The Brownstein/Soma scandal... it's what people are talking about in the online comics community. The situation has no doubt made a mess of the lives of the two people at the heart of the story, and that's unfortunate. But that people are talking about something other than Marvel's Civil War PR campaign or the deluge of new titles DC is releasing in the coming months -- that's a good thing.
The problem is that too many people are talking about the wrong aspect of the story. The story isn't what did or didn't happen in Columbus in November 2005 in the waning hours of an alcohol-laden fete gone awry. It isn't about determining the character of Charles Brownstein, Taki Soma or any other party connected with the incident. It isn't about the potential damage to the most-beloved non-profit organization in the comics industry.
The story isn't even about the larger issue of sexual harassment and attacks in the industry and at conventions -- though that issue merits discussion and greater awareness.
No, the real story at the heart of this matter is comics journalism. It's not easy to see that at first. There's a lot of material to wade through, and it takes some patience and calm reasoning to get to that point.
This story began as the result of poor journalism, and it's culminated in some of the finest journalism I've seen from the industry. Therein lies the value in this situation (though I'm sure it's little comfort to Brownstein, Soma et al) -- the online comics community has been provided with something of a barometer by which to judge the efforts of those who write about comics and about the people who love the medium.
When Ronee Garcia Bourgeois first reported her version of Soma's story in her online column, it's clear that many readers were quick to villify a faceless villain. Even after it was revealed that the unnamed individual from the story proved to be the well-respected Brownstein, some were still quick to judge.
From a young age, we're trained to see things in black and white. We want a clearly identifiable good guy, bad guy and moral to our stories, fictional or otherwise. Brownstein is not the villain in this story, and neither is Soma.
To be blunt, the villain, if there is one, is Bourgeois.
I know that comes off as harsh. It's also an oversimplified answer to an oversimplified scenario of white hats versus black ones. The term "villain" can carry with it the notion of malicious intent, and I certainly don't think any outright malice is to be found in this situation. Every villain considers himself or herself a hero in his or her own story, after all.
Bourgeois's initial columns about the Mid-Ohio incident were one-sided. Now, the author's bias was clear, and it would be reasonable for readers to assume there was much more to the story than what was initially presented. Bourgeois's writing was full of passion for her cause, and it's commendable that she set out to right what she perceived to be a significant wrong. It also seemed to boast all of the planning and reason of an angry, torch-bearing and pitchfork-wielding mob.
I'm not out to demonize Bourgeois. This is no personal attack. She had a juicy story to tell and a cause in which she believed. As a journalist, I can relate to the sort of fire that can spark within a person. But as a journalist, she also had a responsibility -- to her subjects, to her readers and to herself -- to make some effort to cover as many bases as possible before issuing a call to action.
Bourgeois isn't the only one who abdicated that responsibility. Jon Haehnle is listed as the "producer" of popcultureshock.com and Buzzscope, so I assume he's the man in charge, the editor-in-chief/publisher, as it were. I know Jon from my time as a staff writer with Psylum, the company that owned psycomic.com; Jon was a designer/graphics guy with Psylum, and I know that his passion for pop culture is without equal. Management bears responsibility for publication as well, and if some sort of civil action were to arise as a result of Bourgeois's writing, his ass would be on the line as much as Bourgeois's.
There is also talk that Soma was unaware her comments would turn up online as fodder for Bourgeois's column. One could criticize the columnist for that, but it would not only be premature to do so. Just as it was premature for Bourgeois to declare war on her then-anonymous target, we have to realize that we don't have all the facts -- and we may never have them -- regarding Soma's awareness of what might have been on or off the record.
As disappointed as I was in the Buzzscope approach to journalism on this story, I was heartened to see a spotlight shone on the right way to report a story. The Comics Journal and Newsarama posted thorough and thought-provoking articles this week that demonstrated a balanced approach to fact-gathering, analysis and opinion. Furthermore, several bloggers -- chief among them, Tom Spurgeon and Johanna Draper Carlson -- have approached the story calmly, offering excellent insights.
I find it easy to tell the cream of the crop in online comics journalism from more amateur efforts, but there's no way for it to be apparent to all.
There's another lesson to be learned from this scenario, and it's that the comics community is a small one. It always has been, and given the power of online communication, it's only grown smaller and closer.
As a professional journalist, it's my opinion, based on what information that's been offered thus far, Soma's story should not have been written. Potentially positive aftereffects have occurred -- such as the controversial Friends of Lulu Empowerment Fund or the possibility that other women might be willing to deal with troubling incidents of a similar or more egregious nature -- but most people would agree that the ends do not justify the means.
When not writing about comics, Don MacPherson is a courts/crime reporter for a daily newspaper. He will post new reviews next week.
