News to Me

Funny man Gene Weingarten's tips for getting by as a journalist

2009-12-11T12:39:00.002-05:00

Amid the holiday season of layoffs (The New York Times sharpens the knife after 74 take buyouts) and publication closings (Editor & Publisher ends its 108-year run) comes a breath of funny air from The Washington Post's Gene Weingarten. He reveals the secrets of today's journalism that will make you laugh and cry, especially if you're in the industry and recognize the hint of truth behind each disclosure.

Want vs. need in news consumption

2009-12-08T11:35:00.003-05:00

Rupert Murdoch has a column in today's Wall Street Journal that raises interesting points about the structure of news businesses, charging for content, and the pros and cons of government involvement in media regulation and subsidization. But there is one little paragraph that struck me especially:

First, media companies need to give people the news they want. I can't tell you how many papers I have visited where they have a wall of journalism prizes—and a rapidly declining circulation. This tells me the editors are producing news for themselves—instead of news that is relevant to their customers. A news organization's most important asset is the trust it has with its readers, a bond that reflects the readers' confidence that editors are looking out for their needs and interests.

Although I see his point, I worry about what constitutes the news people want, especially in the opinion of a man whose varied media interests include the tabloid-ish New York Post, the biased Fox News Channel and Fox Broadcasting Co., which has been known for quality programming such as "Temptation Island."

Of course, Murdoch's News Corp. has plenty of quality in the offing, too, by way of the Wall Street Journal and shows like "The Simpsons" and "House." But if what people want as news is every sordid detail of Tiger Woods' personal life as opposed to every detail of the Obama administration's plan for Afghanistan, I do worry about the future of the American brain.

As in the marriage of smut and decency found in News Corp.'s products, there must be a way to merge the two in a healthy way for news organizations. If only I knew how to do it...

'Daily Show' catches Fox using old footage to embellish story

2009-11-12T09:40:00.004-05:00

I continue to worship at the altar of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." Last night, my husband said we had to watch Tuesday night's show because he'd heard the crew makes a good catch that embarrasses Fox News. Sold. We watched and indeed the error was huge. Fox used old footage to make a weekend rally seem much larger.

What's more, Sean Hannity, whose show the clip was used on, admitted the wrong and even credited Stewart and his team with the find.

Here's "The Daily Show" clip:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Sean Hannity Uses Glenn Beck's Protest Footage

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Here's Hannity's response:

Headliners at The Onion: Peeling Back the Skin

2009-11-03T14:16:00.004-05:00

The pressure is on with this blog post. How do you write about The Onion on a level worthy of its humor? I'm not sure so I won't bother trying. For an interesting behind-the-scenes peek at how The Onion works, check out this article in The New York Times.

Barking up the wrong tree with journalism?

2009-11-02T10:42:00.003-05:00

There are few better signs that the journalism industry is going to the dogs than the craigslist ad I see every so often under the "writing/editing jobs" section of the D.C. site. "PET LOVERS WANTED" the teaser states. Thinking it's a publication looking for someone to write about pets, I inevitably click on it only to find out it's a Bethesda, Md.-based dog-walking company looking for people to walk dogs. Interestingly, the ad asks that applicants be able to commit to the job for at least six months. That's more job security than many journalists get!

Journalism gets hoax-y

2009-10-29T11:05:00.004-04:00

I have said before that the race to be first rather than correct is dangerous. It's always nice to have your beliefs reinforced -- even if it comes at the cost of the reputation of the industry in which you work. That's what I have been finding this week. First I read an Associated Press article about how often news organizations have been duped during the fall season. The biggest hoax was balloon boy, of course.

The main missing ingredient in every case was, as the story says, "a heavy dose of skepticism." By getting information out too quickly, without enough research, news organizations run the risk of starting urban legends. And no matter how much they correct the wrong info later, there are plenty of people who've already bought into the original story. Heck, that's why Web sites like my beloved Snopes exist.

In sorta kinda related news, a documentary called "Starsuckers" takes a look at celebrity journalism (as in tracking celebrities, not journalists who morph into celebrities), namely those who appear regularly in the British tabloids. Read more about the movie here and then go add it to your Netflix queue, right under "The September Issue," documenting Anna Wintour, editor of Vogue.

With balloon story, media full of hot air

2009-10-16T21:13:00.003-04:00

In the biggest non-news of the day we have the story of the 6-year-old boy who scared America on Thursday when everyone thought he was trapped in a concocted hot-air balloon that somehow got loose from its tethers in the boy's backyard. I say "everyone" because it was on all the news stations and home pages of every news outlet's Web sites. As we all know now, the boy, Falcon Heene, was safe and sound the whole time -- in the attic of his parents' home.

When I saw this "breaking story" -- and indeed, it is broken -- yesterday, I thought, "That's a shame if the boy's in there. But why is this such big news?" Happy to find out he was safe, I still wondered, "Who besides his family and friends cares?"

This morning I was innocently eating some cereal while NBC's "Today" show was on and there they were, ready to talk more about the biggest non-news event I can think of at the moment. The segment began with Meredith Vieira talking about the Heenes' appearance last night on CNN's "Larry King Live." It was during that interview that little Falcon said he didn't come out of hiding even when he heard people shouting for him because "we did it for the show."

And therein lies a sliver of news. If the whole thing was a hoax, shame on the Heenes and their insatiable desire for 15 minutes of fame. (They also were on the enlightening TV show "Wife Swap.") But the media should feel the most ashamed for letting this balloon (pun intended) into a circus act. I've used this space before to ask the media to turn the investigation on themselves and I use it to do that again. Who cares why the family pulled a hoax, if they did? And why is that more deserving of coverage than actual news?

For examples, see these two exemplary videos from the greatest American media man out there today:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

CNN Leaves It There

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Ron Paul Interview

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Queer and Loathing in D.C.

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Ron Paul Interview

Jon Stewart might be the only person deserving of both a Pulitzer and an Emmy.

Journalists can't find jobs

2009-10-12T12:54:00.002-04:00

The New York Times has a really depressing story about twins who graduated 17 months ago from Rutgers University and moved to New York City -- aka media mecca -- only to find they cannot get jobs in the industry. They've sent a combined 150 resumes and tried innovative self-promotion techniques like playing music in the subway in exchange for business cards rather than money.

As I read the story, I couldn't help but wonder, "What's wrong with them?" In other words, there's gotta be something about them that makes them unappealing to employers. I don't know what their GPAs were in college, but they seem like interesting, engaged and hard-working women. Then I wondered if maybe they are going for the wrong gigs, but of course aside from the few opportunities the Times listed, I don't know what they are applying for.

I think the bottom line is it is just incredibly difficult to get a journalism job these days. I have friends in the D.C. area who are about ready to shoot resumes out of cannons in an effort to blanket the city in job applications. I am interested in seeing how the journalism job market evolves in the next few months and even years.

Enrollment up at J-schools

2009-09-22T15:05:00.003-04:00

The job market might be in the toilet, but enrollment in journalism graduate and undergrad programs is on the rise. Why? "Journalism schools are also trying to give students the tools they need to invent new models of the profession." The schools are teaching students multimedia skills to make them more marketable and more capable. When I went to the University of Florida for my bachelor's degree in journalism, the specialties were segmented into reporting, editing, photography, etc. I took the editing route, and although I still took several reporting classes, I also took newspaper design and copy editing classes. I was also required to take photography. The thinking was (and still is, it seems) the more you know about the various aspects of what goes into a paper, the better you'll be at editing.

But the Web was just beginning to emerge as something interesting, and I took a Web site design class as an elective. Now students learn to blog, tweet and do video just for the Web. It will be interesting to see what the new grads come up with.

Did WP kill story for being too depressing?

2009-09-15T17:22:00.003-04:00

Today in how not to get published in The Washington Post, we have this story about a freelancer whose piece slated for Washington Post Magazine was killed for being too depressing. It was a story about a woman who underwent a quadruple amputation, losing all her limbs. Depressing for sure. But it could have also been uplifting: The writer said he "was taken by 'her sense of humor and her spunk and her strength.'"

Although Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth didn't ax the piece herself, she is rumored to have said the story sounded too depressing (although she had not read it yet) and that led to a chain of events that eventually landed the story on the cutting room floor. Her main concern appears to have been advertisers, whom she said prefer happy articles.

I understand the desire to keep advertisers on your side, but that should not be a factor in killing a legitimate, well-written story.

Vanity Fair on Washington Post

2009-09-07T21:43:00.002-04:00

Back from vacation and now swamped with work -- you know, the writing I get paid to do -- so I make no promises to resume daily blogging until the end of the month, when things might slow down again. Meanwhile, I did want to mention Vanity Fair's story about The Washington Post. It's an interesting look at the paper and its longtime owners, the Graham family. (If you haven't read Katharine Graham's autobiography, "Personal History," I highly recommend it, especially if you like feeling like you've done nothing with your life.)

11-year-old interviews Obama, talks future career

2009-08-20T10:52:00.002-04:00

From the mouths of babes come the most entertaining and frank comments. An 11-year-old Florida boy named David Weaver interviewed President Obama on Aug. 14 and has become something of a sensation since. Time magazine has a great Q&A with Weaver, who answers with short but honest responses about his experience with Obama and his plans for the future.

A few excerpts:

"At the end of the interview you asked Obama to be your homeboy, and he said yes. How does it feel?
It feels good. It feels the same, though."
"How about education? What do you think his priorities should be?
I think that he should change the school lunches.
"You told him you wanted mangoes on the menu, right?
Yep. Fries and mangoes."
"Your interview with the President has been viewed more than 400,000 times on YouTube. Did you expect that?
Not in the first week."

Obama provides fodder to Fox, Stewart

2009-08-19T10:59:00.003-04:00

When Barack Obama won the presidency, the media wondered what that would mean for Fox News on one side and Jon Stewart on the other. It turns out the right-leaning Fox News is faring just fine. In fact, its ratings put it at No. 2 for all cable networks last week. It's no surprise that having a liberal president with a nagging, politically charged issue like health care is giving Fox plenty to work with.

It might be slightly more surprising to some to learn that Stewart, host of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and a longtime Obama fan, is not cutting the president any slack. When the great orator fumbles, Stewart is there to point it out. And when Obama moves off point, Stewart is quick to the draw there, too. See the clip below as an example.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Heal or No Heal - Medicine Brawl

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Healthcare Protests

That I am a fan of Stewart and his show is no secret. I think it is worth mentioning that the man who makes others eat their words is probably a bit hungry himself. See, he has always maintained that his program is not a propaganda machine for the left and that his job is to point out inequities no matter where they come from. Thanks, Jon, for staying on message.

Parallels between 1943 novel and today's journalism

2009-08-18T22:55:00.004-04:00

I'm reading "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand, which was first published in 1943. A section of the book -- Part 3: Gail Wynand -- caught my attention especially. In the novel, Wynand is a newspaper and media magnate who rose from nothing to become wealthy, revered and feared. I picture him to look akin to Rupert Murdoch.

As media empire builders sometimes do, Wynand started his with a single paper in New York City called the Banner. The Banner is quite yellow. It lavishes attention on lowest common denominator kind of stuff, and rumors swirl that Wynand creates news just to print it. Now I picture William Randolph Hearst, his New York Journal and the controversy over the Spanish-American War. (Hearst is alleged to have told a photographer, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war.")

Here are a few of the standards on which Wynand operates his paper:

"The public asked for crime, scandal and sentiment. Gail Wynand provided it. He gave people what they wanted, plus a justification for indulging the tastes of which they had been ashamed."
"It overstressed the glamour of society -- and presented society news with a subtle sneer."
"The Banner was permitted to strain truth, taste and credibility, but not its readers' brain power. Its enormous headlines, glaring pictures and oversimplified text hit the senses and entered men's consciousness without any necessity for an intermediary process of reason, like food shot through the rectum, requiring no digestion."
"'News,' Gail Wynand told his staff, 'is that which will create the greatest excitement among the greatest number. The thing that will knock them silly. The sillier, the better, provided there's enough of them.'"

That last one is my favorite, although I am also very partial to the rectum similie.

Can't help but draw some parallels between Wynand's brand of news and today's offerings, right? Certainly shows like "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" call to mind the idea of creating excitement.

The bit about society glamour also strikes me. Think about how much we love our entertainment news (myself included). There's nothing quite like seeing a star rise and nothing quite like seeing a star fall flat on her Diane von Furstenberg-clad derriere. On the one hand, we get hope -- hey, he did it, so could I -- and on the other we see celebrities are still mere humans.

It's possible to see some of today's journalism in each of Wynand's standards, and although Rand describes his paper -- really his chain of papers -- as wildly popular, I don't condone embracing his business model. I write this blog post merely because I found the similarities with today so intriguing.

Journalists looking for work find it at AOL

2009-08-17T11:49:00.003-04:00

AOL, not long ago the laughing stock of the media world for its failed merger with Time Warner and its loss of paid subscribers, might be having the last laugh when it comes to producing content. According to this New York Times story, AOL has been snapping up laid-off journalists and giving them jobs at its 80-plus Web sites.

But The Times is a little late to pick up on this story. BNET, part of CBS Interactive, had a piece July 30 titled "Is AOL on a Mission to Save Journalism?" TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington wrote about AOL's tally of 1,500 writers on July 29. The next day he proposed a way to save The New York Times -- by having the top writers quit and form their own news source, not unlike what happened with Politico.

The interesting thing is the way journalists are adapting and even the way established companies like AOL are (finally) evolving. As always, it's not the medium but the journalism that matters.

The Middle East, according to a Fox News map

2009-08-12T21:54:00.004-04:00

Today from the Cringe Department, we have this TV-screen grab from Fox News Channel. Man, the shortage of copy editors is apparent. Unless there was a huge break in the war on terrorism that I missed in which Egypt overtook Iraq, claiming it for itself.

Blog on Gators QB set up for first down or fumble?

2009-08-11T22:11:00.006-04:00

As a University of Florida alumna, I root for the Gators every chance I get. So, when I spied an article on newyorktimes.com about a man who is devoting a blog to Gators Quarterback Tim Tebow, I couldn't click fast enough. But before I finished the first paragraph, I got to thinking: This could be dangerous.

See, Dan Shanoff, a blogger with another sports Web site, created the Tebow site to be what Shanoff calls hyper-topical blogging. This means that the blog is all Tebow all the time. First, is there enough information on the guy to sustain that? Perhaps when college football season gets under way (the Gators kick off during Labor Day weekend). But isn't a hyper-topical blog kind of stalkerish? Or if you prefer a more diplomatic term, paparazzi-ish?

Another thing I wonder: Will Shanoff be all up in Tebow's grill? In other words, how's he going to collect his info? Will he be there in the locker room at halftime or post-game? Or is the info going to come secondhand, filtered from other published reports, as many blogs -- this one included -- are wont to do?

Shanoff addresses that question in the NYT piece by saying he will "bring a veteran journalist’s sensibility for credible, thoughtful analysis," but he adds that he will be mostly watching the games from home.

So far, the Tebow blog has plenty of posts but no comments. Perhaps that will change with the Times' publicity, but what will be most interesting is how successful Shanoff's experiment in hyper-topical blogging is. I'm also unsure of how experimental it is. A quick Google search for "Brad Pitt blog" returned a result for Pitt Watch, which keeps close tabs on Brangelina.

No ads yet on the Tebow blog, but I suspect Gatorade will be calling Shanoff soon.

Olbermann, O'Reilly nothing more than gluttons for ratings

2009-08-10T13:02:00.005-04:00

I've been mum on the executive-ordered ceasefire between MSNBC's liberal Keith Olbermann and Fox News Channel's conservative Bill O'Reilly mainly because I don't watch either channel (or much TV news at all, if I'm to be totally transparent), and I don't care for their drama-masquerading-as-news approach. Friday The New York Times reported that the truce has ended because folks at Fox say Olbermann overstepped his boundaries by calling O'Reilly a "racist clown." Today the Associated Press has a story about General Electric, the parent company of MSNBC and NBC, calling reports by O'Reilly that the company supplies terrorists with explosives materials false.

Out of all that, you know what I wonder? What would happen if these two "journalists" worked this hard at actual journalism? Sure, they would still be rivals -- for the Pulitzer.

What gets me -- even more than the immaturity of the two, who could learn something about etiquette on any given playground -- is the fact that I think the whole thing is a ratings spectacle. The crazier they sound, the more people tune in. Unfortunately, most are not watching for that entertainment value, though. Many people believe what they say. For proof, you just have to look at the many flare-ups attributed to O'Reilly's rants, the most violent being the May murder of Dr. George Tiller, who performed late-term abortions. (Note that you don't hear as much about negative behavior stimulated by Olbermann. Is it the liberal media bias or is Olbermann not as inciting?)

See, I am not convinced the men believe what they say. Washington Post and CNN media critic Howard Kurtz once told me that some of the most out-there cable news personalities used to be much more reasonable. He cited Ann Coulter in particular. This column in The Post shortly after Tiller's death leads me to think O'Reilly might be the same way.

Maybe I am naive and like Anne Frank, I want to still believe that people are truly good at heart. People like O'Reilly and Coulter and even Olbermann who feed their power by generating fear in others need to fade into the background. Where's Howard Beale when you need him, shouting, "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!"

Not a fan of Fox? Try The Nation

2009-08-07T17:49:00.004-04:00

Ah, the ultimate in modern information sharing: I am blogging to link to another blog. Every Monday through Friday I read mediabistro's fishbowlDC blog, and I was entertained by this item today. It shows the image of an ad to drum up subscriptions to The Nation magazine in which the publication takes a rather extreme stab at Fox News. If you weren't sure whether The Nation leaned left or right, this ad should clear that right up.

'Journalism' vs. 'reporting'

2009-08-05T13:55:00.003-04:00

The release of journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling from North Korea has people cheering, of course, but also talking, especially in the journalism world. A friend of mine brought my attention to an Associated Press story, via NPR, that discusses the safety of freelancing abroad.

The story quotes Marc Cooper, director of Annenberg Digital News at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication, as saying, "Journalism is no longer a closed profession. Whether people like it or not, it's open to everybody, increasing the number of people who are going to stick their necks out and they're going to get in a jam."

Cooper is right -- sort of. My problem with his statement is his use of the word "journalism" rather than "reporting." Journalism in its purest form is not open to everybody. Journalism, I believe, implies -- although it should explicitly state -- that there are layers of editing and fact checking happening behind the sharing of information. Therefore, "reporting" and "journalism" are not interchangeable; reporting is a part of journalism.

Yes, Cooper is right that people can report on anything from anywhere. But, as Cooper says, "there always have been young people ready to chase stories into dangerous places." Freelance reporters are not new concoctions. They just have more and new avenues to getting people to pay attention to their reports.

'Daily Show' highlights: Jason Jones in Iran, celebrity deaths

2009-07-02T11:24:00.005-04:00

I'm a bit behind in getting these links up, but "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" has some not-to-be-missed segments that aired this week and last. Going in reverse chronological order, I start with Stewart's "Rippies," invented awards to the news media for their "obitutainment," especially their coverage of Michael Jackson's death last Thursday.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Rippy Awards for Outstanding Achievement in Obitutainment

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

On a more serious note, the show sent correspondent Jason Jones to Iran for the presidential election there recently. Jones' work from Iran is brilliant. It shows a side of the country most Americans have never seen. He goes into a family's home to learn about their ways and finds out the kids enjoy video games and the parents don't wish death for Americans. Jones riffs on Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments by going into the streets of Tehran and asking Iranians to name high-profile Americans, such as the Speaker of the House, and to name U.S. presidents in descending order of their service. Then he asks people in New York City to name high-profile Iranians. The responses are surprising.

I'm not the only one who found a lot to learn and enjoy in "The Daily Show" pieces. GlobalPost.com ran a story yesterday praising both Stewart's show and "The Colbert Report," which recently filmed in Iraq.

Check out all of Jones' "Behind the Veil" series:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - The Kids Are Allah Right

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Ayatollah You So

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Persians of Interest

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Minarets of Menace

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

Covering M.J.'s death is no monkey business

2009-07-02T11:17:00.003-04:00

The media are nothing if not thorough. Thought you couldn't come up with a part of the Michael Jackson story that hadn't been dissected? Unless you wondered about the fate of his chimp, Bubbles, you'd be wrong. The intrepid and always newsworthy -- ahem -- CNN.com has made sure no stone is left unturned by interviewing Bubbles' new caretakers, the Center for Great Apes in Florida.

The center's director, Patti Ragan, explained the daily activities of Bubbles and his cohorts: taking naps, going in chutes, lying under a tree, grooming one another. See? You can put your mind at ease.

Oh, and if you thought Bubbles moved to his Florida retirement haven in the past week, since the King of Pop lost his fizz, that's not the case. Bubbles moved to the Sunshine State in 2004, after the California training facility he was residing at closed.

Perhaps my favorite quote of the piece: "'This was one of the most successful and wealthy individuals at the time he had Bubbles, and it was not even appropriate for him to keep Bubbles after a certain age,' Ragan added." Hmmmmm, any double meaning there, you think?

PETA takes swat at Obama over fly

2009-06-18T15:20:00.001-04:00

Clairvoyance is fun. PETA is indeed upset with President Obama for his mater fly-killing abilities. Check out the video, posted by none other than CNN.com.

Fly swat seen around the world

2009-06-17T17:44:00.006-04:00

At first I chalked it up to being CNN.com, a news source I check often and yet frequently curse (click here for an example). I mean, a video showing President Obama swatting at and killing a fly? That's newsworthy?

Thoughts rushed in: "Fawning much? Hey, media, know how you get that bad rap for being biased? I think this is why. Was there some sort of video-posting quota you had to reach today that you felt you'd never reach? What? Slow day in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or, I dunno, the United States?" and "Uh oh. There goes Obama's PETA vote in 2012."

But then the video popped up elsewhere, somewhere more respectable: washingtonpost.com. Et tu, WP? And on the same day that my Facebook feed showed users decrying the washingtonpost.com posting about its upcoming "Best Pet Tricks Contest." They ridiculed the site for having too little news if it has time for such triviality. Timing is everything.

With great fear, I searched nytimes.com for "fly." The first hit I got was a Caucus blog post about the video and with links to it.

What's more, this appears to be international news: The United Kingdom's Telegraph published something on-the-fly (ha!).

Clearly I would make a poor newspaper editor. My news judgment is way off.

Daily Show vs. NYT

2009-06-12T10:55:00.003-04:00

A month and a day after my last post, I return. I apologize for being a slacker and offer no real reason or excuse. Viva transparency!

I choose to make my comeback with a clip from a show you loyal readers know I love. Jason Jones of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" got inside The Gray Lady and made her squirm. Check out the five-minute clip of his time touring the offices and talking with editors, including head honcho Bill Keller.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

End Times

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Newt Gingrich Unedited Interview

The New York Times returned the favor by doing a Q&A with Jones, who takes a more deferential tone in the printed word. But the clear winner here is Jones and his "Daily Show" clip.

Mixing business and pleasure: a roundup

2009-05-11T23:46:00.002-04:00

I regret that a growing pile of work -- you know, the kind I get paid to do -- has kept me from blogging consistently lately. But there are a few good pieces out today that I don't want to let slip by. Pardon me for not getting analytical on you about them. You'll have to do that for yourself this time.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich looks at the ailing media in "The American Press on Suicide Watch."
Washington Post media critic (and Facebook status updater extraordinaire) Howard Kurtz lays blame in "Lack of Vision to Blame for Newspaper Woes." (This bit is of particular note:

Post Co. chief executive Donald Graham and Google chief executive Eric Schmidt and their lieutenants have been holding talks about a possible collaboration. This could range from creating new Web pages to technological tools for journalists or readers. Hanging over the talks is the reality that the search giant, while funneling vital traffic to news sites, vacuums up their content without paying a dime.

And for comic relief, The Washington Post's Gene Weingarten (close friend of funnyman Dave Barry) writes "Out with the Old," a funny column on journalists' lack of explanation for antiquated words, phrases and references.

Happy reading.

Senate, Amazon work to help newspapers

2009-05-07T14:07:00.003-04:00

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) began holding hearings on the state of the newspaper industry, as promised. Fearful of what a country sans newspapers would be like, Kerry suggested that the government provide tax breaks for newspapers or allow them to operate as nonprofits.

Meanwhile, Amazon is also offering a newspaper fix: a new, larger Kindle. The idea behind the bigger screen, according to this New York Times article, is to make it easier for people to read textbooks, documents and newspapers.

The Kindle DX, if a fix, will not come without a cost.

The device, called the Kindle DX (for deluxe), has a screen two and a half times the size of those on the two older versions of the Kindle, which were aimed primarily at displaying book pages. The price tag is larger, too: the DX costs $489, or $130 more than the previous model, the Kindle 2. It will go on sale this summer.

That's a good deal more than most annual newspaper subscriptions. Plus, having the DX doesn't give you carte blanche access to any newspaper's contents. Users will have to pay a subscription fee.

Three newspapers, The New York Times, The Boston Globe and The Washington Post, will offer a reduced price on the Kindle in exchange for a long-term subscription, but only for people who live in areas where their paper editions are not available. Amazon and the newspapers described it as a pilot program.

The high costs associated with the Kindle concern me in that the news will become something available only to those who can afford it rather than to the population at large. And the whole point of newspapers is to have an informed population. Sure, prices will decrease with time but at what true cost?

Senate to hold hearings on newspaper industry; bloggers macth lawyers in prevelence

2009-04-22T09:46:00.004-04:00

A Senate subcommittee plans to hold hearings on the state of the newspaper industry. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has scheduled a hearing May 6 titled "The Future Of Journalism" in the Commerce Committee's Communications, Technology and the Internet Subcommittee. Sen. John Conyers (D-Mich.) also called for a hearing titled “A New Age for Newspapers: Diversity of Voices, Competition and the Internet.”

The senators follow their colleague Ben Cardin (D-Md.) who introduced last month the Newspaper Revitalization Act.

Meanwhile, journalists perhaps need not despair. There's Web work aplenty. The Wall Street Journal reports, "In America today, there are almost as many people making their living as bloggers as there are lawyers." What that means for lawyer jokes remains to be seen.

Can good journalism survive without good newspapers?

2009-04-13T21:57:00.005-04:00

I love reading about intelligent people:

Recently, I enjoyed a refreshing and invigorating dinner with Walt Mossberg. While we casually discussed our most current endeavors and experiences, the discussion shifted to deep conversation about the future of journalism in the era of socialized media with one simple question, “are newspapers worth saving?”

Walt thought for no more than two seconds and assertively replied, “It’s the wrong question to ask. The real question we should ask is if whether or not we can save good journalism.” He continued, “Think about it. Of the hundreds, thousands, of newspapers around the country, there are really only a few that matter. Good journalism and journalists, on the other hand, are worth saving.”

Mossberg is the Wall Street Journal's technology guru, so he knows a thing or two about good journalism and good newspapers. The writer of the piece, the one who asked the question, is Brian Solis, a writer for TechCrunch.com.

Solis goes from that grand opening to describing how consumption of news and information has changed more than the delivery of it. It goes back to the notion of everything on demand: on-demand TV, on-demand movies and on-demand info, carefully tailored to your preferences for celebrity gossip, foreign affairs, Obama's dog's bowel movements, whatever.

Solis asks journalists not to discount online social networking, namely Facebook and Twitter, whose founders also created Blogger, through which I am typing this entry. Although I understand the draw of Twitter for news outlets that want to get information out lickety-split, I haven't found people's personal use of Twitter to be anything more than glorified Facebook status updates, and I simply don't need to know that much about someone. Likewise, no one needs to know that much about me. Maybe when my freelancing career takes off and oodles of people are anxiously awaiting my next masterpiece I'll get a Twitter account and tweet away.

But I digress (and perhaps that is why I am not yet drawing oodles!). The best part about Solis' story is that it offers real examples of how journalists can embrace new delivery methods to conform to consumers new consumption preferences. It's something of a how-to with the main idea -- that good journalism is what must be saved, not a particular medium -- at the core.

New Yorker: What Murdoch, Hearst have in common

2009-04-07T16:48:00.002-04:00

Here's an interesting article from The New Yorker about journalism's big-time editors of yore -- William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer and Barney Kilgore, "who built the Wall Street Journal into the first national mass-circulation daily newspaper" -- as they compare to a media mogul of today (and current WSJ owner): Rupert Murdoch.

AP wants aggregators to share revenue with news orgs

2009-04-07T16:31:00.002-04:00

Well, look who came out of hibernation! The Associated Press "said on Monday that Web sites that used the work of news organizations must obtain permission and share revenue with them, and that it would take legal action against those that did not," according to this New York Times article.
This applies to "major search engines like Google and Yahoo and aggregators like the Drudge Report that link to news articles, smaller sites that sometimes reproduce articles whole, and companies that sell packaged news feeds."

News aggregators and search engines that use a headline and a snippet of an article and link back to the originating source (e.g., CNN, Washington Post, etc.) have maintained that they don't have to pay for such postings under the fair-use doctrine.

Seems kind of obvious, right? Give credit where it's due and all. One reason why news companies haven't griped much is sites like Google News and Yahoo News drive traffic to their Web pages. The more eyeballs on a page, the more attractive the site is to advertisers, the more the outlet can charge for ads, and so on.

The AP has run into trouble of late. Newspapers, struggling to stay afloat, have cut their AP subscriptions, saying the organization charges too much. Is this new move a type of olive branch?

Miami Herald editor offers reassurances, but questions linger

2009-04-06T13:49:00.004-04:00

The editor of the Miami Herald, which has appeared on several critical-condition lists lately, says the paper is doing well and will not go the way of the Rocky Mountain News or Seattle Post-Intelligencer. While ackknowleding the newspaper industry's slow response to the Internet, Editor Anders Gyllenhaal says the Herald has been prepping for print's decline for five years.

Here's his round-up:

Gradually, The Herald built up other ways of providing news. Foremost are MiamiHerald.com and ElNuevoHerald.com, which serve more than 5 million unique readers each month. It's an enormous reach that far exceeds most regional newspapers and is due both to the quality of the site and the international appeal of South Florida.
Then, four years ago, the paper launched WLRN-Miami Herald radio, an innovation unique in this country that helps the station and paper reach more than 300,000 listeners in 16 daily broadcasts.
In the past year alone, The Herald and El Nuevo Herald each completed state-of-the-art Web redesigns; created the very successful Miami.com entertainment site; and launched such niche products as MomsMiami.com, Political Currents, DataSleuth, Scoopfla.com which tracks the Legislature and, just this week, an iPhone application.
When you put together all of these editions, websites and programs, the Herald reaches three times the number of people it did at the paper's height during the 1980s, according to readership surveys. That translates into more than 1.4 million South Floridians every day -- far more than any other media.

I assume by "far more than any other media" Gyllenhaal is referring to media in South Florida, including radio and TV stations in addition to other newspapers. But that is beside the point. It's reassuring to me, a South Florida native, to read about all these positives. But if what Gyllenhaal wrote is true, why is the Herald part of so many at-risk lists? And what about the fact that its owner, McClatchy Co., put the Herald up for sale in December and there are still no buyers?

I'm pulling for the Herald to survive, if in no other form than online. Time will tell.

Cardin explains Newspaper Revitalization Act

2009-04-03T15:30:00.004-04:00

A couple weeks ago I blogged about Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) proposing a bill to save newspapers. Today he wrote an 0p-ed in The Washington Post explaining the Newspaper Revitalization Act and why he proposed it. His main reason: "Our country depends on an open and free press to monitor what happens in our communities so that Americans can make sound judgments about their lives and leaders."

He seems to take a jab at citizen journalists: "News stories, reported by journalists, often bring to public attention decisions and actions that affect all of us." Perhaps that is his way of saying the act will not help independent bloggers or anyone not officially employed by a newspaper.

Many journos worry that government help would mean a government-run press, which is contrary to the First Amendment. I don't think that is what Cardin wants, and it will be interesting to watch the bill on its march through Congress.

Travel slowdown hurts USA Today

2009-04-01T17:43:00.004-04:00

Here's an interesting stat for today (and no, it's not an April Fool's joke). USA Today has lost 100,000 subscribers as a result of the slowdown in travel, the Wall Street Journal reports. The publisher and president of the Gannett-owned paper resigned Tuesday, although "[h]e said he did not view his departure as an escape from a sinking industry, adding in USA Today 'you still have the workings of a successful business.'"

With so many unemployed journos running around, I doubt the company will have to headhunt for long.

With Facebook quiz, journalism woes get new prominence

2009-03-26T22:08:00.003-04:00

Know how bad the journalism industry has gotten? (Cue the crowd: "How bad is it?") There's a quiz on Facebook that you can take called "What kind of post-journalism job should I get?" Ouch.

All joking aside, Congress is taking notice of the bloodletting. Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) has proposed a bill to allow "newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks."

Here's how the bill would work:

The "Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.
"Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

"Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible."

I find the bit about political endorsements interesting. I have always wondered how newspapers could claim to be unbiased while endorsing candidates.

I don't have high hopes for Cardin's bill, but thanks for thinking of us, Ben.

For a change of pace, some guy is predicting 10 newspapers likely to survive their tough times. I say some guy because he asked for and was granted anonymity. I'm sad to say that although the Palm Beach (Fla.) Post and the Orlando Sentinel make his cut, the Miami Herald does not. I have a hard time trusting a news story based on one source and an anonymous one at that, but it's interesting nonetheless.

With all the attention Twitter has been getting recently, perhaps it's time for all newspapers to shut down their paper and Web editions and sign up to release headlines 24/7.

For the record, I didn't take the Facebook quiz. I already have my Plan B in mind: a boutique.

More papers take drastic steps

2009-03-24T21:58:00.003-04:00

Another newspaper has sealed its fate. The Ann Arbor (Mich.) News will close up shop in July. It started publishing in 1835. This blog is starting to read like a morgue register.

Other papers that are still holding on are forcing employees to take unpaid vacations. They include papers in the Advance Publications family, which is instituting mandatory 10-day furloughs, and Gannett papers are pushing a second round of furloughs.

Smart employees will use that downtime to polish their resumes and scout out potential job opportunities. That's not to say the companies or papers will go out of business, but it seems only logical, to me, that people in those situations keep their options open. The argument could be made that by bleeding good workers, the papers get no closer to salvation, but that's a circular discussion.

Editor of El Nuevo Herald shuns cuts by stepping down

2009-03-19T23:49:00.004-04:00

More bells toll for the Miami Herald as the editor of El Nuevo Herald, the paper's Spanish language sister, steps down rather than make cuts.

I have read about the success of Spanish language papers in the United States amid the bloodletting of journalism jobs in this country, so it struck me as odd that a Spanish paper in the heart of Hispanic-heavy Miami would have problems. I found the following stats rather interesting:

El Nuevo has a daily and Sunday print circulation of around 70,000 and 90,000, respectively. Its circulation has been holding relatively steady as The Miami Herald's -- now at around 190,000 daily and 275,000 Sunday -- has plunged. But the online reach of both has grown markedly, with a combined print and web audience reach around 1.5 million.

Sounds like El Nuevo is paying the price for its sister's problems. McClatchy, which owns both papers, is cutting the workforce by 19 percent. I am glad to see that the Web readership is up, however -- not only because I know someone who works on the Herald's Web site, but because it offers hope that papers like the Herald and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which shut down print operations this week, can live on.

In memoriam: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, age 146

2009-03-16T22:15:00.005-04:00

My headline is misleading. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer isn't dead, but the version that has kept tabs on the Washington city for 146 years is. The P-I is putting its last print edition to bed tonight. From here on out, it will be completely Web-based. That assumes, of course, that it finds a workable business model to sustain its online presence. Hearst Corp. owns the paper and was unable to find a buyer after putting the P-I up for sale in January. This can't help the people at the Miami Herald sleep better tonight.

I've long embraced online journalism, but change can be bittersweet -- and sometimes, as it was for the Rocky Mountain News, just plain bitter.

Cramer and Stewart's battle royale

2009-03-15T22:34:00.002-04:00

Usually I am all over anything Jon Stewart does, but I have been perhaps noticeably mum on his tiff with CNBC and its poster boy, Jim Cramer. I have no good reason for not blogging about it before, although I feel the regular old media have been doing a dandy job of covering it without me. Also, I am woefully behind in watching my recorded episodes of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," so even though I have been reading the media reports about his showdown with CNBC in general and Cramer in particular, I watched the battle royale only yesterday. (If you're also behind on your "TDS" viewing, see the episode here.)

Stewart devoted his entire March X show to his interview with Cramer, host of CNBC's "Fast Money."

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Intro - Brawl Street: Get Ready to Buy Low! And Sell Die

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

I watched when Stewart first took on CNBC, the financial news network, on March 4 after Rick Santelli canceled his appearance on "TDS."

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The news media widely agree that Stewart won the debate. Cramer apologized for the job he has done and promised to do better, but Stewart never gave him a pass. One of the most interesting points Stewart makes is that too often Cramer and his colleagues at the cable network take for truth the words of chief executive officers and others high on the food chain at big companies without doing additional research (a.k.a. their jobs as journalists).

It's no wonder Cramer is scared. Remember what happened to CNN's "Crossfire" after Stewart went on that program as a guest in October 2004? The show didn't continue much longer after he asked hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala to "stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America."

My hat is off to Stewart again. He's unafraid to take a stand and hold people accountable. And he does it with poise, grace and eloquence.

Newspapers, schmoozpapers: Study finds people unconcered about industry's decline

2009-03-14T17:56:00.004-04:00

Maybe the only people who care about the demise of newspapers are the ones who work or have worked on them. A Pew Research Center report finds "fewer than half of Americans (43%) say that losing their local newspaper would hurt civic life in their community 'a lot.' Even fewer (33%) say they would personally miss reading the local newspaper a lot if it were no longer available." Interestingly, more than half of the people surveyed said they are aware of the newspaper industry's problems. That means, to me, that although they know newspapers are in trouble, they don't care much.

Can't really blame people right now, either, can we? What with ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and a volatile economy, who has the time to worry about one industry? Heck, people are probably unsubscribing from newspapers to save money.

It's sad, though, because the press' role is no less important than it was when newspapers had record profit margins -- and we are talking just a few years ago. But those high expectations have made newspapers an endangered species.

Miami Herald inches closer to uncertainty with fresh round of cuts

2009-03-12T19:39:00.005-04:00

When I was younger, I used to sneak up to my dad as he sat in the recliner reading the newspaper. I would flick the paper and then laugh like a hyena before I could scurry away. I thought it was hysterical. My didn't. Now it looks like that paper I grew up with, whether I was flicking it, lining my birdcage with it (the previous day's, of course) or reading it, the Miami Herald could one day soon be nothing but a memory.

The paper has laid off another 175 staff members -- this coming after previous cuts -- and it is trimming pay. People earning between $25,000 and $50,000 will lose 5 percent of their income, while people earning more than $50,000 can say goodbye to 10 percent. Time magazine reports that 24/7 Wall Street includes the Herald among its 10 most endangered newspapers list.

I worked in the Herald's newsroom for nine months when I was associate editor of a now-defunct Herald subsidiary. I was there when Pulitzer Prize winner Leonard Pitts read his touching column about the 2001 terrorist attacks. I volunteered at one of Dave Barry's famed scavenger hunts. I fell in love with cafe con leche and picadillo in the Herald's cafeteria.

One ignorant commenter on a New Times story about the Herald's plight suggested: "Also think it is time to stop paying Dave Barry, his wife and his son salaries, as well as his personal secretary. This is just too much for the diminishing returns he produces as his readers trail off into senility and die of old age."

Barry replied: "To the anonymous person who thinks the Herald should stop paying my salary: The Herald doesn't pay me a salary, and hasn't for years. I do the blog for free, and when I write stories or cover events, I sometimes, but not always, get paid a modest fee. And my 'private secretary' isn't a private secretary: she's a part-time administrative assistant who answers my mail and phone, as well as Leonard Pitts' mail and phone; she also performs other duties for the Herald. And she, like you, needs her job.

"As for my wife and son: they're both hard-working, award-winning journalists, and I don't understand why you think that they should be fired solely because they happen to be connected to me. My son supports himself, and, like you, he needs his job.

"I'd be happy to discuss any of this with you further, if you had the courage to identify yourself. "

McClatchy Co., which bought the Herald from Knight Ridder in 2006, put the Herald up for sale in December. The Herald's latest round of cuts comes just weeks after Denver's Rocky Mountain News went out of business and as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer braces to print its last edition. For a more thorough roundup of the state of the U.S. newspaper, read this New York Times article.

I cannot imagine a Florida without the Miami Herald. I hope I don't have to.

Obama list ban on photos of war dead

2009-02-27T11:58:00.002-05:00

In an update to a story I have been watching, the Obama administration is lifting an 18-year ban on photos of American war dead -- with a caveat: The families of the dead must give the go-ahead.

A Colorado paper bids farewell

2009-02-27T11:47:00.003-05:00

A ski trip and the flu have kept me away, but I am back -- just in time to bid farewell to a Pulitzer Prize-winning publication, the Rocky Mountain News. Other papers have eulogized their fallen colleague appropriately, but they ask not for whom the bell tolls. When this happens, it tolls for all newspapers. The numbers are still ugly, even for the big boys: The Washington Post Co. reported a profit drop of 77 percent in the fourth quarter.

Pentagon considers giving bigger face to the dead

2009-02-18T02:08:00.005-05:00

There's a part of war coverage that often gets covered up from the media: The coffins returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm a proponent of being open about what war means. It's not all glory; plenty of people also spill their guts. Yes, the media report a number of American dead, but after time, war fatigue sets in and the numbers run into one another. But pictures, well, they are worth a thousand words, and when it comes to the recent conflicts America has been involved in, they depict 4,865 people.

So, when a White House Press Corps reporter asked Barack Obama during his first prime-time presidential press conference last week about reducing the military's restrictions on showing the returning dead, I was pleased. Obama replied that he would look into it and ask the military to explain the reasons for the tight control, and lo and behold The Washington Post reported yesterday that the Pentagon is rethinking its stance.

Sure, you can argue that the names of fallen soldiers are released. How else did washingtonpost.com put together the "Faces of the Fallen" feature? And yes, the Defense Department is not hiding death statistics. But is it really necessary to shroud the dead when their faces are not shown during their final arrival in the United States? Photos of the returning dead show American-flag-draped coffins, not mutilated bodies.

Years after the mission was "accomplished," Americans have been complacent about the ongoing conflicts. It's important to shock us back into reality. Plus, the photos comply with the ultimate journalistic standard: They pass the Cheerios test, which means someone can look at the photo in the morning while munching on Cheerios and not be sickened.

No freedom of the press at Press Club event

2009-02-13T22:36:00.004-05:00

Here's a great and sad bit on the freedom of the press by The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, who write the "Washington Sketch" column. He went to the National Press Club to cover a speech by David Plouffe, President Obama's campaign manager only to find the speech was declared off the record. Watch the short video here of Milbank's protest.

Stewart's plan to save newspapers

2009-02-11T10:25:00.004-05:00

Jon Stewart shares his love for newspapers with Water Isaacson of the Aspen Institute. They talk about how to save the paper. Isaacson wants to microcharge for content, much like people pay 99 cents for a song from iTunes. Stewart isn't sure that such backtracking would work because content has been free for years. He has another idea: Make newsprint a highly addictive narcotic. Then, when it comes off on your hands, you need to get another fix. Ah, that Jon.

Want something investigated? Hire a journalist

2009-02-09T10:08:00.003-05:00

Cutting out the middle man has always been a logical cost-cutting method. Now someone is applying it to journalism. According to this Los Angeles Times article, David Cohn has created a Web site called Spot.us. People can go to the site and suggest story ideas for things they would like to see investigated. That same person -- plus others -- then donate money toward the investigation and publication of the information.

In a way, Cohn's idea marries the worlds of traditional journalism with citizen journalism (although one could argue that many story ideas at traditional publications have arisen from citizen tips). Consumers feel direct involvement, but the trained professional still does the job.

One problem, however, with Spot.us is that the articles are not engaging, according to the article. "The site's platform outperforms its product. Spot.us stories simply need to be better. The four I checked out -- three written and one a radio report -- did not particularly engage, incite or entertain."

Props to Cohn for innovation, regardless.

Caylee coverage is a disgrace, Nancy

2009-02-09T00:07:00.003-05:00

This blog post is on behalf of my husband. He wants to know when Nancy Grace took over at CNN. Every day he comes home from work and laments about the inevitable Caylee-related headline that appears on CNN.com. I bet many of you know who I mean when I say Caylee without a last name or even much more context. She's become a household name, and good gracious, Grace is trying her best to make sure it stays that way.

Now, I feel it is only fair to disclose that I am not a Nancy Grace fan on a good day. I think she's exploitive and a waste of airtime, but enough people disagree with me to keep her on the cable network during prime time and creeping onto CNN.com.

And the info that is coming out of the case sure is worth breaking. Take tonight's headline: "Grandmother: Caylee 'now has her angel wings'" and this tops the "Latest News" column. You'd think there is nothing going on in the world. If that were the case, if the world were in such good shape that the biggest thing on people's minds were the angel wings an unfortunate little girl is getting, then I'd shut up. But it's not.

Nancy Grace's name does not appear in the article, but the reason my husband blames her for the bombardment of Caylee news is that Grace won't let the case drop. To prove my point, at this moment -- 12:14 a.m. -- the home page for self-titled show sports "breaking news": "Caylee memorial on Tuesday." It's complete with a quarter-page picture of the deceased child at happier times.

Ah, but there is more. The "Nancy Grace Blog," which when you click this link is called "Caylee Blog," is devoted to Caylee, including a roundup of recent Caylee headlines:

The Caylee Blog tracks events as they happen in the case. Clearly, Caylee is the only child ever to be killed by her mother (although that is still alleged because her mom has not been convicted). That is why the case deserves such attention. Again, if only that were true. A quick search of the term "mother kills child" in Google brings up plenty of depressing hits:

And those are just the first three results out of 279,000. Of course not all those hits will be news stories. I hope, at least, that some refer to fictional events.

The sad truth is that Grace's disgraceful drivel sells. CNN wouldn't bother if it didn't.

Ex-journos' new jobs raise eyebrows; digital debate drones on

2009-02-03T10:07:00.003-05:00

Because of a heavy workload and a quick trip to Florida, I am woefully behind on blogging. Still, media news doesn't happen according to my schedule. So, I am going to do a round-up of interesting stories I have seen in the past couple days.

I'll start with this one in The New York Times about a considerable number of ex-journos who have found their way onto President Barack Obama's payroll. The argument is that the hirings fuel the fire that the Democrats and Obama are currying positive press as a result of the media ties. I'm not so sure that is true, though. It seems the honeymoon period with Obama is quickly ending. I've seen quite a few critical pieces about him and his choices (i.e., to shut Guantanamo Bay without clear plans for the prisoners, Cabinet selections who haven't paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes). And maybe this is just because I am in journalism, but I don't think it is so far fetched for people to want to hire journalists for positions in communications and investigation. Those tasks are part of our jobs. Additionally, 2008 was a terrible year for journalists. Record numbers got the boot. Ex-journalists need jobs, too. Why not try for one related to what you already know?

In other news, the debate about digital vs. print media continues. Editor & Publisher's Steve Outing says an all-digital newsroom is around the corner. But right there to counter that is this blog post by Alan Mutter, writer of the blog Reflections of a Newsosaur. Mutter cuts to the chase in his lead: "Almost every newspaper company still needs to print newspapers if it wants to stay in business."

Media, Obama on the outs already?

2009-01-23T18:11:00.003-05:00

Even as President Obama opened access to the government, Politico reports discontent among reporters shut out of Obama's second taking of the oath of office. And they're nonplussed about the new president's opting to give his first interview with his new title to ABC, which sponsored the DC Neighborhood Ball on Inauguration Day.

Obama and his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, tried to make nice:

Gibbs defended the White House’s moves, insisting aides acted in a “way that was upfront and transparent” in allowing the standard pool into the swearing-in. And Obama himself seemed mindful of making a good impression, paying a surprise visit to the White House pressroom a few hours after the briefing.

As for the oath do-over, the Agence France-Presse, the Associated Press and Reuters refused to distribute images of the event because reporters were blocked from taking them.

The wire services’ photographers were also denied access to photograph Obama sitting in the Oval Office on the first day, and similarly refused to move the White House approved photos.

Michael Oreskes, the AP’s managing editor for U.S. news, told his own news outlet that “we are not distributing what are, in effect, visual press releases.”

Come on now. These are not top-secret events or anything that affects national security. If you want the cooperation of the American people in your presidency, then you need to accommodate their proxies, don't you think?

Obama relaxes FOIA policies

2009-01-22T10:34:00.002-05:00

Yesterday I blogged about media access to the Obama White House, and today I read a Columbia Journalism Review article about how the new president wasted no time in reversing the Bush administration's policies regarding the Freedom of Information Act. This does not necessarily mean that President Obama and his staff will be forthcoming and accommodating, but it certainly bodes well for government access in general.

Media's Obama bonanza

2009-01-22T10:31:00.002-05:00

Reuters has put out some interesting statistics on media coverage of President Barack Obama's inauguration.

President Barack Obama's inauguration generated an unprecedented 35,000 stories in the world's major newspapers, television and radio broadcasts over the past day -- about 35 times more than the last presidential swearing-in -- a monitoring group said on Wednesday.

'Daily Show' after Bush

2009-01-21T12:29:00.003-05:00

I never miss a chance to blog about "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." Variety ponders what's next for the show now that George W. Bush is a private citizen (not that I believe he is ever going to truly be a private citizen in the strictest definition of that term). No one on the program's staff seems particularly worried, even if Bush provided ready content for eight years.

"With a whole new administration, we're going to have to adjust," admits co-exec producer Josh Lieb. "It would be backwards to plan the adjustment first," explains the vet comedy writer, who notes that in the waning days of the Bush administration the ex-president was an easy laugh. But the future is not without promise. "There's going to be plenty of scandals, plenty of missteps and plenty of things to take out of context to get our 22 minutes of comedy every night. I'm not worried."

Bush and his administration were not the only ones providing fodder for Stewart and his correspondents. I am confident that enough public officials and everyday people will let the laughs keep comin'.

Media ready for access to Obama White House

2009-01-21T12:16:00.002-05:00

The throngs are leaving the capital today, and President Obama is getting to work. But the exaltation is still palpable. How long will the honeymoon last? Some newspapers, such as the Los Angeles Times, are already promising not to let the awe surrounding Obama get in the way of their coverage of him. Other news outlets are ready to pounce on the accessibility, or lack thereof, of the Obama White House. NPR's "On the Media" from Jan. 16, skewered the Bush administration for its treatment of the media. Recounting W.'s final press conference as president, "On the Media" host Bob Garfield didn't hold back. From the transcript:

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: My friends say, what is it like to deal with the press corps? I say, these are just people that try to do the best they possibly can. And so here at the last press conference I'm interested in answering some of your questions, but mostly I'm interested in saying thank you for the job.

BOB GARFIELD: Oh, really? Thank you? I believed him when he said “you,” but I'm pretty sure “thank” isn't the verb of one syllable he had in mind, because for the past eight years this White House has mainly given the Fourth Estate and the First Amendment the finger.

The Bush Administration ridiculed the press, ignored the press, stonewalled the press, bullied the press, maneuvered around the press, co-opted the press, censored the press, jailed the press, fabricated for the press, lied to the press and, for example, when caught illegally wiretapping Americans without a warrant, blamed the press.

Speculation about Obama's relationship with the press has run rampant since he was elected. The press shop is in place. He met last week with conservative and liberal opinion writers. He also paid visits to The Washington Post and USA Today, much to the chagrin of The Gray Lady. Now we get to wait and see.

Newspapers live on at inauguration kickoff

2009-01-18T23:25:00.008-05:00

The Washington Post and The Washington Times make their presence known at today's kickoff event.

Images copyright Stephanie Kanowitz 2009

We're only human after all

2009-01-16T12:23:00.004-05:00

For a while yesterday, the newsroom at The Washington Post stood still. No, it was not because of the US Airways jet that took a swim in the Hudson River. It was because President-elect Barack Obama was in the house. Post media critic Howard Kurtz describes the scene in this column. My favorite part:

The shouted questions were about what you would expect from the heart of one of the world's great newspapers.

"Did you like Ben's Chili Bowl?" asked Metro reporter Theola Labbe-DeBose, referring to Obama's recent visit to the downtown eatery.

"That half-smoke's all right," Obama said.

Another staffer asked about the family's dog search.

"Haven't decided yet," said Obama, who visited USA Today earlier in the day.

It doesn't have to be all work. As Kurtz notes, journalists are people, too.

As a side note, Obama munched with liberal columnists the morning after he broke bread with conservatives.

Newspapers bank on inauguration

2009-01-14T16:53:00.003-05:00

After scooping 16 baby black mollies into a breeder tank, I decided it was time to fish for blog fodder. But I am tired of writing about the sad state of the industry. So, I am going for optimism today. Will next week's inauguration bring as big a boost for newspapers as Nov. 5 (the day after Election Day) did? They sure hope so, according to Editor & Publisher. The Washington Post and Chicago Tribune plan special afternoon editions Jan. 20. Can't say that's a big surprise; Obama is Chicago's shining star and D.C.'s beacon of hope. Other big names -- The New York Times, The L.A. Times, USA Today -- have big plans.

Me? I'm holding out for a sale on the Barack Obama commemorative plates I saw at Bed Bath & Beyond.

Media industry takes a beating in 2008

2009-01-09T11:32:00.004-05:00

Last month I blogged about the number of newspaper industry layoffs in 2008 (21,000, according to the Labor Department). The Hollywood Reporter says that media industry layoffs -- including film and TV companies -- in the United States were up 59 percent in 2008 compared with 2007. The article states that more than 28,000 media people lost their jobs last year.

The industry newsletters I subscribe to continue to be rife with pink-slip news and potential closures. Just today, the mediabistro "Daily Media News Feed" included these:

Country Home folds
Dow Jones freezes salaries
Seattle Post-Intelligencer for sale, could close
Wenner wields the ax (Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner has fired 10 people at Wenner Media so far this week.)

At some point, all those pink slips are going to have an effect on the environment -- and I don't just mean the industry. Al Gore is probably assembling a team right now to make a slideshow about the danger to trees.

Joe moves through the pipes from plumber to reporter

2009-01-07T21:42:00.002-05:00

Thought you'd heard the last from Joe the Plumber? Not yet. It seems he's taken the saying "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" to heart. See, he might have bashed the media for their coverage of him after the final presidential debate, but now he's got himself a new title: Joe the Reporter. And he is jumping in with both feet. A conservative Web site called Pajamastv.com is sending him to Israel for three weeks as a war correspondent.

Shafer: Newspapers embraced tech, failed to differentiate

2009-01-06T10:56:00.002-05:00

Slate's Jack Shafer would like us to know that the newspaper has not been as behind the tech times as every single news report would have us believe. His column cites many sources that describe various newspaper companies' forays into technology-friendly attempts. Among them:

"[P]ublishers aggressively pursued radio licenses in the early days of broadcasting and, later, sought and acquired TV licenses when they were dispensed."
"As early as 1947, Walter Annenberg's Philadelphia Inquirer and John S. Knight's Miami Herald experimented with fax editions of their papers."
"Newspapers and other media entities started experimenting with videotex technology in the 1970s, according to David Carlson's Online Timeline. Newspapers considered themselves vulnerable to new entrants and worried aloud to anybody who would listen about falling readership. In 1979, the Knight Ridder newspaper chain established a videotex subsidiary to develop its Viewtron service, Boczkowski writes." (Note: I took my first online journalism class with Carlson when I was an undergrad at the University of Florida.)
With the rise of the personal computer, "by the early to mid-1990s, the New York Times, the San Jose Mercury News, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and many others were producing electronic-edition business, striking deals with the burgeoning proprietary online systems, such as CompuServe, America Online, Prodigy, and Interchange, or throwing content up on bulletin board systems."

From the beginning, newspapers sought to invent the Web in their own image by repurposing the copy, values, and temperament found in their ink-and-paper editions. Despite being early arrivals, despite having spent millions on manpower and hardware, despite all the animations, links, videos, databases, and other software tricks found on their sites, every newspaper Web site is instantly identifiable as a newspaper Web site. By succeeding, they failed to invent the Web.

With so much forethought, what went wrong? Why didn't any of these ventures pan out? Simple, Shafer wrote:

From the beginning, newspapers sought to invent the Web in their own image by repurposing the copy, values, and temperament found in their ink-and-paper editions. Despite being early arrivals, despite having spent millions on manpower and hardware, despite all the animations, links, videos, databases, and other software tricks found on their sites, every newspaper Web site is instantly identifiable as a newspaper Web site. By succeeding, they failed to invent the Web.

And so we come full circle. The age-old complaint about newspaper Web sites is that they don't differ enough from the ink-and-paper form. Turns out the industry's goal wasn't off; its execution was.

2008 good to cable news networks

2008-12-31T11:21:00.002-05:00

This has been a terrible year for newspapers, but a record-breaker for cable news channels, according to The Los Angeles Times. The historic election provided the biggest ratings boost to the companies.

Fox News racked up its seventh straight year as the most-watched cable news channel, delivering an average prime-time viewership of 2.1 million, 40% more than 2007, according to data released Tuesday by Nielsen Media Research. CNN placed second with 1.3 million, up 69%, while MNSBC drew 920,000, a boost of 82%.

Perhaps the infighting between MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews helped push up the channel, which usually comes in last place.

As for 2009, I hope that the 21,000 journalists who lost their jobs in '08 find new ones and that the industry and economy overall take off again.

Happy, healthy new year to you all.

TV news stations put Iraq exit strategy into effect

2008-12-29T17:32:00.004-05:00

The Bush administration has not been known for its clearly defined exit strategy from Iraq, but according to The New York Times, TV news outlets have been slowly retreating. A big reason? Money, one reporter says. Another reason: The media expect President-elect Barack Obama to shift his military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, so they are shipping journalists there instead.

From the article:

ABC, CBS and NBC declined to speak on the record about their news coverage decisions. But representatives for the networks emphasized that they would continue to cover the war and said the staff adjustments reflected the evolution of the conflict in Iraq from a story primarily about violence to one about reconstruction and politics.
In Baghdad, ABC, CBS and NBC still maintain skeleton bureaus in heavily fortified compounds. Correspondents rotate in and out when stories warrant, and with producers and Iraqi employees remaining in Baghdad, the networks can still react to breaking news. But employees who are familiar with the staffing pressures of the networks say the bureaus are a shadow of what they used to be. Some of the offices have only one Western staff member.

Was India just following a Western model in its media coverage of Mumbai?

2008-12-24T21:22:00.003-05:00

India got the memo, the Christian Science Monitor reports: When it comes to TV news, if it bleeds, it leads. Maybe the executives have been watching too many O.J. Simpson-style car chases on America's CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC.

Emerging from decades of government control and regulations, India's media are quickly evolving into a boisterous, zealous fourth estate, most observers agree. But coverage of the 67-hour Mumbai (Bombay) terrorist attacks has caused unprecedented condemnation, especially toward 24-hour television news channels. Critics describe it as "TV terror" for showing gory scenes, being too aggressive, and often reporting incorrect information as fact.

I was not in India when the attacks occurred, and I have not seen what the stations there broadcast, so I cannot fairly comment on that country's media coverage of Mumbai. I am posting this simply because I have read books, such as "Headline Diplomacy" by Philip Seib, that discuss the Westernization of news.

Still, the adjectives critics in the article use to describe the Indian journalists' reporting during the terrorists' seige -- "overly dramatic, sensationalist, and quick to report live 'exclusives' of unconfirmed rumors" -- are reminiscent, no? Couldn't the same be said for many American journalists on Sept. 11, 2001, and the days, if not months, following those attacks?

This following paragraph describes footage I wouldn't be surprised to see on American cable news channels:

Television coverage of the attacks showed dead bodies and hostages trapped in rooms, revealed commando operations and positions, and reported the location of hostages at the Taj Mahal Hotel. Senior news editors are accused of playing martial music between updates and providing airtime to Bollywood actors and other members of Mumbai's chatterati. One station even aired a telephone conversation with one of the 10 gunmen.

Didn't Fox News air Geraldo Rivera's sand map showing where allied troops were located in Iraq? And he's still employed there.

Didn't American media show pictures of the dead bodies of Saddam Hussein's brothers? Sure, there was a "this is graphic warning" beforehand, but how many people turned away from it? And how many people had the option to turn away when newspapers and magazines published the images in our faces?

As for "martial music" and "chatterati," c'mon now. "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" alone has taken plenty of jabs at myriad news programs for their use of music, be it dramatic, cheerful or patriotic. And punditry in this country has become simultaneously a laughing stock and a necessity. In fact, some organizations offer training. (I know because I wrote an article about this subject that will run early next year.)

How many times have we learned about the political leanings of Barbra Streisand, George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Donald Trump?

I'm not condoning any of the media's -- American or Indian -- behavior and choices. I am merely fascinated by the outrage in India over coverage that's become everyday here.

But as I said, I was not there, so I don't know for sure how the Indian media responded. I do know, from the CSM article, that India's National Broadcaster Association thought enough of the criticism to set some standards for the industry.

On a much lighter note, happy holidays to you and yours! And all the best for a happy, healthy 2009.

Brady steps down as wp.com editor

2008-12-23T13:43:00.003-05:00

I always wondered how Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com, did it. I admired him for his work and his work ethic. I don't think I would want his job, which requires him to be constantly on call and ready to attend conferences and meetings all the time. Sounds like that demanding schedule has taken a toll on Brady, who announced yesterday that he is stepping down as editor.

Brady's decision is not very surprising to some people. The Washington Post has seen a lot of change in the past year. It has a new publisher, Katharine Weymouth, and a new editor, Marcus Brauchli, who want to unite the paper and Web newsrooms. Weymouth gave Brauchli "responsibility for the Web site and newspaper. That put a layer of editorial control above Brady," according to a Washington Post article.

The same article quotes Brady as saying he disagrees with the new newsroom structure plans, adding that he would lose some of his independence.

Brady also told Washington City Paper that the restructuring of the newsroom and of the leadership were the main reasons for his departure. Also,

The dot-com chief also says he’s needs a serious rebooting. “I have a track record,” he says, of staying about four or five years at a job and then burning out. “I’m beat up, tired, burned out.”

OK, but did Weymouth or anyone else hint that it was time for Brady to go? No way, he says: “My call.”

I met Brady in 2005, when he was a guest speaker at one of my American University graduate school classes. An AU alum, Brady came to talk the day Pope John Paul II died. He kept an eye on his cell phone in case the news broke and he had to leave. Sure enough, a few minutes before the end of class, as Brady was showing us some aspects of washingtonpost.com, a huge banner headline popped up announcing the pope's passing. Seconds later, Brady's phone rang. He took the call in front of all of us wide-eyed pupils and then continued to finish his presentation. As the professor, Amy Eisman, pointed out, by sticking around, Brady showed his confidence and trust in his employees. He didn't need to rush off to his Arlington, Va., office because he knew the Web site was in good hands.

Brady's laid-back demeanor and quiet confidence struck me and stayed with me.

When I saw Brady two months later at an Online News Association (ONA) in D.C., I introduced myself and we began exchanging e-mail messages. Our paths crossed again the next year a We Media conference in Miami and last year in Toronto at another ONA event. Brady even took time from his crazy schedule to meet me at a local pub to chat about washingtonpost.com and what it takes to work there.

I'm sure I am not alone when I say I am sad to see him go from The Post, but I know he will go on to something great. I look forward to finding out what it is. Good luck, Jim.

AP votes election top story of '08

2008-12-22T11:21:00.004-05:00

The Associated Press has made its selection of the top stories of 2008. (See the top stories of 2007 for a trip down memory lane.) Unlike Time magazine, AP chose Barack Obama's election to the presidency for the No. 1 slot. The economy came in second. Other top stories, or subjects, include Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Mumbai terrorism of last month, the Olympics and secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton.

If you want to have your say about the top stories of the year, click here. CNN.com gives you a list to choose from.

Time's top 10 of 2008

2008-12-12T18:05:00.003-05:00

Time magazine has put together a great -- and highly addictive -- "Top 10 of Everything of 2008 list. It has categories such as pop culture, news and science, arts and entertainment...you get the idea. The viral videos are fun to watch, and I enjoyed the top 10 quotes of the year. But the most relevant list to this blog are the "Top 10 News Stories," "Top 10 Oddball News Stories" and "Top 10 Underreported Stories." Topping that last list is a story about the Pentagon's latest nuclear mistakes.

I leave you to read about and recall the headline-makers of the year, including the pregnant man, Bigfoot sightings, terrorism in Mumbai, poisoned Chinese goods, and one other thing. What was it? Oh, yes. The presidential election, which, by the way, was not the No. 1 news story of the year, according to Time. The economy was.

I'll give you some extra time to get all that reading done before I blog again. I'm going on vacation. See you Dec. 22.

Newspapers and the bailout bandwagon

2008-12-10T01:17:00.002-05:00

The banks are doing it. Insurance agencies are doing it. The automobile industry is doing it, too. So why not journalists? We media types need a bailout, no? Mark I. Pinsky, a book author writing in The New Republic, thinks so. He cites a Depression-era program called the Federal Writers Project that

[i]n addition to providing employment to more than 6,000 out-of-work reporters, photographers, editors, critics, writers, and creative craftsmen and -women...produced some lasting contributions to American history, culture, and literature. Their efforts ranged from comprehensive guides to 48 states and three territories to interviews with and photos of 2,300 former African-American slaves. These are preserved in the seventeen volumes of Slave Narratives: A Folk History of Slavery in the United States from Interviews with Former Slaves.

Pinsky says President-Elect Barack Obama's New Deal-esque plans inspired him. He envisions a program that would involve

documenting the ground-level impact of the Great Recession; chronicling the transition to a green economy; or capturing the experiences of the thousands of immigrants who are changing the American complexion. Like the original FWP, the new version would focus in particular on those segments of society largely ignored by commercial and even public media....

How would it work? Administering the new FWP as an individual grant program through community colleges and universities could minimize bureaucracy and overhead. In consultation with the Obama administration--perhaps through the National Endowment for the Humanities--and Congress, guidelines could be established and a small staff assembled in Washington to oversee the projects, in the form of grants, rather than hourly wages. Projects could be pitched locally to colleges, or suggested and posted by them, vetted preliminarily and then approved or rejected by the national staff.

Pinsky is not optimistic about his plan coming to fruition, but anything is worth a shot these days. Besides, we are talking about the Fourth Estate. Well, I guess nowadays "estate" is generous; it's more like a one-bedroom condo.

Pulitzer embraces the Internet

2008-12-09T10:49:00.003-05:00

The journalism industry is all about deadlines, but it was a little late in the game with this one: Web-only news outlets are now eligible to vie for Pulitzer Prizes. Nominees must be "'text-based' submissions from news organizations that are updated at least weekly and include original reporting."

2009: Year of the renegade pink-slip recipients?

2008-12-08T10:46:00.002-05:00

BusinessWeek's Jon Fine has made his media predictions for 2009. The first one seems to already be well on its way to coming to fruition:

It gets much worse before it gets better. Marketers use the downturn to revamp (and reduce) ad spending. At least one recent, heavily leveraged media deal—Tribune, Univision, Clear Channel, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, I could go on—goes bankrupt. More than one newspaper in a top-100 market ceases publication or reduces its print edition to something unrecognizable as a daily newspaper. At least one top-50 magazine pulls a TV Guide: It sells itself for something like $1 to a nonindustry entity, presumably for a restructuring that any magazine company would find excruciating.

The Tribune Co., which owns large papers such as the Chicago Tribune and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, where I worked as a high school correspondent in the mid-1990s, is considering filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. And the McClatchy Co., which bought out Knight Ridder in 2006 is trying to sell off The Miami Herald, another of my former employers.

Fine's last prediction intrigues me: "A sort of shadow media industry is born—properties created and staffed by those pink-slipped in '08 and '09. This sets the stage for epic clashes with existing players in '10 and beyond." Although it is easy and cheap to get your content out to the masses, that's not the case for many start-up media companies. Politico, for instance, had major financial backing. Where would laid-off journos get the kind of money they need for such endeavors? Certainly not from today's stock market, assuming they earned enough at their media jobs pre-layoff to save something. From a bank? I dunno. They seem rather preoccupied these days, too.

I'd like to see that last prediction come true because I think a variety of voices -- especially those that are not corporate-owned -- is a good thing.

The future of journalism: Dog walking

2008-12-03T22:17:00.005-05:00

Here's a sign of the times if ever I saw one. I was perusing the Writing/Editing Jobs listings on the D.C. craigslist site when I came across this title, "Pet lovers wanted..." I love animals so I clicked the link, hoping to find something to do with the Humane Society or another organization. Well, it was another organization: A Walk in the Park, which is hiring dog walkers in the Bethesda, Md., area.

Because the link won't last forever (craigslist posts stuff for a week), I am pasting the content of the ad here:

Do you love animals? Looking for a fun job/or just extra income? A Walk in the Park, a Bethesda based pet service company is actively hiring mid-day dog walkers/pet sitters. We are looking for someone to work M-F, 10-4pm. All candidates must:

*Be at least 18 yrs of age
*Own/drive a reliable car
*Be fit for a day of walking
*Be able to give a 6 month job commitment
*Love furry friends!

If you love animals, the outdoors and exercise..this is the perfect job for you! Perfect for writers, trainers, students, or anyone looking for an independent job. Leave that stuffy desk job behind and call 301-529-3025.
Location: Bethesda/Chevy Chase
Compensation: TBD
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.

I must tell you that I cannot stop laughing. I mean, a want ad for dog walkers in the Writing/Editing Jobs section? That is too much. First the owner of the Longmont Times-Call in Colorado invited employees to get paid for valet parking cars at his holiday party and now this. I'm sure that master's in journalism I got two years ago will help me rocket to Car Parker of the Month or Chief Pooper Scooper Officer.

Fox News makes way for Obama-touting successor

2008-12-03T00:46:00.002-05:00

With President-elect Barack Obama getting ready to take office next month, Jon Stewart wondered about the fate of Fox News Channel, which, as Stewart points out, made its mark as the Bush administration's mouthpiece. Would another channel step up to bat for Obama's team, he asked. And it seems the answer is yes.

Watch the video.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

MSNBC Replaces Fox News

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

People, not media, caused Black Friday tragedy

2008-12-02T10:58:00.003-05:00

I don't know about this one. The New York Times' David Carr wonders how much responsibility the media should take for the death of a Wal-Mart employee who lost his life Black Friday as shoppers raced into the store. Carr describes several news accounts that offer guidelines for the most efficient and effective shopping, such as leaving young children and strollers at home. He also blames the media for hyping big sales, including those at the Long Island Wal-Mart where Jdimytai Damour died.

Was the media encouraging reckless, even homicidal behavior by publishing such information or was it latching onto one of the biggest issues today, the economy? The recession, officially recognized yesterday, continues to produce banner headlines in The Wall Street Journal, so it shouldn't be a surprise that newspapers and other media acted as free-advertising bases by publicizing some of the more enticing sales this holiday buying season.

And that's just it: The media touted the bargains, not a few people's psychopathic tendencies. News outlets report on Black Friday preparations every year, and, unfortunately, deaths and injuries are not uncommon at the sales. But that is not the fault of the media. It's the fault of humans' psychological shortcomings. When a deeply marked down television becomes more important than a human life, blaming the media is simply scapegoating.

Obama outpaces predecessors in accessibility

2008-11-27T01:02:00.003-05:00

It's no secret that President-elect Barack Obama is a media darling, and that status is unlikely to change if he keeps up his accessibility. The Washington Times reports that Obama has held more press conferences post-election and pre-inauguration than his four predecessors even as he takes on a country in worse shape than it was for any of them.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, sat down with ABC's Barbara Walters for an interview that aired Nov. 26. If you missed it, you can get the idea here. As Jon Stewart remarked last week on "The Daily Show," (What? You thought I'd make it through a blog post without a J.S. reference?) Obama looks on television like he's getting an invisible massage even as he talks about stressful issues such as the economy.

According to mediabistro.com, not all the media are enamored with him. Is he shunning Fox News Channel? In case you cannot access that link without a log-in for mediabisto, it says that it's 0-for-4 for Fox News at Obama's press conferences. He has not taken a question from a Fox reporter yet.

Craig's list: What he needs to pay for news

2008-11-25T23:16:00.002-05:00

Craig Newmark has heard plenty of criticism of his popular Web site, craigslist.org, especially from the newspaper industry. The site, free classifieds, basically, is a buyer's and seller's heaven. I wouldn't say craigslist has single-handedly eliminated much of the rather large revenue newspapers made from their classified listings, but it certainly has not helped.

That's why it is interesting to learn that Newmark, a Web revolutionary, reads The New York Times every day while sipping a latte, according to this L.A. Times piece. What's more, the king of free content says he would be happy to pay a subscription fee if he were guaranteed to get trustworthy information:

I would pay for subscription services, which would give me good, trustworthy news that I trust has been fact-checked and all that. So I do think subscription services will work, but that's for upper-middle class and above. I think we're going to see a return to the sponsorship model that we saw in the '50s and '60s on TV. Of course, that may be just because I've been watching "Mad Men" too much….

I do think we will see the public service model and philanthropy model like Pro Puplica.

Newmark and I agree that trustworthy, fact-checked news is crucial, and I think we agree that the medium is unimportant as long as those other factors are present. I don't think he would mind too much if the Gray Lady became the Colorful Web Lady permanently. After all, he could take his laptop to a cafe and continue sucking down the lattes.

But so far attempts to get people to pay for content online that is not porn- or gambling-related has proven difficult. Even the single success story -- The Wall Street Journal -- went freebie. NYT's trial, TimesSelect, bellyflopped. If these big guns misfire, what are the smaller ones to do? The search for the business model continues.

Blogger's Note: In case I don't get a chance to post anything tomorrow, I want to wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. Enjoy the holiday season!

Today in chutzpah

2008-11-20T13:05:00.001-05:00

All I have to do is copy the first paragraph of this blog post for you to get the idea:

Talk about a sign of the times in the journalism industry. Staffers at the Longmont Times-Call recently received an internal e-mail inviting them to work as valets at a private Christmas party for the Lehman family, who own the paper. And at least two employees have already accepted the offer.

Is media's love for Obama unrequited?

2008-11-20T01:10:00.004-05:00

Wondering how the Obama White House will treat the media? I'll let this NPR piece do the speculating. The article shows how some reporters who covered Barack Obama's saw his accessibility. Some say he was very open, while others say, "Um, not so much." They felt he carefully controlled every sound byte. I gotta say that doesn't surprise me. But it surprises Jeff Zeleny, a former Chicago Tribune reporter who's now at The New York Times. He says Obama used to seek out the media: "He was his own press secretary, his own communications director and his own political strategist."

Just as PR people need journos and journos need flacks, so goes the relationship between a reporter and a politician. I've talked about the delicate love/hate relationship journalists and the media have, so I won't belabor the point now. This just fuels my belief in it.

Rupert Murdoch gets it right

2008-11-20T01:01:00.003-05:00

Whatever you think of his ideology, Rupert Murdoch is a shrewd businessman. In a speech broadcast in his home country of Australia, he chided journalists and anyone who has rung the death knell for papers. He says the future of newspapers is bright -- as long as the executives running them can get it through their heads that newspaper doesn't have to mean paper. My thoughts exactly, Rupe.

Go ahead, Carr, get it off your chest

2008-11-17T20:13:00.004-05:00

I enjoy a good cry as much as the next chick. But when I'm done, I try to have a few plans of action ready to go. The lack of a how-to is what irks me about this column by David Carr, The New York Times media critic. He argues that newspapers' cost-cutting strategy of laying off the most talented and experienced journalists because they're also the highest earners is not smart. I see his point. Few places can be run well by all newbies. Plus, mentorship goes with the mentors carrying the pink slips.

But how can newspapers cut costs effectively? Should they implement hiring freezes? Raise freezes? Many already have -- in addition to the layoffs.

I don't have the answer, and I suspect Carr doesn't, either. But he has access to a lot more people who might have suggestions than I do. I'd like to know what they recommend.

Hoax leads to Palin rumor about Africa

2008-11-14T10:29:00.005-05:00

We've been had. The news media have been reporting that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin thought Africa was a country, not a continent. Turns out she never said that to an adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during the interminable election season. Two guys invented Martin Eisenstadt, who they said was a policy adviser to McCain. The guys created an elaborate blog and posted YouTube videos all with the goal of creating a TV show based on the Eisenstadt character. The problem is the media got wind of the alleged comment and ran with it. It fit the picture of Palin the media had been painting (or wanted to see), and it was so juicy it had to be true.

MSNBC, The New Republic and the Los Angeles Times are among the news outlets that reported the falsehood as fact. Shame on the editors and reporters at those places for not properly doing their research. And shame on the guys who let Eisenstadt get so far. The New York Times article about the hoax asks, "Now a pair of obscure filmmakers say they created Martin Eisenstadt to help them pitch a TV show based on the character. But under the circumstances, why should anyone believe a word they say?" The more important question is who's going to believe and trust the media? And will the fact that this was a hoax be as widely reported as the rumor was?

I'll say it: I'm biased

2008-11-13T01:15:00.003-05:00

You loyal readers know I can't miss an opportunity to blog about "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." I'm like a moth to a flame. I admit it. There, I said it: I have a bias. Sure the show leans (at an acute angle) left, but regardless of your political ideology, you've got to appreciate its tenacity, cleverness and even its humor, not to mention its reach. But maybe that is my bias speaking.

Some of the show's staff gathered recently at “Writers Speak: A Potentially Regrettable Evening with the Writers of ‘The Daily Show,’” part of the New York Comedy Festival, to tell their secrets, according to this New York Times blog.

Among the interesting items:

The writing is left to men -- for now. "Many of the producers and the editors are women, even if the writers themselves at this point are all men." (Hey, um, I wouldn't mind helping out if you're looking for a token chick...)
The panel plays favorites. Members reveal their favorite election-cycle riffs, including one of my personal faves: Bill O'Reilly on Bristol Palin's pregnancy vs. Bill O'Reilly on Jaime Lynn Spears' pregnancy (video).
The writers said they will not miss President Bush despite all the fodder he has provided them. I can't say I'm surprised although the blog post makes it sound like everyone else was. How selfish would it be for the writers to want to keep someone around just for the jokes and bottom line? Besides, it's clear which team the show's employees root for and it's not Bush's.
Still, the show's "correspondents" are not about to give President-elect Barack Obama a free pass by any means. After joking about Obama's saintliness, nay, godliness, in the past few months, they're taking notes on his shortcomings. Wyatt Cenac says Obama is not good at improvisational speaking. Oh and Obama's boring, one writer said: "If you listen to what he’s saying, it’s usually not all that interesting."
Want a timeline of a typical workday at the show? Get it here.
Want to know how to get a job of your very own there? "There was no typical path to 'The Daily Show.' The backgrounds of the writers and producers ranged from stand-up comedy to advertising to magazine writing."

Isn't transparency fun?

WP ombudsman finds bias in election coverage

2008-11-10T23:31:00.003-05:00

And speaking of the president-elect, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell says the paper was slanted toward Barack Obama in its coverage. I immediately thought, "Well, that is no big surprise," and "Why wait to announce this almost a week after the election?" Doesn't that add to the tilt?

Howell says her surveys of the coverage ended on Election Day, but they started Nov. 11, 2007. She must have noticed a pattern before Nov. 4, 2008.

My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 of last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4.

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.

I appreciate Howell's and Hwang's research effort, but I question their decision to hold the information until after the polls closed. Politico and the Project for Excellence in Journalism at least got their confession and study, respectively, out beforehand, although not much beforehand. Politico's piece ran Oct. 30.

Small-town paper leaves election news to others to cover

2008-11-10T23:21:00.002-05:00

The people of Sapulpa, Okla., are scrambling for Nov. 5 papers more than the average Joe (or Joe Six-pack or Joe the Plumber) because the Sapulpa Daily Herald didn't have an article about Barack Obama's victory (video). But election news was not totally absent. According to the video, a paragraph on the front page reported that a majority of Creek County voted for Obama's rivla, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Residents, especially African American ones, say the paper's move smacks of racism.

The publisher, however, makes an excellent point -- and one I thought about Nov. 5. When people got their newspapers Wednesday morning, they already knew who won. They'd seen it on television or online or heard it on the radio. Very few people waited for that morning paper, as I mentioned last week. The publisher went with the very model many big-name media types recommend to save small-town papers. It went hyper local.

Even so, there's no reason a sentence or phrase declaring Obama the winner couldn't have been added to the blurb about the county voting for McCain.

Obamamania continues

2008-11-07T17:17:00.007-05:00

Newspaper mania continues. This Editor & Publisher piece states that papers from Nov. 5 are selling for $200 a pop on eBay. If you want a commemorative paper from this historic election, you can get them directly from the main newspaper companies. Here are some links:

New York Times store
Washington Post store -- $9.95 plus shipping and handling (operated by CafePress)
LA Times reprint request page
Chicago Tribune's Nov. 5 issue -- Choose from front pages and press plates. (Illinois is Barack Obama's state.)
The Chicago Sun-Times is offering all sorts of Obama-related goodies.
USA Today has a roundup that includes a DVD with ABC News tidbits for $10.17 (operated by Amazon.com).

What are people doing with all these papers? Some are keeping them as mementos. Others see the dead trees as cash cows.

It's worth mentioning that Obama's win is also breaking Web traffic records. Let's not forget the Internet's role in all this. Sure, you can't unfold a Web page to show your grandkids, but you could take a screen shot...

The Chicago Tribune has posted some of the front-page options that didn't make the cut, one of which takes a playful jab at itself, riffing on its infamous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline of 1948. My favorite reject: "That Won." But it's a tough call because "Keep the Change" with a photo of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is also clever.

Read all about it -- then carefully preserve it

2008-11-07T02:02:00.004-05:00

Here's an add-on to what I blogged Wednesday about how The Washington Post couldn't print enough copies of the paper with the headline about Barack Obama winning the election. Turns out WP was not alone. "Newspapers a Hot Commodity After Obama's Win," The New York Times reports. What more do you need to know than this:

The election of Barack Obama produced a clamor for newspapers that publishers said they had never seen. From The Cincinnati Enquirer to The Charlotte Observer to The Dallas Morning News, papers accustomed to years of declining sales pumped out extra copies by the thousands, and could not keep pace with demand.
But these were not papers to be consumed and crumpled as usual.
“Oh no, no fingerprints on this one,” said James Allen, a delivery man from the Bronx, who stood in line for half an hour outside the Manhattan headquarters of The New York Times to get a copy. “This goes straight into a plastic bag. This is a black man becoming president. This is history, to show my grandkids some day.”

Want to go green? Turn to your screen

2008-11-06T01:18:00.005-05:00

Of course! How could I not mention that forsaking print newspapers for online ones is good for the environment! Thanks to MSNBC.com for the reminder. A company called Zinio is helping readers peruse their favorite magazines digitally. The company's founder makes great points about the publishing industry's carbon footprint -- it would make Bigfoot way jealous -- and the like, but what I wonder is about electricity consumption. Doesn't that contribute to environmental problems? I am asking that as a legitimate rather than rhetorical question. If any of you dear readers knows the answer, please share it -- and remember, you can do so anonymously.

My guess is that although electricity also makes a footprint, it's not as large as that of a magazine, when you consider production (proofing of pages in addition to printing the final product), fuel use to transport magazine bundles and so forth.

Also -- and not that Zinio is saying this will happen -- if all mags go digital, what does that mean for people who cannot afford to buy computers or pay for Internet access? What about folks -- like me -- who don't have the Web at their fingertips in the form of a personal digital assistant such as the Apple iPhone or the Research in Motion BlackBerry? (Note: I have a Berry, but the data plan through AT&T is $30 per month, which I find ridiculous and so refuse to pay. As a result, I don't have Internet and e-mail functions or even Berry-to-Berry pinging. Woe is me.)

Fun stuff to ponder now that the election is out of our hair.

WP's supply can't meet demand on day after historic election

2008-11-05T17:44:00.004-05:00

Here's an interesting tidbit: The Washington Post printed 30 percent extra papers today and still sold out within the first two hours they hit the streets. According to a WP press release that mediabistro.com posted, "The sell-out is an indication that a newspaper is still the most tangible news source and keepsake for great moments in history."

So newspapers in their print form are valuable as souvenirs. Sure, I will grant that. But I guarantee that almost no one waited for the morning paper to find out who won the election.

An industry that's black and blue all over

2008-11-04T17:22:00.003-05:00

Happy Election Day. Yes, it sure is, because after today watching television won't send me into campaign-commercial-induced seizures. Whatever the outcome, it is finally over. Assuming we don't have a repeat performance of the 2000 election melodrama. Fingers crossed.

While it is a happy day in some ways, it's bleak in others. Last week I blogged about layoffs. And I feel compelled to do so again today. Again, the Daily Media News Feed newsletter I get from mediabistro.com (for which I am teaching "Copy Editing Essentials," a three-hour seminar in D.C. next week) is full of sad headlines:

Fingers crossed for these people, too.

Two years in the life of a campaign journalist

2008-11-02T21:48:00.005-05:00

I've read criticisms about how journalists who follow presidential candidates and the White House Press Corps get too chummy with the people they're covering to be unbiased reporters. Anyone can see how that might happen. But the story that doesn't get out much is what's it like in a day of the life of such a reporter? This piece in The New Republic follows people who follow Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the Democratic nominee for president. Although being a political correspondent in the thick of a historical campaign sounds romantic -- seriously, think about having that much access -- it's not something I'd ever want to do, especially after reading this:

After the longest, most sustained campaign on record, political reporters are running on little more than the scant sustenance of yet another slice of pizza. Some are running out of energy; others are running out of ideas. "The one conversation I keep having with reporters is, 'What the hell do we write about? What are the interesting stories left to cover in this election?'" says The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza (who used to be a senior editor for TNR). "There are a lot of people scratching their heads trying to find a new angle at the end."
Others, like soldiers who have served one tour too many, are slowly losing touch with the world outside the candidate's orbit. Bai, who is married to a Fox producer, has seen the strains of life on the road. "You lose contact with the outside world," says Bai. "You call your spouse at home and talk about the trail and the person at home just doesn't get it or care, because it's the same story over and over again. It's murder on relationships." Every four years, Bai says, there's at least one divorce or break-up. "It's just not a normal human experience."

That certainly rasies questions about how well the journalists can do their jobs aside from biases. How do they function under such prolonged conditions? And the part about "losing touch with the world outside the candidate's orbit" really interests me. How do the journalists write pieces that address everyday Americans' questions when they are out of touch?

I understand the idea of the beat in journalism. A journalist's beat is the area he or she covers. It's usually fairly narrow, such as the local cops beat, or a bit broader such as a features beat. The idea is that the journalist becomes something of a historian for that part of the world. The person knows the major and some of the minor players, and the journalist can detect changes, analyze the beat's evolution. The beat facilitates access, too. Journalists get to know the folks they cover and vice versa; trust is cultivated. So, the theory is that the journalists following Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will have insider info and spot trends -- or breaks in trends -- sooner than anyone else.

But after reading that TNR piece, I wonder if there's a better way to handle campaigns What about crop rotation, a refreshing of the troops or a passing of the baton in a relay, if you will? I truly hope that no election season lasts two years ever again, but if 2008 has set a new standard, I wonder if there will be a noticeable effect on the number of journalists rushing into the politics beat. My immediate guess is no because of that initial appeal of prestige, access and status.

My respect for these journalists' work ethic has multiplied, and I admire their dedication to their jobs. My hat is off to them because I wouldn't want to do their jobs. I wonder how many of them will still want to do it after Wednesday.

Layoffs abound; CSM and CNN make big changes

2008-10-30T00:54:00.005-04:00

This election season (can we really call it a season when it's lasted two years?), we've heard the word "change" often. Here are some that knocked me down like a stampede, as compiled from the Daily Media News Feed I get each weekday from mediabistro.com:

How are those for a buzzkill? Even companies that did well in 2008 have implemented pay freezes (that means you, Congressional Quarterly, for which I do freelance editing and research work.) CQ is making a pre-emptive strike against what it expects to be a tough year.

A friend who has no professional association with the company surmises that it's facing increasing competition from Roll Call and Politico, which is proving to be quite the force to reckon with in the political arena. I'm in no way disparaging CQ's decision. I am sure the executives made up their minds after careful review. I bring it up because it is interesting and sad and scary for those who work there and in journalism at large.

Another change that mediabistro reported today is that the Christian Science Monitor is going to go all Web. The blurb from the newsletter and the additional links included in it speak for themselves:

The Christian Science Monitor plans major changes in April 2009 that are expected to make it the first newspaper with a national audience to shift from a daily print format to an online publication that is updated continuously each day. The changes at the Monitor will include enhancing the content on CSMonitor.com, starting weekly print and daily e-mail editions, and discontinuing the current daily print format. WaPo: "Everyone who grew up with print, and everyone who worked in print like me, you feel a little sad," editor John Yemma said in an interview. But he said the Church of Christ, Scientist, which has heavily subsidized the $26 million annual cost of running the Boston-based paper, wants to stem the flow of red ink. Forbes: While other print publications have folded in favor of online in recent years, the Monitor's change is perhaps the most poignant acknowledgment thus far of the radical transformation in the newspaper business.

CNN is also preparing for change. It is seizing on news sources' dissatisfaction with the Associated Press and starting its own wire service. Certainly CNN executives were planning this long before the hatin' on the AP became so rampant -- or at least so public. I don't know, though. A CNN wire service? The content on its home page is hit-or-miss. It's been seven years since I have had daily access to the AP wire, though. It's possible the same could be said for its content.

Turns out media did snub McCain, study and journalists say

2008-10-29T00:26:00.008-04:00

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have been complaining about the media's treatment of them for weeks. I have been complaining about their complaints. But the guys who run Politico say the Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates could be right. They cite a Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) study:

The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.

What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).

You call that balanced?
OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.

Eeek. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz won't argue with that one, based on his Oct. 28 piece, "Journalists Name 44th President."

I'm not going to argue with the experts, either. Unlike the PEJ researchers and Kurtz, I don't read a zillion newspapers and I don't watch tons of TV news. So, I act solely as a media consumer rather than producer in saying I trust what they tell me. My question is why did they wait so long? McCain's camp has been raising, er, Cain about the media's coverage of his campaign for what feels like the past 25 years. OK, so the PEJ researchers needed time to conduct their formal, scientific study. I grant them that. But there could have been more Kurt-type pieces.

Journalists spent so much time defending their industry -- and rightly and understandably so -- possibly to their own detriment because it now seems they missed something.

It's too bad that the media, when the public already has so many doubts about them (hence, the defensive stance), have fanned the flames.

Hannity vs. Olbermann: A study by Howard Kurtz

2008-10-28T00:36:00.003-04:00

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz (I should note he also works for CNN) has an interesting piece out comparing and contrasting Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. They're like oil and water, diametrically opposed in their viewpoints. Hannity embraces the right like an old friend, while Olbermann preaches to the Democratic choir. But the two men are also similar in their extreme approaches to opinion journalism (there's an oxymoron for you).

Here are some highlights from Kurtz's article:

"Obama recently questioned whether voters are 'seeing two different realities, a Sean Hannity reality and a Keith Olbermann reality.'"
"Prime-time viewers of Fox News and MSNBC get vastly different perspectives on the campaign that sometimes approach mirror images. This goes well beyond the hosts' political views to the booking of guests and the way stories are framed, pumped up and sometimes ignored. In that sense, the programs reflect the increasing polarization of the media world, where columnists, strategists, bloggers and radio talkers have built thriving careers catering to those who already agree with them."

Kurtz has lots of good examples of the two men's riffs on each other's favored candidates. I don't watch TV news, not on cable or the networks. Whenever I try, I get too upset at, well, most things. So, I defer to Kurtz on analyzing this one. I bring it to your attention because I have seen clips of Olbermann's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" and Hannity's "Hannity & Colmes" and "The Sean Hannity Show." Clips are all I can stomach from either "newsman," but they are enough to give me an idea of what each program is about. That's why I find Kurtz's analysis so interesting: He did all the grunt work for me and picked the worst of the worst to break it all down.

Plus I find the idea of prime-time news programs entertaining -- because they are entertainment. TV news magazines such as "Dateline NBC" thrive on drama, suspense and all the other elements that bring us 8,000 versions of "Law & Order." The fare on the cable stations is the same. I know what I am seeing is not true journalism in its organic form, but that's because I am trained to know that. Most people see something on CNN, MSNBC or Fox and think, "This is a news channel. What I am seeing must be a form of news." I don't mean to sound like I am calling people dumb. It's a purposeful move by the cable channels' executives.

I watch the news to get news, and when someone tries to fake me out, I get mad. I watch television to be entertained, but when that entertainment is given under the guide of news, I get mad. Except when it's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." The difference there is the is not trying to give me news. It's critiquing the news and the public figures the media cover. If I learn something, that's a happy by-product. The show's on Comedy Central. It makes no pretenses about what it is. And that I can appreciate.

ABC News: Palin more media accessible than Biden

2008-10-24T01:46:00.002-04:00

An ABC News correspondent has blogged that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, is now more media accessible than her Democratic counterpart, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.). A few paragraphs into Jake Tapper's post, I wondered, "Would his propensity for saying too much have anything to do with it?" And then, graciously, Tapper answered me:

The Delaware lawmaker has not fielded questions from supporters since a Sept. 10 rally in Nashua, N.H., at which he said that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., might have been a better vice presidential pick than him.

And he has not held an arranged press avail since a Sept. 7 flight to Kalispell, Mont.

It might not be hard to imagine why this has happened. Biden's proclivity to speak his mind has provided much fodder for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Republicans -- as happened this week, when Biden told contributors at a Seattle fundraiser that America's enemies would "test" a new, young President Barack Obama.

It's especially interesting to me that Tapper says"his once-reclusive Republican counterpart, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, has become increasingly accessible, perhaps more so than any of the four candidates." Tapper goes on to list her media interactions of late, but he never offers a reason for the flip-flop (oh, yes, I went there). That's what I really want to know.

After all, I've blogged a lot about the animosoty between Palin -- and the McCain camp as a hole -- and the media:

Preposterous punditry through Jon Stewart's eyes

2008-10-23T14:20:00.003-04:00

A new segment on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" called "Who the F@#k is That Guy?" makes excellent points about the cable news channels' use of political pundits. It speaks for itself, so watch it and enjoy/cringe.

O'Reilly, you shouldn't have, really; when Fox gets it right

2008-10-22T21:15:00.009-04:00

I'm no fan of Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly. I find his style offensive and most of his ideas are out of line with my own. But the man brings in the ratings, according to this article by The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz:

"The O'Reilly Factor" has been the top-rated program in cable news for nearly eight years, with the host's high-decibel commentary generating both loyal fans and fervent critics. The program has been averaging more than 4 million viewers nightly since last month -- an unheard-of figure in that corner of the cable world.

I don't know if it's because people can't wait to see what he might say or do next or because they agree with his ideas, and I don't care. As Kurtz mentions, the viewership numbers are not due solely to fans. Critics also tune in. Stephen Colbert, the anti-O'Reilly in real life, owes his "Colbert Report" character to O'Reilly, whom Colbert calls Papa Bear. So when I read today that he has signed a new contract with Fox to stick around for another four years, I was not surprised. What news channel would want to get rid of someone who brings in advertising revenue? What made me cringe, however, is the dollar figure affixed to that contract: $10 million per year.

Now, to be honest, not even that figure would have fazed me much had the headline about O'Reilly's contract not been followed by these in my Daily Media News Feed newsletter from mediabistro: "Yahoo to Cut 10% of its Workforce as Profit Declines," "Layoffs at Nielsen Business Media" and "Financial Times to Axe Up to 60 Jobs." And that was the order in which they appeared. (Disclaimer: I will be teaching a seminar on copy editing for mediabistro.)

From a business perspective, O'Reilly's contract is simply good business. On a personal level, though, to see that such a man is making such amounts, it hurts. People are losing their jobs while O'Reilly gets four more years to tell people to shut up.

What also eats at me is how O'Reilly acts like he's doing America a favor by not retiring. Of course, this could be part of his act, but as a "journalist" -- and I use that word extremely lightly in describing him -- there should be no act. Here's what he said to Kurtz: "Bill O'Reilly has signed up for another tour of duty at Fox News, saying that he decided 'to put myself through all the attacks and smears' for several more years." I'll have to RSVP in the negative to that pity party.

But wait. There's more:

The pugnacious pundit said that he signed the contract despite what he sees as a constant assault on his reputation. "I couldn't care less whether the establishment media respect me," he said yesterday in an interview. "I feel they're corrupt. They, I'm sure, resent me feeling that way."

But of all the nonsense that comes out of his mouth, this one makes me laugh and cry the most: "Although O'Reilly, 59, openly disdains the mainstream media, they also provide him with a target that he delights in pummeling night after night."

I hate to break it to you, O'Reilly -- no, actually, I don't mind at all -- but isn't Fox News pretty mainstream nowadays? In fact, to insinuate that it's not is akin to admitting that the cable news station is what many believe it to be: a propaganda arm of the right wing.

As for me, I believe that Fox News Channel tilts so far to the right that a Fox News Alert would have to be generated should objectivity make an appearance. That said, however, I know many news outlets that lean to the left. There's a place for everyone. The First Amendment guarantees it, and Fox does sometimes do a good job of pointing out what other media fail to. The most recent and glaring example is vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden's remarks about the likelihood of a large-scale crisis should Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) win the presidential election. For obvious reasons, Fox was all over that. And it was newsworthy. But most other outlets didn't make much mention of it, and for that I fault them.

Today washingtonpost.com's "Talk" message board invited people to discuss whether a double standard exists in the media's coverage of Biden vs. Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin. People could also talk about Biden's comments on another WP message board. But a message board -- even two -- is not a story.

A search for "Biden crisis" in CNN.com's search engine produces plenty of hits, none of which are CNN stories.

Interestingly, what is a story, at least on The New York Times' Web site, is Obama's response to Biden's remarks. Not surprisingly, Obama chides his running mate and downplays the whole situation.

Is there a place for Fox News Channel in the mainstream media? Yes, and it is comfortably situated there, with good ratings and a solid, devoted viewership. Does its political bent reveal problems with other media companies? Certainly. Does Fox sometimes overstep boundaries? Certainly. And O'Reilly is responsible for much of that. And he will be for at least four more years.

Disassociated Press: Papers sever ties with world's largest wire service

2008-10-21T00:49:00.003-04:00

Almost a year ago, I blogged about how the workload of Associated Press has picked up as news outlets have shuttered their overseas bureaus. Now it seems news outlets are shutting out AP , too. I've been reading articles about newspapers complaining about AP's high subscription costs, and I saw briefs about some papers opting not to maintain their relationship with the wire service, which has been providing news since 1846. At first, small, cash-strapped papers were severing their ties. But then:

What had been a minor newspaper rebellion against The A.P. suddenly grew much more serious last week, when the Tribune Company, one of the largest newspaper chains, said on Thursday that it would drop out of the association, followed by The Dispatch’s announcement. A handful of papers have made the same move over the last few months, but with the exception of The Star Tribune of Minneapolis, they were relatively small.

Other newspapers are considering taking similar steps. What that means for AP is unclear so far.

It remains to be seen whether defections become a major problem for The A.P., the world’s largest news-gathering organization with more than 3,000 journalists in about 100 countries. Without the rich diet of articles, photographs, audio and video it feeds its clients, most American newspapers would be much slimmer and their coverage less expansive.

Paper or Web? 'Daily Show' producer prefers print

2008-10-17T17:45:00.003-04:00

The producer of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," Adam Chodikoff, relies more on old-school media formats than new ones, according to this Women's Wear Daily article. That surprises me, given the hip nature of the show and its loyal following in the younger age brackets. Chodikoff reads seven newspapers a day -- the print versions.

Chodikoff doesn’t use Google to turn up inconsistencies, preferring news stories on LexisNexis, and he ignores Wikipedia. Explaining why he prefers print over the Web, he cites a scene from the movie “Back to School,” when Rodney Dangerfield asks his son why he’s buying used books. “And he says, ‘Because they’re already underlined, see?’ And Rodney says, ‘But that guy could have been a maniac.’ And that’s the problem with the Internet.”

Whatever his strategies and preferences, they work. Keep it up, Chodikoff.

Palin as media savior? OK, but how?

2008-10-15T21:45:00.002-04:00

Here's a headline that you know caught my eye: "How Palin Can Save Mainstream Media." Actually, the article, which ran on washingtonpost.com, credits Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party, and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the Democrats' presidential nominee. The writer, Kathleen Parker, makes some interesting notes:

"Love her or hate her, Palin has done for media ratings what she did for the Republican base. Her debate with Joe Biden was the most-watched cable TV show for viewers ages 18 to 34, according to Jonathan Klein, president of CNN/U.S."
"Jim VandeHei, executive editor of Politico, reported that traffic on politico.com is 'exponentially higher' for Palin- and Obama-related stories."

But the point of her article is not how much attention the candidates get in the media or even whether that attenion is positive or negative. The point of Parker's article is to show how out of touch with most of the country the mainstream are.

After George Bush won re-election in 2004, few were more baffled than the media. In the South and flyover country, almost no one was surprised.

How does that work?

To remedy the gap between the two Americans, pundits came up with some novel ideas. One Los Angeles Times writer suggested an exchange program through which families in red and blue America could swap children for a while.

The gap has only grown wider in the years since as an ever-expanding new media permits people to ratify their own worldview without straying far afield or tapping into a well of shared information.

Parker mentions Obama at the beginning of the article, but he pretty much disappears on the jump page. Parker turns to describing the "boring old central reality that characterizes the lives of the many Americans who are not perpetually plugged in."

Their narrative may lack a dramatic arc, but their story is familiar and deserves respect. It's called paying the bills, getting the kids schooled and fed, and trying to keep a rapacious culture at bay.

These are the folks who have found light in Sarah Palin and who have been a major part of the Palin frenzy. They will vote the McCain ticket regardless of whether Palin can rattle off Supreme Court cases with which she disagrees. They recognize themselves in her. To them, her lack of polish and knowledge feels like an absence of slickness and glibness.

I'm not sure by the end of the article how Palin or Obama can save the media. Is the point that we need charismatic or atypical candidates to get people to pay attention? Clearly, Parker thinks the media don't understand most Americans. That's not a new charge. But how can Palin save the media -- and by "save," I think Parker means the media's image, not their financial crisis, although one could argue that the two go hand-in-hand.

At the end of the article, I walk away with the following:

TV viewership, Internet traffic and newspaper/magazine readership has increased during this campaign, and Parker says that Obama and Palin are the cause.
The media don't understand most Americans' concerns.
The media get caught up in their own web and cannot see beyond it.
People like Palin for her distance from Washington.

I'm sure that somewhere in there, all that ties together to show how Palin can save mainstream media, as the headline suggests, but I can't find the link(s). Maybe it's my head cold or campaign fatigue. Articles are supposed to include the who, what, when, where, why and how, but I just don't see the how in this one. Am I missing it? Do you see it?

Digital Age changes strategies, not basics of supply, demand

2008-10-13T16:59:00.004-04:00

"Does the campaign trail still matter much in an age of digital warfare?" Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz asks.

"Warfare"? Really? Isn't it just competition -- the same old thing that has driven business since the dawn of business? It's the same idea with a new technology. And that technology lets new players who are not necessarily trained/experienced/professional journalists into the game.

Kurtz quotes journalists as saying campaign trail news is old before it ever hits the newspapers because bloggers have already dissected the information. But he also quotes journalists who act as bloggers, indeed as Twitterers or Tweets or whatever a person who uses Twitter is called. And I wonder, "What's so wrong with that?" Isn't the evolving role of the media and journalists' metholodies just that -- evolution?

The big news outlets realize they can't do it all. This New York Times article talks about "link journalism," in which mainstream news organizations link to articles in one another's publications.

But Kurtz does not argue against change or technology. He's more worried about the fundamentals: fact-checking, accuracy, truth. "On the road, some of the nation's top print journalists morph into bloggers who post paragraphs on each mini-development, giving them a more stenographic role that leaves less time for actual reporting, or even thinking."

The biggest perk of trailing campaigns is access, Kurtz wrote. "The greatest advantage of campaign travel, journalists say, is access to senior officials who rarely return calls or e-mails." But it costs about $10,000 to keep one correspondent traveling for one week, he wrote. That number sounds excessive. I'd love to see how that breaks down.

I digress. The point is that journalists need to figure out how to marry public demand for instantaneous information with the basic traits of good journalism. Post-debate fact checks are great because they are easy to digest and clearly juxtapose truths and falsehoods with the claims. Perhaps that could be one approach in this new scoop race.

Biting Apple: Cruel joke or plain gullibility?

2008-10-08T14:06:00.003-04:00

Poor Steve Jobs. He can't catch a break. First he was reported dead. Then someone posted an iReport on CNN.com stating that he had a heart attack. The man is fine, though. Don't start stockpiling Apple Inc. products as collectors' items. Then again, in these economic times, maybe do.

"The erroneous piece stayed up for more than three hours – long enough to bounce around the blogosphere – before an Apple spokesperson quashed the rumor," the Christian Science Monitor reports, adding that Apple's stock fell sharply after the iReport went up. Now is not the best time to joke with the stock markets, is it?

What's amazing is how quick we are to believe what we see. CNN's iReports are a form of citizen journalism, and the outlet does not vet them for accuracy or other things related to journalistic integrity. It's the ultimate freedom of speech -- or video or still image.

CNN says it will not change its policies despite the incident. The lesson here is not that the media should eliminate citizen journalism avenues or edit them. It's that you can't always believe what you see. Do your own research. If CNN.com or other national news sites don't have breaking news banners, wait to call your broker.

News to Me

Funny man Gene Weingarten's tips for getting by as a journalist

Want vs. need in news consumption

'Daily Show' catches Fox using old footage to embellish story

Headliners at The Onion: Peeling Back the Skin

Barking up the wrong tree with journalism?

Journalism gets hoax-y

With balloon story, media full of hot air

Journalists can't find jobs

Enrollment up at J-schools

Did WP kill story for being too depressing?

Vanity Fair on Washington Post

11-year-old interviews Obama, talks future career

Obama provides fodder to Fox, Stewart

Parallels between 1943 novel and today's journalism

Journalists looking for work find it at AOL

The Middle East, according to a Fox News map

Blog on Gators QB set up for first down or fumble?

Olbermann, O'Reilly nothing more than gluttons for ratings

Not a fan of Fox? Try The Nation

'Journalism' vs. 'reporting'

'Daily Show' highlights: Jason Jones in Iran, celebrity deaths

Covering M.J.'s death is no monkey business

PETA takes swat at Obama over fly

Fly swat seen around the world

Daily Show vs. NYT

Mixing business and pleasure: a roundup

Senate, Amazon work to help newspapers

Senate to hold hearings on newspaper industry; bloggers macth lawyers in prevelence

Can good journalism survive without good newspapers?

New Yorker: What Murdoch, Hearst have in common

AP wants aggregators to share revenue with news orgs

Miami Herald editor offers reassurances, but questions linger

Cardin explains Newspaper Revitalization Act

Travel slowdown hurts USA Today

With Facebook quiz, journalism woes get new prominence

More papers take drastic steps

Editor of El Nuevo Herald shuns cuts by stepping down

In memoriam: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, age 146

Cramer and Stewart's battle royale

Newspapers, schmoozpapers: Study finds people unconcered about industry's decline

Miami Herald inches closer to uncertainty with fresh round of cuts

Obama list ban on photos of war dead

A Colorado paper bids farewell

Pentagon considers giving bigger face to the dead

No freedom of the press at Press Club event

Stewart's plan to save newspapers

Want something investigated? Hire a journalist

Caylee coverage is a disgrace, Nancy

Ex-journos' new jobs raise eyebrows; digital debate drones on

Media, Obama on the outs already?

Obama relaxes FOIA policies

Media's Obama bonanza

'Daily Show' after Bush

Media ready for access to Obama White House

Newspapers live on at inauguration kickoff

We're only human after all

Newspapers bank on inauguration

Media industry takes a beating in 2008

Joe moves through the pipes from plumber to reporter

Shafer: Newspapers embraced tech, failed to differentiate

2008 good to cable news networks

TV news stations put Iraq exit strategy into effect

Was India just following a Western model in its media coverage of Mumbai?

Brady steps down as wp.com editor

Top newspaper industry stories of '08

AP votes election top story of '08

Time's top 10 of 2008

Newspapers and the bailout bandwagon

Pulitzer embraces the Internet

2009: Year of the renegade pink-slip recipients?

The future of journalism: Dog walking

Fox News makes way for Obama-touting successor

People, not media, caused Black Friday tragedy

Obama outpaces predecessors in accessibility

Craig's list: What he needs to pay for news

Today in chutzpah

Is media's love for Obama unrequited?

Rupert Murdoch gets it right

Go ahead, Carr, get it off your chest