory in Dominica took a direct hit from Hurricane Maria.  The indigenous territory (formerly known as the Caribs) is on the remote eastern Atlantic side of the island. There have been no communications from the tribal community.

The Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency said Wednesday that it was using a helicopter to assess damage across the island nation: “Of particular concern for CDEMA was the Kalinago Territory between Castle Bruce and Atkinson where the houses are not particularly resilient.”

Dominica’s Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit posted on his Facebook page: “Initial reports are of widespread devastation. So far we have lost all what money can buy and replace. My greatest fear for the morning is that we will wake to news of serious physical injury and possible deaths as a result of likely landslides triggered by persistent rains.

“So, far the winds have swept away the roofs of almost every person I have spoken to or otherwise made contact with. The roof to my own official residence was among the first to go and this apparently triggered an avalanche of torn away roofs in the city and the countryside … We will need help, my friend, we will need help of all kinds.”

Early relief efforts and supplies have been directed toward the island’s cities, mostly coming from Barbados. The International Red Cross reports: “Most of the main roads were impassable and several bridges were blocked or damaged. The provision of essential services (water, electricity) has been disrupted, and landline and mobile phone service is intermittent. The agricultural sector and consequently livelihoods has been significantly impacted due to crop losses. As of 1 September 2015, the National Emergency Operations Centre has confirmed 11 dead and 23 people have been reported missing. ”

“A band of torrential rain caused by the system resulted in the 6 to 8 inches of rainfall in less than twelve hours and triggered massive flooding and several landslides,” according to the Red Cross. “Families have lost their homes to the damage incurred from flooding and landslides, which has also resulted in the loss of lives, personal belongings, and total destruction of subsistence crops.”

Good Hope, a community just south of the Kalinago Territory, was “in dire need of water,” according to the Red Cross.

The island’s capital is on the other side of the mountains from Kalinago Territory.  Some 3,000 tribal members live in the territory. The tribe recently returned to its own name, instead of the one set by Spanish explorers, the Caribe.

More than 70,000 people live on the island. Dominica was already recovering from another major storm, Erika, in 2015. — Mark Trahant

 

 

 

Business Meeting on 20 Agenda Items Tuesday July 28 2015 10am

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski could once again be a deciding vote on the future of health care. (Senate photo)

Mark Trahant / Trahant Reports

You have to wonder why the latest Senate Republican plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act did not get written with one senator in mind, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Yet the bill by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) is more conservative than previous approaches. It has lots of wish-list boxes to tick, no money for Planned Parenthood, big tax cuts, and its spends way fewer federal dollars. The bill only needs 50 votes to pass but that must happen before the end of this month.

Medicaid would become a block grant program that states could design (and pay for). So it would likely disappear. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that federal funding for health care would be reduced by $299 billion in 2027 alone with cuts impacting all states. And here’s a fun fact: Big states that expanded Medicaid would be hit harder. A lot harder.

Why 2027? That’s the year block grants disappear.  Graham and Cassidy argue that only a temporary block grant would be allowed under the rules of debate. So no “new” thing. Congress would have to meet “pay for” standards to replace that after 2027; meaning there would be cuts in other federal programs equal to the new spending.

And, like other Republican plans, this one would add significantly to the ranks of the uninsured. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates 32 million would lose coverage. States could also end essential benefits, coverage of pre-existing conditions, and allow companies to charge people significantly more when they’re ill. (Health insurance coverage that you cannot afford is the same as no insurance.)

Screenshot 2017-09-19 06.04.36

“Like the earlier version of the Cassidy-Graham plan, the revised plan would disproportionately harm certain states. The block grant would not only cut overall funding for the Medicaid expansion and marketplace subsidies but also, starting in 2021, redistribute the reduced federal funding across states, based on their share of low-income residents rather than their actual spending needs. In general, over time, the plan would punish states that have adopted the Medicaid expansion or been more successful at enrolling low- and moderate-income people in marketplace coverage under the ACA,” the CBPP reports. So by 2026, the “20 states facing the largest funding cuts in percentage terms would be Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. These states’ block grant funding would be anywhere from 35 percent to nearly 60 percent below what they would receive in federal Medicaid expansion and/or marketplace subsidy funding under current law.”

A lot to like in Alaska, right? Murkowski said she is undecided until she sees the Congressional Budget Office assessment. She told CNN: “I will use the governor’s words,” Murkowski said, referring to Alaska Gov. Bill Walker. “He said, ‘I understand that a block grant gives me increased flexibility, but if I don’t have the dollars to help implement the flexibility, that doesn’t help us much.’ So, we are both trying to figure out how those dollars fall.”

Graham-Cassidy plan continues the 100 percent reimbursement to states for patients served by the Indian Health Service and it adds an increase in the federal match to 100 percent for medical assistance provided by non-Indian Health Service providers for tribal enrollees. The idea is more American Indians and Alaska Natives should take their business away from IHS facilities. Let’s be clear about this: It would drain resources away from the Indian health system.

This bill would also allow tribes to set up group plans to buy insurance for tribal members to replace the Medicaid expansion. “Creates new optional coverage group as of January 1, 2020 for members of Indian tribes up to 138% FPL in states that had expanded coverage as of December 31, 2019, who were enrolled in Medicaid as of December 31, 2019, and do not have a break in eligibility of 6 months (or a longer period specified by the state).”

So in summary this bill would not add any new resources to the Indian health system. But it would cut funding significantly (again, remember Medicaid).

The last Senate Republican plan failed by a single vote. It’s likely that Arizona Sen. John McCain will end up being a “yes” this time around (the state’s governor is giving him cover, saying it’s a good plan). However Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says he’s now a “no.” In his mind this plan does not repeal the Affordable Care Act. Susan Collins remains a likely “no.” If those positions stay the same, then this bill’s fate could end up being decided by Senator Murkowski.

Is there anything in this legislative gem that improves health care in Alaska? No. Does it improve the Alaska Native medical system? No. The Indian Health Service? No. Then why is she even considering this vote. It should be an easy no. Again.

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota. He is an independent journalist and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. On Twitter @TrahantReports

Reposting or reprinting this column? Please credit: Mark Trahant / TrahantReports.com

 

 

 

 

 

IMG_6170.JPG

Quinault President Fawn Sharp, Manitoba NDP Party Leader Wab Kinew, and former Rep. Victoria Steele (Photos via Facebook, campaign)

Voting on a climate plan and a tax

Mark Trahant / Trahant Reports

There are two ways to impact public policy through the ballot box. First, people can choose to run for elective office. And, second, ballot initiatives can shape public policy.

The Quinault Nation in Washington is “gearing up for another strategic move to influence state policy,” Tribal President Fawn Sharp said. And that influence might come in the form of a 2018 ballot initiative on climate change that would include a steep carbon tax.

“We hope a citizen driven initiative will be a catalyst for other states to follow as we believe that’s the only path forward given the extent to which corporate interests influence our political institutions,” Sharp said. “What a narrative it will be when the First Stewards occupy the current leadership void in climate policy and influence the U.S. in a pivotal move from the grass roots level.”

The twist in this story is that another group in Washington has been promoting a similar initiative. But that measure left tribes out of the discourse. And the differences are not about style, but substance. Quinault wants to be certain that the tax raises enough money to invest in salmon recovery, forest restoration, and improving water quality.

The News Tribune in Tacoma said The Alliance for Energy and Jobs proposal would dedicate some 70 percent of a billion dollar fund to clean energy projects and only 30 percent to clean water and forest health. The Alliance said it did not do a good job of engaging tribes but there is “no final proposal.”

However Sharp said time is of the essence — so Quinault is moving quickly on its own plan. It will reach out to other tribes at the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians’ meeting in Spokane this week. Sharp is president of ATNI.

The Quinault Nation has a unique view of climate change. It’s an immediate threat. The tribe is planning the relocation of Taholah village to higher ground because of flooding and storm surges. Some 660 people live in that village.

Imagine what a climate fight that’s based on tribal values would look like. One where salmon, forests, and children take center stage.

Ready to fight back in Arizona

 

Former Arizona State House Representative Victoria Steele was a candidate for Congress in 2016. Now she’s set her sight on a state Senate seat representing Tucson (legislative district 9). The current senator in this district, Steve Farley, is a candidate for governor.

“Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that the Republican leaders in our country would turn on the people. It is hard to fathom how nasty and ugly things have become with the Trump Administration’s sexist, racist and dangerous agenda. No group of vulnerable people is exempt from their destruction,” Steele said. “I’ve noticed that when the Trump Administration and the Republicans in Congress can’t do their dastardly deeds in D.C., they push them to the states where Republican controlled legislatures do it for them one state at a time. I have to do something, so I’m rolling up my sleeves and I’m ready to fight back.”

As a state representative, Steele successfully built a coalition to add money into the state budget for Mental Health First Aid. And, during her second term, her campaign said that “out of the 1,000 bills introduced into the Legislature during this last term, only eight of those that passed were Democratic bills ─ and two of those eight were Representative Steele’s bills.”

Steele is Seneca. She is a former award-winning reporter and TV news anchor. After a 25-year career as a television and radio news anchor, including positions at KOLD-TV, KNST and KFYI Radio, she began a second career as a mental health counselor. She is the State Legislative Coordinator and co-founder of the Tucson Chapter of the National Organization of Women. Steele is a public speaker, teacher and trainer experienced in presenting on Native American Culture, empowering women, and a variety of public policy issues.

Renewing the New Democrats

 

Wab Kinew has been elected to lead the Manitoba New Democratic Party. Kinew, is a best-selling author, broadcaster, Hip Hop artist, and a Member of the Legislative Assembly from Fort Rouge in Winnipeg. He is a member of the Onigaming First Nation in Northwestern Ontario.

As the new party leader he will lead the New Democrats into the next election in 2020, and, if successful, would be the person responsible for forming a government. (Think governor.) In 2016 the New Democratic Party lost after nearly 17 years in government when the Progressive Conservatives won 40 out of the 57 seats in the legislature. Kinew’s task will be to revive the New Democrats.

“I chose to stand for leader of the Manitoba NDP because I am motivated by the core values we share as New Democrats. Values like love, equality, and social justice,” Kinew said on his web site. “I am so proud to be a member of a party that looks like Manitoba in all its inclusivity, and that represents Manitoba values. With your support, I know I can lead the renewal of our party, build a team that will offer Manitobans a progressive alternative to Brian Pallister and help bring about a brighter day for people in our province.”

Kinew has been open about his personal growth and a past that includes criminal convictions as well as a pardon. On his web site he says: “When I hear about a young person who got in trouble with the law, who is told every day he has nothing to contribute, I think: I was you.”

Screenshot 2017-09-18 06.23.07.png

Pallister’s Progressive Conservative Party is the current provincial government. A tweet from the PC’s links to a roundup of stories about Kinew’s past, including domestic violence. (It even made the allegation look new by tagging a 2017 date to a 2003 story.) Kinew has talked extensively about his own history.

An opinion piece by CBC News said: “While such websites are now common fare in politics, it does suggest that the Conservatives are at least somewhat concerned  about Kinew.” The post concluded: “The NDP has its new leader, warts and all. Can Kinew rise to the challenges ahead? It would be foolish to think he can’t.”

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota. He is an independent journalist and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. On Twitter @TrahantReports

Reposting or reprinting this column? Please credit: Mark Trahant / TrahantReports.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o-BERNIE-SANDERS-facebook-750x400.jpg

Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed “Medicare for all” bill would fully-fund the Indian Health system for the first time in history. (Senate photo)

Mark Trahant / Trahant Reports

Bernie Sanders is expected to introduce his version of health care reform, a plan he calls “Medicare for all.” At least fifteen Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors to the single-payer plan.

“This is where the country has got to go,” Sanders told The Washington Post. “Right now, if we want to move away from a dysfunctional, wasteful, bureaucratic system into a rational health-care system that guarantees coverage to everyone in a cost-effective way, the only way to do it is Medicare for All.”

Sanders’ bill has no chance in a Republican Congress. Yet the Vermont Independent (who caucuses with the Democrats) is adding to the richness of the debate. He is showing a clear alternative to Republican plans (the latest is one by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, and Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana.)

But Indian Country should take note. Sanders bill would fully-fund the Indian health system. Let’s do the math. The current budget for the Indian Health Service is $6.091 billion dollars. And of that, roughly $1.2 will come from Medicaid, Medicare and other insurance. This serves about 2.2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives in 39 states.

But if Sanders’ proposal for universal care were enacted every one of those 2.2 million patients would have funding from insurance. The national average for Medicare beneficiary is $10,986. The total: $24.191 billion. A four-fold increase (and this does not include appropriations, just insurance dollars). So if you include both, the total is roughly $30 billion.

This sound like an awful lot of money, right? That big number reflects what other health systems already spend. So actually it’s the ideal demonstration of just how underfunded the Indian Health Service is under current law and insurance schemes. This is what a fully-funded Treaty Right looks like.

Of course some of this can be done now, even without Sanders’ bill. Many people in tribal communities are posting on Facebook exactly how to sign up for Medicaid (the government insurance program that so many in Indian Country already qualify for.) They are doing this as an act of defiance, because the Trump administration has recently quit advertising the program and is not actively promoting sign-ups.

But, again, let’s do the math. If every American Indian and Alaska Native was eligible for Medicaid that would net the Indian health system about $7.211 billion (instead of the $1.2 billion from third-party billing now). I actually think this is a more realistic number (even under a Sanders’ plan) because it does not include some of the spending by Medicare (and for that matter, Medicaid) on senior citizens. The national average for Medicaid is a modest $3,278 for an adult and for $2,577 average for children. The total for IHS would be in the neighborhood of $15 billion. More than double what is spent now.

Either Medicare or Medicaid: This is what full funding looks like. And a Treaty Right fulfilled. Finally.

Speaking of children, the Senate has reached a bipartisan deal in the Senate to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Plan or CHIP. This insurance plan covers 9 million young people through Medicaid. The program is set to expire at the end of the month unless Congress acts and then President Donald J. Trump signs a new legislation into law.

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota. He is an independent journalist and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. On Twitter @TrahantReports

Note: A correction was made to the original post.   Sen. Bernie Sanders is an independent. 

 

 

IMG_3057.jpg

Mark Trahant / Trahant Reports

Indian Country Today, a national voice for Indian Country, went dark while its owners look for a new buyer or a new business model. The “press,” even a “digital press” is the story.

It’s true that most tribal leaders have been annoyed by media, including tribal media, from time to time. It’s the nature of our roles. When we in journalism are at our best, we’re independent. And tribal leaders have a different charge; to govern. That sometimes puts us into conflict — at least a little bit.

But in the long arc of history both roles are crucial. In fact: Some of the best days in Indian Country occurred during periods of a vigorous and independent press. And, at the same time, some of our darkest days took place when there were few national voices.

To be blunt: An independent press is a pain in the ass. Especially for tribal leaders. But the alternative, darkness, is far, far worse.

One such period was the Indian Removal Era.

The Cherokee Nation was one of many tribes that had an independent press in the 1830s as it was facing the challenge of President Andrew Jackson and ultimately the removal from tribal homelands.

The editor of The Cherokee Phoenix was often at odds with tribal leaders. In 1832 he resigned as editor because  he believed he could not do his job properly. His duty, as he saw it, was to “reflect upon the dangers with which we are surrounded; to view the darkness which seems to lie before our people – our prospects, and the evils with which we are threatened; to talk over all these matters, and, if possible, come to some definite and satisfactory conclusion.”

This is a simple definition of the role of the tribal press, an instigator of discourse. The power of the tribal press, then, should follow once the people have reached a definite and satisfactory conclusion.

The evils faced by the Cherokees during Boudinot’s time were among the darkest, but they were not the only dangers before us.

I am interested in the pattern suggested by Boudinot: the warning of dark clouds, followed by community discourse, and, if possible, a community-based satisfactory conclusion.

The issue Boudinot wanted debated – the federal government’s desire to relocate the Cherokee Nation – was about as dire as can be imagined, but other schemes have, to varying degrees, also threatened the very prospect of Indian survival.

Consider how some fifty years ago many tribes were faced with removal in a political context – termination. There were a few voices of dissent from tribal media, including a newspaper published at Menominee. But the voices were primarily local.

In 1952 there was no national Indian newspaper or medium of any kind.

So it wasn’t huge news when Congress enacted House Resolution 108 calling for the termination of tribes that were “ready.”

And to get ready, various provisions were inserted into routine legislation that required tribal governments to prepare a plan to accept termination. Imagine that. As part of your government’s regular funding stream, the tribe would need to prepare documents planning termination.

This would have been a great story; had there been a national Native press.

One of the tribes ordered to prepare a termination plan was the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington state. A termination plan was required in order as part of legislation that included title to tribal lands lands. Most tribal members probably didn’t think much about termination – at least at first – but in the decade that followed pro-termination supporters gained support of the tribal business council, telling tribal members that termination would mean a sale of all the reservation’s assets and a distribution of those assets to tribal members. In other words: folks were promised they would be rich.

Beginning in the early 1960s, U.S. Senator Henry Jackson, a Democrat from Washington, introduced Colville termination bills only to be blocked by the House of Representatives. And, at the same time, a pro-termination tribal business council built up a solid majority.

In October 1966, the tribe asked its members this question:

“Do you favor termination and liquidation of the tribal owned reservation assets at a fair value with the proceeds distributed equally to the members of the tribes?”

The result was one-sided: More than two-thirds of the membership approved of termination.

The Colville people, then, had gone on record for termination.

Chairman Narcisse Nicolson, Jr. said it was time for the Colville people to end their relationship with Washington, to stop taking money from the BIA, and to terminate the reservation.

He said the case was clear because “with only a relatively few exceptions, the tribal families of today are self-supporting.” He added, “Lack of employment, to the degree that it exists, is largely due to character faults which cannot be cured by paternalism.”

In Washington, D.C., BIA Commissioner Robert L. Bennett, even though he was personally opposed to termination, said he would “honor and carry out any decisions that are made by the people of the tribe, whether or not this may be in agreement or disagreement with what may happen to be particular policy of the Bureau.”

The stars seemed aligned. Think of the players on board:  Tribal members, its governing body, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Even the Congress was set. Senator Henry Jackson could be counted on to introduce the Colville termination bill again; this time, some thought, it followed by House enactment.

We can only imagine what it must have been like: Every major political force, the state, a powerful senator, the tribal council, and, perhaps, even a majority of tribal members, all wanted termination.

Only someone forgot to explain to Lucy Covington and her allies that it was a done deal.

In 1966 when that membership poll was taken, Covington was a minority member of the tribal council along with Frank George, Paschal Sherman, and a few others.

There were many voices challenging the wisdom of termination.

One of the tools that she used in this fight: A tribal newspaper. She started “Our Heritage,” a newspaper with the mission of informing tribal members about the issues. She would lead a quiet campaign to quiet what she called “the present fever and fervor for termination.”

And like Standing Rock, there was national call put out for writers, cartoonists, and journalists to come (at their own expense) to chronicle this important moment.

Chuck Trimble once wrote why he went. Covington “enlisted me after I gave a brief talk on the birthing plans of the American Indian Press Association at the 1970 NCAI convention in Anchorage, Alaska. She asked if I would come to Colville and help put together a newspaper. She made no offers of compensation for travel and expenses. The Press Association was not yet established and there were no funds for travel or anything else; so I went at my own expense. And when I arrived in Spokane where she met me, she sat me down in a room at the Indian Center there and told me what she expected of me. She wanted a newspaper that would tell what a tribe means to its people, and its true worth to them in terms of land, natural resources, and most of all their cultural heritage. She wanted the newspaper to be called Our Heritage, and she even described the logo she wanted for the masthead. It would be a pair of hands holding together the shape of the Colville Reservation. The logo would signify that the future of their reservation, indeed their nation, was in the hands of the people, not in the U.S. Government or the State of Washington, or anyone else.

“I was not familiar with what termination of a tribe entailed, and how it was carried out. I thought the U.S. Congress unilaterally determined that a tribe’s unique trust relationship with the Federal government would be severed, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs would execute the congressional order. When I learned that the tribe, through its elected leaders, had to approve the dissolution of their own nation, and that a majority on the existing Colville Council was forcefully behind the measure, I felt disheartened. Gaining an anti-termination majority on the Council meant internecine warfare, and Indian against Indian was always mean and messy.”

But Trimble wrote — and he drew cartoons. And Our Heritage was published.

Our Heritage profiled candidates opposed to termination and reported on the legislative battles in Washington about the advancing termination bills.

The anti-termination side won on May 8, 1971. Nicholson was defeated in his district, Omak. He was replaced by a council member who was opposed to termination, joined by a new majority of like-minded representatives.

Mel Tonasket, then-thirty years old, was the elected by the business council as the chairman. The new business council called for more federal support, closed a reservation lake to outsiders and voted to take back law enforcement powers that had been ceded to the state of Washington.

The new council also went further, claiming the inherent power of a government through an affirmation of tribal sovereignty.

And even a longtime supporters of termination reversed course. Sen. Jackson, a Democrat from Washington, in 1972 introduced a repeal of the termination resolution and recast himself as a champion of tribal governments and Indian people.

The dark clouds of termination almost ended the Colville reservation and that tribe’s unique relationship with the federal government (something that did occur in dozens of other tribal communities).

But the danger of termination was identified by both the tribe’s political leadership and the press. This fit Boudinot’s model: A description of the dangers, followed by community discourse, until a satisfactory conclusion was reached.

I recall a tribal politician speaking at the National Congress of American Indians. I am not sure who he was nor where the meeting was but I remember him identifying the tribal news media as “war correspondents.” This image stuck with me because it is so telling: Tribal political leaders identified us as soldiers in the defense of Indian country. Our work is important when we serve that war effort, helping to defeat the enemy. But that metaphor suggests that when journalism moves closer to home, when we do stories that aid the enemy, then not so much.

“Our Heritage” fit this notion perfectly. The newspaper had one purpose: stopping termination. And, at the beginning of the termination era there was no national Native press. But at the end, when tribes won, the press was actively helping tribal citizens reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Perhaps one of the reasons why I remember that NCAI speech about “war correspondents” was because of when it was given in the late 1970s. This was a time when most tribal governments truly felt under siege, it was the era the “backlash” era.

And it was a story that most of us working for tribal newspapers tried to fully cover.

“So strong is this threat and so pervasive is its national presence that Indians are referring to it as ‘the new Indian war.’ Its sources, most observers of the national Indian scene agree, are the results of that very progress; in particular, the long and significant train of court victories in the 1970s upholding tribal rights,” wrote Hopi journalist Rose Robinson from Washington, D.C. “Whatever its sources, white backlash is, by every measure, the major concern of people today.”

The backlash was promoted by organizations with names that suggested a noble calling: South Dakotans for Civil Liberties; Montanans Opposed to Discrimination and the Interstate Congress for Equal Rights and Responsibilities. These groups defined American Indians as “special citizens” who, because of treaty rights, were getting a better deal than the rest of the nation. A book, “Indian Treaties: America’s Nightmare,” was sent by the group to members of Congress, the secretary of Interior and other Washington officials. “The liberal treatment of minorities has reached unheard of proportions in denying equal rights to all citizens of our so-called democracy,” a brochure for the book said.

“Sportsmens (sic) – organizations – fishermen – hunters – land owners – commercial fishermen and just plain tax paying citizens who have just about had it with Indian take-overs make up the membership of ICERR.”

The backlash was a nationwide movement that discounted two centuries of federal-Indian policy. “That the Indians’ claims are being given any legitimacy at all is nonsensical,” wrote a columnist in the Boston Herald American about the land claims in Maine. “Whatever happened 200 years ago, the culprits were not the current land owners, so there is no justification for punishing them.”

“After so many quiet years, what has got into the Indians?” asked a two-page essay in Time. “Probably no other country would take quite so seriously land claims that propose, in effect, the impossible rolling back of history. The inherent absurdity of such a proposition might be clearer, say, in a suggestion that Australia be handed back to the aborigines. …Congress should be able to be fair without suffering the delusion that the country can really be given back to the Indians. The time for that passed forever with the vanishing of the pioneers who took it from them.”

HR 9054 page 1-250w.jpg

The movement had one goal: abrogate treaties. These efforts were on two legislative tracks: The first was led by a U.S. Rep. Jack Cunningham, R-Washington, who introduced bills directly calling for treaty abrogation; and, the second track was more moderate legislation that was introduced by a U.S. Rep. Lloyd Meeds.  Meeds, a Democrat, was also from Washington state and his role was interesting because he had once been a supporter of tribes – even honored by the National Congress of American Indians for his work on the Hill.

The Interstate Congress dismissed Indians as “treaty Americans” or “first-class citizens” and it said it had no objection to “being treaty Americans or full-fledged American citizens, but we do object to them claiming both. “Until they decide what they want to be, treaty Americans or first-class citizens, but not both, they will feel the bite of the backlash, and it will get stronger until a more equitable solution is found.”

z010960.jpg

The Indian Country Today of that era was Wassaja, a San Francisco-based, national newspaper. Wassaja covered the annual convention of the anti-treaty group because it represented, “the first step toward abrogation.”

Wassaja – and most tribal newspapers – devoted lots of space and attention to the backlash movement. Tribal leaders saw the threat and worked to build coalitions to defeat the ideas behind the backlash, as well as their representatives in Congress.

Again, though, the dark clouds were identified and community discourse was disseminated through the native press. Indeed, the leaders of that era agreed with the label of “new Indian wars,” and even promised a literal battle if things proceeded.

Navajo Chairman Peter MacDonald Sr., for example, called for an emergency summit of all tribal leaders to develop a strategy. He said that if the backlash reached its logical conclusion, taking Indian people backwards, then Indians might return to waging war. “I don’t think anyone wants to go back to that situation.”

MacDonald’s rhetoric was harsh, but his position was not unique. He was joined on the effort in groups ranging from the conservative National Tribal Chairman’s Association to the American Indian Movement.

Discourse prevailed. Tribal leaders developed a successful strategy and their voices reached tribal and U.S. citizens. The national Native press was taking notes.

The termination era as well as the backlash era shared a language. Termination supporters wanted to “free the Indians.” The Interstate Congress proclaimed the goal of “equal rights.”

Of course in a large part what drove both of these efforts was competition over scarce natural resources. All of the tribes that were terminated had a resource that someone wanted  — often timber. And the so-called equal rights effort of the Interstate Congress were led by hunters and fishers who objected to the “preferential” rights of treaty hunting and fishing.

In both of these examples, too, there were characters willing to advance the ideas. Utah Sen. Arthur Watkins was the champion of termination. And the backlash had Jack Cunningham and Howard Grey (once identified in Wassaja as the “der Fuhrer of ICERR).

That leads me to the next threat: Slade Gorton.

Slade Gorton – who was again from Washington state – took the ideas of an early generation and led them to new, sophisticated heights.

Some context. It doesn’t take a lot of calculating to see that so much of this backlash and termination support came from Washington state. Why Washington? One reason was the intense battle for salmon fishing rights – and the favorable ruling by the federal courts.

Columnist John Mohawk wrote in another national publication, Native Americas magazine, that Gorton was “an anti-Indian activist all his political life. He fought against Indian treaty rights when he was attorney general for his home state, and he leads perennial attacks against Indian rights in the Senate.”

But unlike Cunningham, or even Meeds, Gorton developed a more sophisticated attack against tribal interests. He used his power as a Senator – and later as an appropriations committee leader – to limit how federal dollars might be used to support tribal rights.

He occasionally proposed radical rewriting of federal Indian law, advancing his idea that tribes were social clubs and not legitimate governments.

“Over time, Gorton settled into the style of the Senate, where tone trumps content most days of the week,” wrote Indian Country Today columnist Suzan Harjo. “He began using the scalpel more than the machete, but was ever-focused on his task: undercutting federal Indian law.  He was gaining surgical precision, along with seniority and clout on key committees for energy and natural resources, budget and commerce, science and transportation.

“After the 1996 election, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., announced that he would step down as chair of the Senate’s select committee on Indian affairs. Gorton was next in line for the job. The sound of alarm from Indian country was loud and effective. Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., interceded and Gorton withdrew in favor of Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Republican from Colorado, who became the first Native American to head the Indian panel.”

But Gorton continued his political attacks whenever and when ever he could be effective.

Here is where another difference emerges between Gorton and his predecessors, such as Jack Cunningham or Arthur Watkins. Instead of being a character in a larger drama, Gorton became the lead in the play.

An intertribal coalition built was launched to “Dump Slade.” And when someone said those two very words, nearly everyone in Indian Country knew exactly what was meant. Gorton was a modern-day Custer – and his defeat was essential for Indian Country’s survival. Gorton became the issue.

I remember a conversation I had with Joe Delacruz at an Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians’ meeting. He promised that Slade would be defeated. We’re raising money, we’re building a coalition, he told me, and we’re going to win.

Delacruz was right. The Dump Slade effort worked; Maria Cantwell was elected in his place.

And because Slade was the actor, the issue went away as far as tribal discourse was concerned.

But did Slade really go away? Well, if you think about him as a central character in a drama, then, yes, perhaps.

But what of his ideas? We face many of those same notions today. Even his idea that tribes are more like social organizations than governments was effectively advanced by the Supreme Court in decision after decision. Starting with the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist the Supreme Court quietly transformed Indian law. And not in a good way.

Another story I’d like to tell is from Alaska. The community of Point Hope had a huge problem in 1962. The United States government had this wacky idea of testing nuclear devices in their homeland. There was a removal plan. The government had decided that Project Chariot made sense and should go forward.

The Arctic Slope Native Association turned to a young Inupiat artist by the name of Howard Rock and asked him to start a newspaper. The Tundra Times was born in October 1962.

“He was the most soft-spoken man,” said reporter Tom Richards, who worked at the Tundra Times from 1968 to 1974. “But he had tremendous impact with just a few words.”

The Tundra Times followed Boudinot’s model perfectly. The paper warned about the dangers, the community came together and talked over these matters, and then reached a satisfactory conclusion. The Atomic Energy Commission’s Project Chariot was no more.

But Rock did not stop telling the story. He thought Alaska Natives ought to be a stronger, inter-tribal community. The newspaper’s masthead reinforced its vision of Native harmony that eventually led to the creation of the Alaska Federation of Natives. As AFN said: Rock, through his newspaper, unified Alaska Natives by “knowing the hearts and minds of the people.”

“Perhaps more than anyone else, he (Rock) helped weld together the frontier state’s 55,000 Natives for their successful years-long fight to win the largest aboriginal land claims settlement in American history,” wrote Stan Patty of the Seattle Times. He added that Rock was their voice; at times about the only calm voice when crescendos of dissent threatened to tear Alaska apart.

And that led — along with the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay — and to a modern treaty, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

Rock’s Tundra Times had a national voice. Its correspondent in Washington, Tom Richards, worked alongside other native journalists at the key moment in history. The Tundra Times was no cheerleader. It talked about the good of ANCSA and warned readers about some of the consequences.

“Let’s turn it around and look at the real situation,” Richards wrote. “The natives are being forced to give up their land under the traditional American principle of manifest destiny and all they’re asking is a fair shake.”

We lost the Tundra Times in on December 16, 1991. Its announcement said the board voted to “suspend publication” until a March meeting.

Suspensions, rarely result in a re-start. But the financial problems of Tundra Times were well known. The paper had been writing about its own challenges for some two decades. Its readers were familiar with the challenges.

That’s not the case with Indian Country Today. It’s darkness was a surprise, one that left little time to explore options from a broader civic community. This is a fail.

But that also brings me to Standing Rock.

As we all know, Standing Rock was a social media story. News was instant. Shared, reshared, and liked on Facebook.

It’s interesting some of the same elements from Standing Rock were present at Alcatraz or Daybreak Star or Frank’s Landing … but what was different was social media and a viral connection across Indian Country. Technology even played a role: A few months before Standing Rock Idle No More generated the same kinds of stories scattered first across Canada and then worldwide. But one explosive difference in Standing Rock and Idle No More was Facebook live. Someone could turn a camera on and generate an audience of thousands or even hundreds of thousands. We are all related, we are all connected.

Social media — well, Facebook — can even take credit for informing the President of the United States. A year ago tomorrow — imagine that — a year ago President Obama was asked about  the Dakota Access Pipeline and the #NoDAPL movement at Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative  town hall. This social media story popped the presidential bubble. It alerted him to an issue that he could no longer ignore.

A social media story to be sure. And important because we all remember the many, many stories asking, where were the mainstream reporters? Why was Standing Rock not the front page, network TV news story that was required? When a few armed protesters take center stage in Oregon and Nevada and it’s a big story; but when thousands of people come to stand with Standing Rock …  it’s only occasional news.

So it was a social media story.

But here’s the thing. If you go back and look at the many social media stories the ones that were the most shared, the most liked, and most respected, were stories generated by the press, and often that was Indian Country Today.

The reason is clear and easy: No one had to explain to editors at Indian Country Today why it was a story. As one editor told me: “We knew we had to blow out our budget for this one.”

Early on Valerie Taliman was on site working with reporters and letting them know that Indian Country Today was going to extraordinary lengths. I have counted more than a dozen bylines on this story, including my own. Jenni Monet was compelled to leave a teaching post and write full time from here. And to this day she faces criminal, legal peril for her reporting — something that should never be allowed in a country with First Amendment protection. “Congress shall make no law … “ yet a prosecutor in Morton County is doing just that, making up a law.

This was a story of a generation — and Indian Country Today answered. 

But it’s also a story without an ending. The newspaper helped tribal citizens across the country consider the darkness before us and the evils with which we are threatened. It helped us talk over these matters. But we still have a lot of work to do before we come to some definite and satisfactory conclusion.

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota. He is an independent journalist and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. On Twitter @TrahantReports

Reposting or reprinting this column? Please credit: Mark Trahant / TrahantReports.com

(This is a speech Mark Trahant gave to the Tribal Leaders Summit September 6, 2017, in Bismarck, North Dakota.)

 

 

 

Screen Shot 2017-09-07 at 9.06.38 AM

President Donald J. Trump in North Dakota on Wednesday talking about his tax reform plans. (WhiteHouse.Gov)

Mark Trahant / Trahant Reports

Big news: The rest of the year will have less drama than the ups and downs we’ve been experiencing since January. The federal government will more or less operate on schedule, the federal debt limit fight has been pushed back to the end of the year, and President Donald J. Trump has successfully reached out to Democrats.

What a week. When it began, I wrote: “Congress is back today and one of two things will happen: It will either do its work or all hell will break loose.” But I was off. It wasn’t exactly Congress doing its job, it was the president. He bypassed his own Republican party leaders (catching them off-guard by all accounts) and struck a deal with Democrats in the House and Senate to fund government for the rest of the year and push the debt limit fight back until December.

This is exactly what the president should have been doing all along. This is governing. It means, for now, at least, that he’s reaching out to the majority in Congress (moderate Republicans plus the Democrats) instead of catering to the far right wing of the party. It’s smart politics. But it’s also dangerous because his action undermined both House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. If it’s a one-time event, Ryan and McConnell will get over the snub. But if this is the new way of doing business, well, then, there will be a different kind of drama ahead.

There is also movement this week on the Republican plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. According to The Hill newspaper, John McCain now favors legislation proposed by Senators Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, and Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana. This plan would push more of the decision making about health care to the states through block grants. It would even let states keep many aspects of the Affordable Care Act such as Medicaid expansion, as long as they’re willing to pay for the extra costs. That’s a deal breaker.

The problem for the Indian health system in such a scheme is that states neither understand nor want to invest the resources required. The ideal scenario would be for Indian Country to be a 51st state and get funding directly. But that’s not a part of the legislative proposal.

This bill would have to be considered fast under Senate rules. The current set-up is to vote on a replacement plan using the budget reconciliation process. That only requires 50 votes instead of the more common 60 vote standard (to interrupt a filibuster). The Senate parliamentarian has ruled that reconciliation goes away on Sept. 30 unless there is a new budget in place. That’s unlikely.

Another health care issue that impacts Indian Country is the reauthorization of the Children’s Health Insurance Plan or CHIP. The current law expires Sept. 30. It pays for the insurance of 8.9 million children through Medicaid. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that “Medicaid plays a more expansive role for American Indian and Alaska Native children than adults, covering more than half of American Indian and Alaska Native children (54%) versus 23% of nonelderly adults.” CHIP would be included in that number.

CHIP also pays for school programs and other health care outreach efforts. The federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare said: “In 2014, CMS awarded $3.9 million in CHIPRA grants to engage schools and tribal agencies in Medicaid and CHIP outreach and enrollment activities. Grantees included Indian Health Service organizations, tribal health providers, and urban Indian health providers across 7 states.”

Important stuff. We need another presidential deal with Democrats. Quickly.

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota. He is an independent journalist and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. On Twitter @TrahantReports

Reposting or reprinting this column? Please credit: Mark Trahant / TrahantReports.com

 

 

Screenshot 2017-09-05 06.36.33.png

Trahant Reports

Congress is back today and one of two things will happen: It will either do its work or all hell will break loose.

Crazy thing is Hurricanes Harvey and Irma could help Congress stay on task. The federal reaction will be costly and money will need to be appropriated. On top of that, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says Congress should tie Harvey funding to an increase in the debt limit. Conservatives don’t like that idea at all. But are there enough Republicans (along with Democrats) to make it happen anyway.

The agenda is a tough one: Federal spending must be set by September 30 and we could hit the debt limit sooner rather than later (because of all that emergency spending). My recent post on the potential of a shutdown. 

The Associated Press reports Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, saying, “People need to know there’s some stability here. We’re not going to have to worry about defaults, we’re not going to have to worry about government shutdowns, these guys are all grown-up, they’re adults, and that ought to be the aim.”

Indeed. That ought to be the aim.

I will be posting later this week as events unfold.

Meanwhile, I am speaking Wednesday in Bismarck at the Tribal Leaders Summit sponsored by United Tribes Technical College. I will talk about the federal government, media history, Standing Rock, and Indian Country Today’s hiatus.

Later in the week I’ll be at the Native American Journalists Association and Excellence in Journalism conference where I will be exploring journalism and the health care debate.

And, be sure to take a listen to my Trahant Reports election special for Native Voice One.  We’re now a year away from an awfully important election. — Mark Trahant

History_03_2016_Waite.jpg

The editor Elias Boudinot described The Cherokee Phoenix as “a vehicle of Indian intelligence.”

Mark Trahant / Trahant Reports

A memo to the publisher (either to the next owner of Indian Country or to any news operation that’s going to serve that readership now.)

First question you have got to ask yourself is “Why?” Why are you doing this?” Odds are you will lose (or my word, invest) a lot of money. There are good reasons, but they have nothing to do with the financial enterprise. Those reasons might range from providing a real service to Indian Country to creating jobs. Howard Rock, the legendary founder and editor of The Tundra Times, once called it “an unselfish venture.”

Yet this is an essential venture. There is no chance that stories important to Indian Country are going to be covered by mainstream media. Oh, perhaps, once in awhile. But nothing systemic. It comes down to this: No one has to explain to an editor of a Native publication why it’s a story. That can only happen in a medium that serves American Indian and Alaska Native readers.

But money has to be part of the equation because it gives you independence. And independence is critical to your success. And, yes, the business model has changed — and will change again. Right now the best business model out there is a hybrid nonprofit, profit operation. I think of the Tyee in Vancouver. It’s web site is well organized. It delivers news through a variety of channels. The first thing you see on its page is a pitch: “Canada needs more independent journalism. Become a Tyee builder.” These days journalism needs people who are willing to write a check for no other reason than the good work you will do. Give them a reason.

My other favorite thing about the Tyee. It has a fellowship for writers. So in addition to paying people for stories, it gives a fellowship through its nonprofit arm for writers to work on a longer story. A few months, a year? No problem. Time to investigate. Time to write. Best of all, time to think.

There are three things a news organization must do to serve readers better.

First, there has to be a visible editor. There is a reason the hiring of an editor at The Washington Post or The New York Times is a front page story. Editors bring their personality (even their quirks) into a newsroom. They set standards. An editor is an evangelist for the mission.

A Cherokee editor, John Rollin Ridge was the founder of The Sacramento Bee. He divided newspaper editors into “true editors” and “apologies for editors.” True editors, he said, must know “everything” and must carry a vast “fund of general information, for there is not a subject which engages men’s minds, in whatever range of science or literature, upon which he is not peremptorily called to write.” Ridge was also clear about what that meant. The Bee should be independent instead of a paper where the editors were “nothing more than the sneaking apologists of scoundrels who pay them for the trouble of lying.”

Another version of that story was told by Ora Eddleman, whose family owned The Twin Territories and the Muskogee Daily Times where she later worked as a wire editor: “There’s nothing like a newspaper newsroom to give you a well-rounded education.” She was a true editor.

Second, tell us what’s important. Every story is not the same. There should be a method for determining what’s important. And the medium then tells its readers. Yes, it’s easy to post stories that get a lot of clicks. But that’s not news. News is something that informs and once in a while, inspires. We are better citizens when we are informed. Elias Boudinot had the best phrase when he was editing The Cherokee Phoenix. He called it “a vehicle of Indian intelligence.” Exactly.

Third, set high standards and be transparent. Hire talented people and then trust them to do their jobs. Be open. No news organization can effectively do its job when its operations are invisible. Make clear who does what with a masthead. Perhaps publish a monthly, or at least an annual report, including numbers. Where does the money come from? What are the costs of business? What’s the overall health?

I have buried (or been around a burial) of many news organizations in my time. And most died without warning. I found out about the Seattle P-I on a ferry; a TV station broke the story. Let people know what’s going on, and, surprise, surprise, they will help.

One more thing: About that why.

This is a moment in history where the free flow of information is critical. Indian Country needs a vehicle of Indian intelligence. As Elias Boudinot wrote in 1832 (as he was losing his editorship of The Cherokee Phoenix) “I do conscientiously believe it to be the duty of every citizen to reflect upon the dangers with which we are surrounded; to view the darkness which seems to lie before our people— our prospects, and the evils with which we are threatened; to talk over all these matters, and, if possible, come to some definite and satisfactory conclusion.”

That is why.

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota. He is an independent journalist and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. On Twitter @TrahantReports

Reposting or reprinting this column? Please credit: Mark Trahant / TrahantReports.com

 

Screenshot 2017-08-29 06.18.28.png

Mark Trahant / Trahant Reports

Nearly every Native American journalist in the country can tell you what our national media ought to look like. We’ve all closed our eyes and dreamt the ideal news vehicle. We know what stories need to be told. And some of us have tried to make that dream so. Most of the time we are unsuccessful.

Yet there have been beautiful moments.

One of those moments was the 1970s-era American Indian Press Association. It was a news service based in Washington, D.C., and Albuquerque, N.M. Its reports were typewritten, photocopied, and mailed to tribal newspapers across the country. The press service produced remarkable journalism. Then AIPA’s first news director, Richard LaCourse, Yakama, set high standards for craft.

Charles Trimble wrote about AIPA for Indian Country Today: We “wrestled with the concept of objectivity and truth, when those ideals might come in conflict with what may be seen as Indian interest or just cause. The issue came to a head during the AIM occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973 when some of the ideologically-motivated colleagues in AIPA were said to have abused AIPA press cards for other than reportorial purposes. AIPA was quick to issue a policy statement to its members. That document had the solid gold ring to it of Dick LaCourse’s ethics and strong writing.” Trimble, Oglala Lakota, was principal founder of the American Indian Press Association in 1970 and its first executive director.

But the journalism, the stories, are only a part of the enterprise. There is also the business. How do you pay for what you do? Or better, how do you pay for what you want to do?

AIPA had no clear path in that regard. It was not a non-profit, so it could not raise serious money from foundations. And neither tribes nor tribal newspapers could support its operations. It closed its doors in 1975.

One of the great AIPA scoops came after its demise. LaCourse had gone to work as editor of the Confederated Umatilla Journal in 1976. But his Washington sources were still deep and he uncovered a memo from the Office of Management and Budget laying out a strategy to “work the federal government out of the Indian business.” The idea of the memo, written by Harold Borgstrom, was that self-determination should “lead to the eventual cessation of special Federal Indian programs.”

There was a roar from Indian Country. The memo was shelved. LaCourse (and journalism) had a beautiful moment.

But LaCourse, like so many of us, always wanted that next great Indian vehicle for news. He was back in Washington in the early 1980s working to raise money for a serious publication sponsored by the Council of Energy Resource Tribes. He told me that he wanted something like The Wall Street Journal with deep reporting about economics and energy issues. The CERT Report was published, and did some good work, but it never reached LaCourse’s lofty ideas.

Along the way several national publications have come and gone. I published a magazine “Indian Youth.” Then there was “NATIONS,” which billed itself as a news weekly. I think there were three issues. Or my favorite, the beautiful magazine, “Native Americas,” that was published by Cornell in the 1990s.

But the intractable problem is that a newspaper, magazine, or digital web site needs millions of dollars and time. It’s hard to get both, at least at the same time. The successful enterprise requires defying gravity.

Indian Country Today became a national publication after Tim Giago rebranding his very successful Lakota Times and began hiring freelancers, opened a Washington Bureau, and at one point, had editions printed across the country. (Giago is being honored this year for his legacy by the Native American Journalists Association.) Then in 1998 Giago sold his paper to the Oneida Nation of New York.

This was interesting because Giago had championed private ownership of the media. Giago’s career has been defined by his independence.

But I suspect his thinking was a tribal owner would have deeper pockets and could transcend the problem of money and time. And with Indian Country Today you can make that case. There was a lot of excellent reporting done over the years.

But the money and time paradox did not go away. In 2011 Indian Country Today became Indian Country Today Media Network, a digital publication. Then, not long ago, Indian Country tried another direction, returning to print with a magazine. I’ll admit: I immediately subscribed hoping that it would work.

But print in any form is a tough business. I can only imagine how much it cost. So it’s not a surprise to learn that Indian Country is moving into hiatus status this week (a scoop by Victor Rocha’s Pechanga.Net) while it looks for a buyer. That’s not likely when you’re not publishing because the value drops the instant you stop creating. Hard truth.

Indian Country still has remarkable talent and media outlets. Rocha’s Pechanga.net is a digital peek at the day. Indianz is a must read for breaking news. And there is Native News Online.

The problem is that none of these vehicles have deep pockets. That means there is little or no money for the writers, photographers, and artists, who create content. And that’s what we need: Money for ideas. A fund that values writers no matter where their content surfaces.

It’s great that social media broadcasts what we write to a larger audience. But articles that are researched, vetted, edited, get the same traction as pieces that are invented.  We need to support serious work — and Indian Country Today for all its faults did just that.

Then, one survivor in the Native media world is News From Indian Country. It’s private. Independent.  It’s profitable. (Disclosure: I own a few shares and I serve on the board.) And, it’s small. News From Indian Country works because it keeps expenses in check. It still serves print readers (although much fewer than a few years ago) has an online presence and uses YouTube and other social media to get its stories out in new forms.

If time and money are the two big challenges, there is a now a third one, change. The media world is changing so fast that it is nearly impossible to develop and execute a strategy. Media companies all around the world are trying to figure that one out. And if and when they do … the landscape changes again.

I’ve seen this firsthand with Trahant Reports. My content is free so it can be used by any media. My goal is to get serious public policy discussions in front of tribal citizens and I figure the best way to that is to let every publication have access. (So even competitors run the same story.) But I am only one person so it’s not a lot of material compared to a news organization.

It’s easy to examine any news organization and see how things could be different. We think: There are a hundred ways Indian Country Today could have made it. And that’s just as true when I look at my own failed media enterprises — and I have a check list of those — and then I think “if only.”

If only we had more money for creators. If only we had more funders. If only … never mind. There will be new media enterprises. And new failures. Along the way there will be beautiful moments.

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota. He is an independent journalist and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. On Twitter @TrahantReports

Reposting or reprinting this column? Please credit: Mark Trahant / TrahantReports.com

 

%d bloggers like this: