In defense of Rhonda Bodfield

by David Safier

I almost always agree with what AZ Blue Meanie writes and always admire both his style and the depth of his commentary. However, I sometimes — not often, but sometimes — take exception to his tone. This is one of those times. I think his criticism of Rhonda Bodfield in a recent post was excessive.

I've taken my share of hits at the Star and will continue to do so, possibly even today (at Rob O'Dell's soft article Thursday on Brewer's botched Rio Nuevo appointments compared with his slam of the City Council for thinking about raising property taxes between $2 and $12 a year on a $200,000 home). But I've generally praised Bodfield's talents as a reporter. When I've been critical, it's been of a specific article, not of her reporting in general.

When Bodfield had the education beat, I thought her articles combined information and depth. They had the facts, and they went beyond the facts to give background and context I benefited from. The times she erred were when her articles condemned some "big spending" move by TUSD that had more to do with reorganization than added expenditures. At times like that, I felt she was doing the bidding of the publisher and editors whose motto for TUSD and the City Council seems to be, "Make it bleed so it leads, and put the bloody knife in the Supe's or the City Council's hand." The paper does a disservice to its readers in its unbalanced coverage of our schools and city government, and it troubled me when Bodfield's articles participated in the unreasonable negativity. I criticized articles like that in the past and tried to correct their slant.

Bodfield assumed the political beat at a time when the Star's right wing stance was hardening. Like AZ Blue Meanie, I had hoped she would move us toward a more balanced coverage of the political scene. That hasn't happened. Her coverage isn't much different from Scarpinato's before her.

You can say the Republican political scene is more entertaining right now than the Democratic scene, so naturally, it gets more coverage. But they're always more entertaining, because they're not restrained by facts or by any need to keep what they say within reasonable bounds. The circus is more entertaining than an open lecture at UA as well. "Crazy" is more entertaining than reason. But a good newspaper whose purpose is to put the local and national political scene into its proper perspective doesn't give one point of view more coverage just because it can make more clowns climb out of a VW than the other side.

Before Bodfield had a chance to get her feet on the ground in her new political beat, she was already covering the circus at a paper whose conservative-leaning editorial climate had taken firm hold. I think she has failed to strike the necessary balance. I fault her for not standing outside the chaos of the newsroom and looking at what's going on from the vantage point of a quality journalist. She has taught at UA. She understands this stuff. If she were outside looking in, she would see what's going on more clearly. I daresay she might even be critical of her own reporting. But she's in the pressure cooker, having to produce ever more copy at a paper whose staff is cut to the bone and whose publisher is pushing a strong conservative agenda.

This clearly isn't a whole hearted endorsement of Bodfield's work. You can say I'm damning her with faint praise, or maybe praising her with faint damns. But with someone of her caliber, I would prefer to point out specific instances when I disagree with her coverage rather than criticize her more roundly.

I hope that as the political season heats up, Bodfield will find a way to balance her coverage, both in quantity and quality. And I hope, when necessary, she will fight the good fight against any publisher's and/or editors' attempts to slant her reporting.