Copyright © 1998 NLThomas
All Rights Reserved

A shorter, edited version of the following was published in the Spring 1998 issue of News Watch, an international publication that provides “a critical look at coverage of people of color,” published by the Center for Integration and Improvement of Journalism, San Francisco State University, funded by the Ford Foundation. Reprinted by permission.

           The rich history of Native American journalism that began in 1828 with the publication of the Cherokee Phoenix in New Echota, Ga., has been marked with struggle and conflict. In the 19th century, the Cherokee press was attacked and destroyed on more than one occasion, initially because of stories about the U.S. government’s forced removal of the Cherokees to Indian Territory, now Oklahoma. Today, the Cherokee press is enduring another assault as Principal Chief Joe Byrd of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma is denying information about his attack on the Cherokee Constitution to more than 185,000 tribal members by controlling the content of the Cherokee Advocate. Under previous chiefs the Cherokee Nation was viewed as a model for self-governance, but Byrd’s tactics seem to be modeled after those of third world dictators as he has tried to terminate every Cherokee official charged with enforcing Cherokee law, as well as the Advocate editor.

           Ironically, tribal members must now rely on non-Indian newspapers like the Muskogee (Oklahoma) Daily Phoenix for accurate coverage of their tribal government, which has prompted charges of “negative publicity” by Byrd. He cannot control the Phoenix, and efforts to control Advocate content were only moderately successful until my lay-off in July 1997.

           From February 27, 1996, until July 30, 1997, I served as editor of the Advocate and Cherokee Nation public affairs director. The previous day, I learned five staff members and I would be laid-off. The layoffs followed months of tension between the staff and Byrd, whose administration has been marked by allegations of financial misconduct, federal investigation, lawsuits and outrage from many Cherokees over his attempted removal of the tribe’s Judicial Appeals Tribunal, an act comparable to a U.S. President attempting to fire the U.S. Supreme Court.

           The Advocate tried to provide relatively balanced coverage of the crisis in spite of the copy review and edits by Byrd’s executive staff. I refused to make some of those changes because I was committed to providing accurate information to the Cherokee people about their tribal government. That appears to be the actual reason for my lay-off.

           Although the crisis became public on Feb. 25, 1997, when Cherokee Nation marshals served a search warrant on Byrd’s administrative offices for financial records, the seeds for the crisis were planted a year earlier. For months, some council members had repeatedly and legally requested tribal financial documents from Byrd, but he refused. Of particular concern was the payment of more than $700,000 in fees to a law firm, primarily to one of the firm’s attorney’s who is the brother-in-law of Byrd’s wife.

           After the search, Byrd fired the entire marshal service. Within months, the tribal prosecutor was fired after she had reviewed the records obtained in the search and filed charges against Byrd for obstruction of justice and allegedly misappropriating nearly $88,000 in tribal funds.

           The crisis escalated in April 1997 when Byrd initiated an interpretation of the Cherokee Nation Constitution, changing the requirement to conduct business as a council from the required quorum of 10, or two-thirds of the 15-member council, to a simple majority of eight. Byrd’s eight supporters on the council voted to begin the impeachment of the Judicial Appeals Tribunal, and voted to ask the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take over the tribe’s law enforcement.

           Later that night, 44 Cherokees, including former Chief Wilma Mankiller and some tribal employees, signed as plaintiffs in a lawsuit contending the meeting was illegal due to the lack of a quorum. The Cherokee Tribunal held for the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, Byrd has continued to defy the court, hiring his own police force and tribal judges.

           Before my layoff, the Advocate provided front-page coverage of the crisis in what I consider relatively mild terms, given the conduct of the Byrd administration. A comparison of the two issues published under my direction immediately prior to my lay-off to two issues published since provides insight into the real reason for the lay-off and the reason I have not been asked to return.

           The March-April 1997 issue led with the front page story, “Tribal Powers Pitted Against Each Other In Controversy,” a 36-column inch summary of the crisis. The lead story on page one of the May-June issue, “Constitutional Crisis Continues, Issue Moves To Federal Court,” was a 31-column inch summary. Both stories were reviewed by Byrd’s executive staff, who changed some copy that they considered negative toward Byrd.

           The first two issues published after my layoff mention the crisis only in the inside pages. A 4 ½-column inch story on page three of the July-August issue, headlined “Chief Byrd Reports Compromise May Be Reached Soon Over Tribe’s Controversy,” was outdated, having been released six weeks earlier, prior to a June 20 takeover of the Cherokee Courthouse by Byrd’s security force. There was nothing about the takeover or any other events that had occurred since the previous issue. Conversely, the Muskogee Phoenix and other area newspapers provided extensive coverage of those events.

           The September-October issue contained the complete text of a tribally-commissioned report on the crisis. The report had been released to the public weeks earlier and was extremely limited because the panel members were unfamiliar with Indian law and gave no consideration to events that preceded the search warrant.

           This obvious difference in the Advocate before and after the layoff is evidence of Byrd’s desire to control what is published in the tribal newspaper.

           Further, the intent of the layoff was evident when I was told on the eve of my last day of work that the administration had been assessing the department and its mission since the search warrant was served, and the mission was being changed.

           Media queries followed, and after discussion with my former staff, I decided to limit my statements regarding the layoff until it was certain that the staff would get all their benefits and entitlements. Soon thereafter, the lay-off of the staff was canceled, and they have continued to produce the Advocate under Byrd’s direction, excluding information about the crisis. Meanwhile, the Byrd administration put its spin on the situation.

           Lisa Finley, Byrd’s spokeswoman, told the Muskogee Phoenix, “We’re changing the mission and scope of the department.” She said the Byrd administration wanted more focus on positive news. “We’d like to see it more newsy than programmatic, but there is no intention of making that newspaper political.” She told another publication, “The layoffs have nothing to do with what’s happening politically. This is strictly a reorganization of the department.” Her comments indicate a naivete about public affairs and tribal newspapers that seemed to pervade the Byrd administration. In fact, Byrd told me before I took the job that he did not want the Advocate to be political. In a meeting with him in December 1995, he said, “We have nothing to hide,” emphasizing “accountability.” Although tribal newspapers are always political to some degree, due to funding through tribal councils and tribal chiefs, I felt reassured that the Advocate would cover all sides of all issues impacting on the tribe. Also, despite Finley’s assertion, tribal newspapers invariably require programmatic information because many tribal members are served by tribes’ various programs.

           Byrd’s message of accountability, which I believed when I took the job, has turned into one of denial and control. Since the crisis began, he has tried to put a positive spin on his political maneuvers in response to allegations of Cherokee law violations. Apparently, he did not believe he was getting “positive coverage” when I was editor, ignoring the fact that positive public affairs is producing positive stories about positive things, not positive stories about negative actions.

           My lay-off is only a small part of the devastation Byrd has brought on the Cherokee people. More importantly, 185,000 tribal members are being denied accurate information about the crisis in their Advocate and must rely on non-Indian media coverage for the truth. That coverage reaches a small fraction of tribal members.

           Byrd’s view of the crisis and the Cherokee people was revealed in a statement he made, according to council member Barbara Starr-Scott, during a meeting with BIA officials to negotiate an end to the crisis. She reported that Byrd said that Cherokees are not interested in the constitution as long as they get their commodities and services. Nothing about the meeting has appeared in the Cherokee Advocate. Under Byrd’s administration, it never will.