Nieman 80: Journalism That Makes a Difference
How are great journalists made? Often, it's pieces of great journalism that help form them, influencing their lives or careers in an indelible way. To celebrate the Nieman Foundation for Journalism's 80th anniversary in 2018, we asked Nieman Fellows to share works of journalism that in some way left a significant mark on them, their work or their beat, their country, or their culture. The result is what Nieman curator Ann Marie Lipinski calls "an accidental curriculum that has shaped generations of journalists"—a collection of 80 articles and investigations, books, photos, cartoons, podcasts, virtual reality installations, and more, works that have endured long after Niemans first read, listened, or viewed them. Niemans reflect on the 80 pieces of journalism that have influenced them most.
One of the defining moments of my journalism career came when I read “The Great Tax Giveaway” by the legendary Philadelphia Inquirer reporting duo Don Barlett and James Steele. I was in graduate school at the time, and although the series had been written a decade earlier it resonated with me in a way that few other stories had before or since and would become a template in forging my own work.
[sidebar style="right" head="Nieman 80" deck=""]
More Nieman Fellows on exemplary journalism that influenced them[/sidebar]
The series tackled the massive, 1986 overhaul of the federal tax code, unearthing obscure provisions in the Internal Revenue Code that benefitted specific, wealthy individuals as well as corporations. Tax laws, like budgets, are moral documents. They gauge the sentiments of a society, and here were two dogged reporters exposing the underbelly of a political class that curried favor with the wealthy while praising itself for its sense of right and wrong.
The overhaul “reaches deep into our national sense of justice—and gives us back a trust in government that has slipped away in the maze of tax preferences for the rich and powerful,” said Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a political titan from my hometown of Chicago who would later spend 17 months in prison for mail fraud.
The series taught me two things: First, the power of effectively wielding irony in investigative stories—holding up two opposing ideas to expose hypocrisy. Lawmakers said the tax overhaul was fair; Barlett and Steele showed it wasn’t. The second thing the stories taught me was that it is possible to tackle subjects of great importance even if, on the surface, they appear dry. Tax law might sound mundane to some, but Barlett and Steele captured its vital importance, revealing it as a reflection our values.
[sidebar head="The Great Tax Giveaway: How the Influential Win Billions in Special Tax Breaks" Deck="By Don Barlett and James Steele
The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 10, 1988" style="full"]
Excerpt
Imagine, if you will, that you are a tall, bald father of three living in a Northeast Philadelphia rowhouse and selling aluminum siding door-to-door for a living.
Imagine that you go to your congressman and ask him to insert a provision in the federal tax code that exempts tall, bald fathers of three living in Northeast Philadelphia and selling aluminum siding for a living from paying taxes on income from door-to-door sales.
Imagine further that your congressman cooperates, writes that exemption and inserts it into pending legislation. And that Congress then actually passes it into law.
Lots of luck.
The more than 80 million low- and middle-income individuals and families who pay federal taxes just don’t get that kind of personal break. Nor for that matter do most upper-middle-class and affluent Americans.
But some people do.
[/sidebar]
[sidebar style="right" head="Nieman 80" deck=""]
More Nieman Fellows on exemplary journalism that influenced them[/sidebar]
The series tackled the massive, 1986 overhaul of the federal tax code, unearthing obscure provisions in the Internal Revenue Code that benefitted specific, wealthy individuals as well as corporations. Tax laws, like budgets, are moral documents. They gauge the sentiments of a society, and here were two dogged reporters exposing the underbelly of a political class that curried favor with the wealthy while praising itself for its sense of right and wrong.
The overhaul “reaches deep into our national sense of justice—and gives us back a trust in government that has slipped away in the maze of tax preferences for the rich and powerful,” said Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a political titan from my hometown of Chicago who would later spend 17 months in prison for mail fraud.
The series taught me two things: First, the power of effectively wielding irony in investigative stories—holding up two opposing ideas to expose hypocrisy. Lawmakers said the tax overhaul was fair; Barlett and Steele showed it wasn’t. The second thing the stories taught me was that it is possible to tackle subjects of great importance even if, on the surface, they appear dry. Tax law might sound mundane to some, but Barlett and Steele captured its vital importance, revealing it as a reflection our values.
[sidebar head="The Great Tax Giveaway: How the Influential Win Billions in Special Tax Breaks" Deck="By Don Barlett and James Steele
The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 10, 1988" style="full"]
Excerpt
Imagine, if you will, that you are a tall, bald father of three living in a Northeast Philadelphia rowhouse and selling aluminum siding door-to-door for a living.
Imagine that you go to your congressman and ask him to insert a provision in the federal tax code that exempts tall, bald fathers of three living in Northeast Philadelphia and selling aluminum siding for a living from paying taxes on income from door-to-door sales.
Imagine further that your congressman cooperates, writes that exemption and inserts it into pending legislation. And that Congress then actually passes it into law.
Lots of luck.
The more than 80 million low- and middle-income individuals and families who pay federal taxes just don’t get that kind of personal break. Nor for that matter do most upper-middle-class and affluent Americans.
But some people do.
[/sidebar]
