Some "Final" Thoughts

1.

True, definitional objectivity can only be achieved by an entirely third-party, Mr. Spock-like observer from outer space, wholly disconnected from the human condition and its accompanying biases. None living on earth can escape some form of bias: an American journalist would be hard-pressed to write objectively about democracy or Marxism; a Chinese journalist would be biased in his or her view of communism, intrinsically and naturally either for or against. However elusive, objectivity, or more accurately the pursuit of its implementation, has a natural place in journalism so as to distinguish it from the more gratuitously self-serving realms of public relations and advertising (Scheuer, 117). Journalism cannot claim to report a semblance of the truth without some aspirations for true objectivity. While definitional objectivity may be unattainable to all but Vulcans and other aliens, there are at least two conditions that can enhance a journalist’s pursuit of it and excuse the omniscience of bias in journalism.

The first condition is robust editorial oversight. As evidenced by the blogosphere, when left to his or her own devices, a self-proclaimed journalist is more likely to add to the public debate than to create a forum for its propagation, as journalism needs to. Editorial oversight provides a level of immediate and immanent accountability. An editor in the newsroom, ideally one seasoned by some level of experience and wisdom and certainly more removed from a story, can more objectively recognize biases in stories and regulate accordingly. The editorial process is the most effective form of self-regulation in the industry, as evidenced by the presence or lack of truth and objectivity. One needs only to compare a blog and a newspaper article to see the difference.

The second condition is journalistic integrity, for lack of a better term. I see objectivity in journalism as the honest portrayal of perceived truth. While complete objectivity may be impossible, one cannot fault a journalist for painting the picture as he or she honestly sees it, considering all the facts. Essentially, this is the job of the journalist- to gather facts (though admittedly a biased process ) and present them to the public in a narrative, dots connected (Scheuer, 67). Ingrained opinions and unconscious biases can and should be found by the concerned reader in the subtext, recognized for what they are, and then processed along with the rest of the information. It is a moot point as to whether journalists can have their own opinions or not; they or anyone can hardly be separated from their beliefs. As Scheuer states, no journalist is an automaton.

This does not mean, however, that biographical information should be included with a journalist’s work; it should be understood that journalists are human and therefore have inherent beliefs and opinions. Jay Rosen may disagree, what with his laissez-faire approach to neutrality and all, but I believe in a fourth wall of journalism, allowing the reader to make of the information what he or she will (Rosen, “Neutrality”). In this way I intend to approach objectivity- not by riding the elephant in the room, but by allowing readers to address it as they see fit.

2.

Excellence in journalism is consistently getting it right and getting it all (Scheuer, 45). Such an achievement is only obtained through an independent press. It is not enough to get all the facts if the context is incomplete or skewed. It is not enough to have a major exposé one day if there is no diligent reporting of the mundane every other day. It is not enough to convey an interesting narrative if the narrative lacks the facts. These characteristics and more make up the elusive quality of excellence in journalism.

Influences should be kept to a minimum, if not purged entirely, so as to maintain objective third-partisanship. Trust is built on the perceived notions of independence and truth. The human mind, I believe, is keen to recognize sales pitches and opinions disguised as facts. Whether or not the reader agrees with the faux facts is irrelevant to his or her patronage, but true excellence cannot be achieved under such conditions. Independence is essential to honest reporting, as objectivity is greatly, unbearably strained in independence’s absence.

Public vigilance is an ambiguous term. Does it mean pursuing the perceived best interest of the public, regardless of how the public itself defines its best interests? Or does it mean close study of polls and public research to determine what the public feels its needs are, and then fighting for those declared needs? I say that public vigilance is looking for unseen ways the public may be endangered, either physically, politically, or economically. The public need not know exactly how it is being served by the press in order for that service to be meaningful. This is paradoxical, of course, because the public may cast off that which it does not feel it needs. This casting off of a vital limb seems to be happening with newspapers, including my hometown newspaper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The AJC does an excellent job of public vigilance. Every time I looked, I could find stories highlighting local crises, misuse of power, government negligence, and consumer reports. These stories were not given prevalence, and therein lies the problem. “Most popular stories” were linked to on the AJC Web site daily, including stories about breast implants, Jay-Z, and 50 pound tumors. Multimedia on the site was never devoted to hard news. By failing to provide enticing access and prevalence to important community stories, the AJC is failing in its public vigilance. It is not enough to write the stories- a vigilant newspaper will circulate the news to the best of its ability. In this lies excellence, an active pursuance of public vigilance to add to the aforementioned qualities.

3.

Journalistic truth differs from reality only in its level of complexity. While absolute truth is an incomprehensible ideal available in its entirety to God alone, journalistic truth attempts to portray reality as clearly as possible, often at the expense of some messy details, nuances, and depth of real life. Despite the chaos that plagues social relations at home and abroad, an amnesiac reading the paper would see a world more organized, understandable, and qualifiable than it actually is. In fact, journalistic truth varies entirely in different regions, cultures, religions, and races. Journalistic truth depends wholly on independence and context- it is not enough to show the stars but also the depth of space in which they are set (Scheuer, 46). Such a challenge is one foolhardily but necessarily undertaken by journalism. Only with a perceived notion of reality, organization, and contextual understanding can citizens hope to find meaningful participation in democracy. By dumbing down reality, it becomes accessible to those who live in it. Were it possible to describe and disseminate the minutiae that connects chaotic news events to the understanding of the masses, then, perhaps, would journalism be able to present absolute truth. This is not possible, however, so the adequate journalism of “Who? What? Where? When? and Why?” is of necessity adequate and accepted.

4.

The news industry is failing because of lack of foresight. As the retail, entertainment, and interpersonal communication industries moved their business models awkwardly but ultimately successfully onto the Internet, the news industry tried to weather what must have been perceived as a storm. With a void unfilled by professional journalists, the Internet adapted as only it can do, by providing the means for the everyman to take up the journalistic torch. A shoddy excuse for journalism, blogging was nonetheless embraced by reader and writer alike and now fills the web. Though traditional media institutions rushed to play catch up in the wake of Web 2.0, they are similar to the kid noticeably behind in school but trying to fake it nonetheless. In the meantime, readership and advertising dollars have already made Rosen’s migration to the new land of plenty, leaving newspapers and television in the past (Rosen, “Migration”).

Implications for future generations of journalists and readers include more writing talent devoted to novels, governments watched by no dog, and a strange new amalgam of journalism and professions like truck driver, lumberjack, and politician. In all seriousness, the future of journalism is being heavily debated by everyone in the industry, and it is an industry that seems to think of itself on a sinking ship. Yes, there are optimists like Dan Rather who see the future as being very similar to the past (Rather, “Future”). There are those such as Jay Rosen who see a future ruled by semi-professionals, freelancers in an open news market (Rosen, “Migration”). And then there are those pessimists who see the death of the press as imminent.

My own view is a mix of those perceptions. The press cannot die altogether, and the demise of some of its icons is not a sign of the journalistic Apocalypse. Some news organizations, like CNN, will adapt enough of their practices to seem modern, but will essentially practice the news using the business models of the past. I do see the evolution of the press taking place online, but it will have follow in the footsteps of Slate or The Huffington Post in terms of near-professionalism and journalistic integrity. Any journalism job I will have 10 or 15 years down the line will likely be work as a freelancer. Freelance journalism still has to answer to editors, still has to have a viable economic plan. Freelancers are also better able to utilize the developing tools of the trade, implement them in innovative ways, and ultimately profit from them. Bloggers are freelance journalists minus initiative, training, and resources. Add those qualities to a blogger and he or she can be as professional and beneficial to the Union as any New York Times reporter. News organizations can evolve how they choose or indeed die off; whichever fate awaits them, journalism and its role in society will live on, much to the relief of would-be professional journalists like myself.

5.

My personal code of conduct can be summed up in one word: depth. While it is necessary for a journalist to convey an understandable message, the extent to which news is dumbed down in the mainstream is excessive and degrades our society. I believe that in many cases news does need to be simplified, narrative, and accessible, and those cases are widely available to the public. What is not so available is in-depth reporting. Never does an issue have merely two sides, not in any political contest, not in any argument, not in any crisis. A reader would never know this by reading the morning paper. An abundance exists of journalists who report the surface; I want to report the surface and beyond. There is a strong likelihood that this will make my reporting liberal as hell, in which case, I accept that. There are too many stories over-reported with little actually being said; there are too many stories not covered at all. Perhaps journalists avoid depth as a precaution against error, lack of interest, or because they are told to do so. I do not intend to produce boring stories about which no one cares, I mean to make people care about stories that matter. Is there an unavoidable bias in such a desire? Almost certainly, but I believe that it should be done. Journalism should serve society as a whole. Not just the corporations, nor only the middle- and upper-classes, nor just the educated, nor any particular demographic should expect all the benefits of a free and vibrant press. While democracy is the voice of the majority, it is not to the detriment of the minority. I do not imply that I seek advocacy of the voiceless, merely fair representation, neither overbearing nor replacing the mainstream. Is this not why the First Amendment was created? To ensure power to the people? And why give power to people who already have power? Why raise the pulpit of those whose voices are already heard in abundance? I want to be a journalist so that I can report the untold stories and parts of stories. Depth is what I am for, and depth of honesty, fact, and context is how I intend to conduct my career as a journalist.

Works Cited

Rather, Dan. Forum. “The Future of Journalism.” New York University, New York, NY. 16 October 2008. <http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=281817-1>.

Rosen, Jay. “Getting the Politics of the Press Right: Walter Pincus Rips into Newsroom Neutrality.” PressThink. 14 March 2008. <http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2008/03/14/pincus_neutrality.html>.

---. “Migration Point for the Press Tribe.” PressThink. 26 June 2008. <http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2008/06/26/pdf.html>.

Scheuer, Jeffrey. The Big Picture. New York: Routledge, 2008.

Twitter: More Good than Harm in Mumbai

Scanning through Twitter tweets posted to the micro-blogging site during the Mumbai attacks, I can't help but see the benefits through the cloud of confusion and possible detriment. 

Were the reports unclear, figures exaggerated, and confusion spread? Yes, most certainly. Would the Mumbai authorities have been able to do a better job in the absence of Twitter? I think not. As more reports emerge from India, it is clear that the institutions there were entirely unprepared to deal with an attack. Don't blame Twitter for any inadequacies. 

As the attacks progressed, Twitter activity on the subject jumped sharply, but so did news reports and other traditional forms of communication. The only difference was that the accounts were less substantiated and unmediated. It's not as though everyone posting tweets to Twitter were eye-witnesses; most were passing on news already made public, discrediting claims that tweets may have aided the terrorists. What eyewitness accounts were provided were raw and mingled amongst faux-reports, but isn't that what eyewitness accounts have always been like?  

Some have commented that "#mumbai" Twitter became "an incoherent, rumour-fueled mob operating in a mad echo chamber of tweets, re-tweets, and re-re-tweets."

Reading the tweets from the time, I would agree. 

The Twitter "coverage" of the attack cannot be compared to that of a professional news source. Despite what the New York Times may think, I don't consider the coverage "citizen journalism," rather, citizens aiding journalism. All eyewitness accounts were at the time unsubstantiated, unconfirmed, and thus, unreliable. They did serve as a reference point from which news organizations could confirm and elaborate news points, and as such greatly benefited the reporting of the incident. 

I agree with the Times that the internet provided an excellent resource for those mourning the losses sustained, but that was the extent of the medium's unaided effort. What did come out of the Mumbai experience on Twitter was a outcry against international terrorism, a blast of support to those affected by the attacks, and a source for links to reputable stories about the incident. 

All said, the online experience of Mumbai further fuels the argument that the online community is nowhere close to prepared to replace professional journalism. Most of the substantial tweets on the subject were regurgitation of news stories. Those that were not could not be easily verified by readers. With ease of use and mobility, the online community was able to add richness of conversation to the story, but did little to affect the story or its coverage. 

Twitter was certainly a notable footnote in the coverage of Mumbai, but a footnote is still just a footnote. 

CNN: The New AP?

CNN is making a move to take their existing wire service national, bringing them into direct competition with other wire services, foremost including the Associated Press.

Hoping to alleviate financial strain for news organizations suffering from economic slowdown, loss of advertising revenue to the Internet, and declining circulations, CNN hopes to offer a competitive wire service at a lower cost than the AP or competitors like Bloomburg, others. CNN's wire service is currently available for CNN stations, some local TV affiliates, and a few newspapers.

While CNN isn't known for written content, its website cnn.com offers various written news stories. What would be of particular use to newspapers would be shorter international stories that CNN could provide with their 3,000 journalists in over 100 countries.

By stepping onto AP's territory, CNN is making a bold statement about their ambitions in the media industry. A CNN empire that reaches into the newspaper industry would greatly increase their influence. Moreover, by advertising an in-house wire service that will cost them millions in additional capital, CNN is flaunting a revenue stream much more substantial than competitors and contemporaries in the news industry. CNN is satisfied with their blurring of the lines between TV and Internet news, now they move onto blurring the lines between TV and print news.

Perhaps the news industry is not moving from one medium into another, perhaps the new media industry will be an almost omnipresent type of reporting done by multi-media companies. If TV networks and newspapers are both moving into the Internet, both featuring video on the Web, and both facing economic downturn, why not combine all the types of media into one, large, comprehensive "Mediasaurus."

I won't say that CNN will have it easy with its new business venture, but I do believe that the tenacious spirit of Ted Turner lives on. This battle is CNN's to lose.

Change! (your target audience)

It has been suggested that certain industries have had to adapt their focus in order to survive.

Bicycles, once thought of as a viable means of transportation for the masses, were eventually redefined to be recreational and exercise equipment with the proliferation of the automobile. Fountain pens, once the only pen available, had to be redefined as a luxurious symbol of affluence in order to remain profitable.

It seems that the newspaper industry is taking a clue from the fountain pen and painting itself, at least in some cases, as a tool for the rich.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has just started a magazine, "I," to be distributed in the newspapers circulation in affluent zip codes. With glossy pages and features including topics geared toward wealthy readers.

I see this as a move to guarantee the patronage of wealthy readers, presenting "richly" targeted articles on a "wealth" of topics exclusive to the magazine. The Philly Inquirer is taking a step already made by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

To move from a commonplace source of news to a luxury afforded the elite could provide a new business model to the ailing industry, though the already inherent problems with newspapers would carry over. By altering their content to more in-depth, comprehensive news instead of breaking news, however, emulating a news magazine, would probably be a better move. Breaking news is now a product of the Internet and 24-hour news stations. In this way, a magazine published by a newspaper is a good idea; catering to the rich may provide a safety cushion for a few thousand readers, but such a move is not the silver bullet.

Bailout for Journalists

Six Apart, an online media company in the business of aiding bloggers, has offered up what it calls "The TypePad Journalist Bailout Program" or "TypePad for Journalists."

The creators are offering what they see as a tool for journalists to bypass traditional media outlets and report the news on their own, independently. TypePad is a blogging software that Six Apart is offering as part of a membership that includes education on blogging and promotion on sites such as blogs.com.

The move, as explained by Six Apart, is part philanthropic and part entrepreneurial, trying to address the problems and concerns of journalists as they deal with the evolution of journalism. Six Apart wants to help journalists "take control of their own presence online." I read this as "become their own one-man (or woman) newspaper."

This makes sense! A large newspaper is less feasibly run on ad revenue than a single blogger would be. A blogger-journalist could have the resources necessary to pursue and report the news; some bloggers make several hundred thousand dollars a year in ad revenue for their blogs. A wise newspaper could ditch the newsroom altogether, employing a coalition of blogger-journalists with the same standards of a newspaper without the rigid demands of running a paper.

The moral of the story? Just because you don't work for a newspaper doesn't mean you can't be a journalist. The industry may evolve beyond all recognition, but the trade will live on.

Dan Rather 2.0

Bloggers killed Dan Rather's career, right?

Wrong.

Dan Rather's career is alive and well, thanks to a rich entrepreneur, a premium cable channel, and his own ingenuity and skill.

Enter HDNet, a premium channel available to select cable and satellite TV subscribers. HDNet features HD movies, television shows, sports programs, and Dan Rather.

Dan Rather Reports is an investigative news program that is a self-proclaimed watchdog on domestic and international issues. Dan Rather has said that he has tremendous leeway in deciding which stories to cover and what issues to emphasize. Rather's program is, as he says, "making a lot of money for the new network," and shows that journalism is still a viable trade. Moreover, the owner of HDNet, Mark Cuban, has expressed a lack of concern over whether or not Dan Rather Reports makes money for the network. Rather says that the news industry needs monetary support from businessmen and investors who care more about the essence of journalism than they do about making tons of money. In this way, privately owned news organizations, such as the New York Times, have a leg up on publicly traded news sources.

While the old dog isn't necessarily learning new tricks, I definitely applaud Rather's ability to stay viable and vibrant in an evolving industry. This contrasts quite a bit with Katie Couric's comments about how, no matter how well or poorly she reports, her viewership will decline in numbers. I think that Rather seems willing to buck the system and fight for what he believes in, and, in doing so, provides an excellent example for the budding future generation of journalists. Couple this with Rather's tenacious lawsuit against CBS, and I see a Dan Rather who refuses to bow to scary new technology, partisan media, or old age.

Thank you Dan Rather for your example.

Rather, Rosen, AP, and NYT Sound Off on Journalism's Fate

The fate of journalism is being endlessly debated by those who have a stake in its future (read: our class).

Most of the voices are just noise, and industry "experts" seem hard to come by, but NYU has rounded up a rather respectable panel: Dan Rather, Jay Rosen, Tom Curley of the AP, Jill Abramson of the New York Times.

What do they have to say? Pretty much the same thing as the rest of us idiots: the industry will change, reporters have to change with it, and sacrifices will have to be made.

I'll try and sum up the best points made by these unusually distinguished talking heads, as some of the perspectives were insightful.

Dan Rather called himself an optimist, explaining that he doesn't see the newspaper dying anytime soon. Being as old as dirt, he recalled a few other times in history when doom and gloom was prophesied for the newspaper industry, including when radio and television gained relevancy. Rather compared the media industry not to a pie whose pieces are being increasingly gobbled up by online media, but rather a pie that is growing. Many readers, Rathers said, come from demographics that weren't reading the news at all 10 or 15 years ago. Rather thinks that older people will always read newspapers, whether it is 2009 or 2020. Rather is himself blazing new territory as a journalist, anchoring HDNet news, a privately financed on-demand news program. Check back in the future for a blog on Rahter's new baby.

Jay Rosen expressed the same loathing that he always seems to direct at what he sees as the dying old media. He too made a new analogy (at least, one I'd never heard before) to describe the changing landscape of the media. Rosen talked of a forced migration taking place, where traditional journalists are moving from the traditional lands of scarce resources, crossing the "digital divide," where they're finding a land already inhabited by amateur journalists. They'll have to adapt or leave. Rosen, however, is optimistic about journalism as a trade; he points to past evolutions in the industry requiring new business models for journalists. The new media, according to Rosen, just has to come up with a new business model; once they do that, it's back to business as usual.

Mr. Curley and Ms. Abramson spoke mainly about how their organizations are making the journey across Rosen's "digital divide." For the most part, it's a bumpy transition, but the two organizations feel that they are doing well. The AP is moving into more digital content on the web, and the NY Times is augmenting their online content with more multi-media and in-depth reporting.

I think it's nice to see some major movers and shakers in the industry talking about journalism's future, but as circulations and revenue continue to drop, words alone aren't enough.

Hopefully executives and directors will listen to their input and do something, anything, to bolster the industry and ensure its necessary survival.

I highly recommend watching this panel discussion and letting me know what you think.

"WILL REPORT FOR FOOD" -homeless man's sign

The New York Times today had an article in the business section about journalists currently embedded in political campaigns (the web version is parred down). With the election season ending tomorrow, most of those journalists will find their services no longer needed.

Some will go back to freelance work, from whence they came, but many will find that the networks or newspapers who employed them have found ways to get by without. Newspapers especially, facing harder economic times than their TV counterparts, will be hard pressed to find reasons to keep on formerly embedded reporters.

I actually really feel for these journalists. It's kind of like serving a tour of duty overseas as a career miltary man, only to find yourself laid-off when the war is over. Or like suddenly going from full-time employment to a temp in your industry. Reporters embedded in a campaign live on the road. The Times mentioned Adam Aigner-Treworgy, who basically lived out of a suitcase after being embedded by NBC in the McCain campaign. He'll return to his mom's house, where he left his car packed with all of the belongings he couldn't sell on Craigslist, and have to start looking for a new job.

I think the saddest part is that many of these journalists did the thankless work of covering all the boring campaign stops that yielded no newsworthy stories, no "clinging to guns and religion" soundbites, and no "I can see Russia from my house" dumb moments. Someone had to do it, because that's the watchdog aspect of journalism.

You'd really have to read the article to get a feel for the trenches work done by these journalists and to appreciate what I consider a sacrifice on their part, though it be a labor of love. My point is that journalists deserve jobs. They're as much public servants as any diplomat, social worker, police officer or teacher. That role is sometimes downplayed because of the seemingly glamorous side of journalism, but the sacrifices of the journalist are sacrifices nonetheless. Reporters face different threats than cops, but I think it's an issue of the widow's mite; they're giving what they have to give.

I think this goes back to what we discussed today in class about conscience in the workplace. I think it takes conscience to persue true journalism in the first place, but the ethics of journalism goes beyond that. Part of it is a work ethic, dedicating time and sacrificing much to report the news. I think that's why the Times story struck a chord with me-- we owe a lot to journalists, sometimes more than they get in return. Maybe it's melodramatic, but think about it for a while and let me know what you think.

The Faces of Media Bias

This morning on CNN, Wolf Blitzer was talking to a panel about media bias in favor of Obama and against McCain as perceived by media consumers. In response to this, a senior analyst for Politico said something interesting, that yes, the media are biased in favor of Obama, but not because of ideology, not because they're necessarily "liberal." 

The biases, this panelist said, are as complex as the subjects they report. 

For one, the media favors momentum of any sort. Because Obama seems to have the immense forward momentum (raising tons of money, drawing huge crowds at rallies, moving ahead in most polls, etc.), the media casts him in a positive light. With McCain seemingly stagnant in some polls and losing ground in others, the media dramatizes this and casts him as the loser. 

Another aspect of the media's bias towards McCain stems from the "newness of Obama," for the media always favor new and unusual. While they never really point out Obama's race, the media do realize that a black man as a serious candidate running for president, much less a party's nominee, is a new and unusual occurrence in American politics. Of course they would put more emphasis on him than on an aging white man who's been in politics for decades. 

In these ways and others, I think that the media has been biased in their coverage of this election. These are rational biases, however, that result from the fact that reporters are human and that the institutions they work for are out to make a profit. No one covered Ron Paul during his campaign because who wants to watch a loser. 

I don't think that this means that all media are always out to get the conservatives, though that sometimes may be the case. For the most part, I think the intentions of the media reflect that triangle of accountability that was drawn on the board in class. We can't expect the media to ignore their markets, not with the model for journalism that we currently use in the US. 

What is a Journalist, Part Deux

Since the beginning of September, my idea of what a journalist is has changed. 

I've thought a lot about bloggers, citizen journalists, the new media, and the likes of Bill O'Reilly. 

I think that I've gained a much more liberal view of what the role of a journalist is, in that I see a journalist as a societal watchdog and encourager of public discourse. In this way, I think that true journalism is disappearing. More and more, journalism is becoming a corporate tool to spread ideology, make money, and entertain. Of course there is an understandable issue of monetary self-interest in the producers of the news, but this should not obstruct the democratic role of the journalist. 

I watched a local KSL 5 broadcast the other day and the top news stories were not news stories at all; there was banter between the anchors, human interest stories, etc, but nothing that really affects life. Perhaps it's that there isn't real news in Salt Lake, but I doubt that this is the case. I think that there are important stories to cover in Salt Lake, but that the news organizations aren't fulfilling their journalistic responsibilities in reporting it. 

On a national scale, Bill O'Reilly, along with other news commenters, is almost doing the opposite of his role. Regardless of whether or not he considers himself a journalist, the news organization he works for is sandwiching his program in between "news" stories, giving the illusion of news. Even if Fox News gave some blaring declaration that Bill O'Reilly isn't a journalist and his opinions are not authoritative, the network legitimizes his work by putting him on the air. If he were stimulating public discourse or even debate, then his program would have worth. O'Reilly, however, does not encourage discourse; he peddles argument, partisanship, and discord. He is not a journalist. If he were, he would mediate legitimate discourse and debate, rather than push a polarizing agenda. 

Bloggers, I believe, are doing the pure work of journalists. They, unlike Bill O'Reilly, who seems to want a homogenized public opinion, as blogging citizens are expanding the marketplace of ideas to everyone. Bloggers, as a significant chunk of the electorate, represent true public discourse, though it is sometimes unrestrained and unmediated. In this way, it seems to be the start of a new pure religion. By bypassing filters, bloggers step right over the censorship that is a necessity of networks and newspapers.

I'm sure that my idea of journalism will continue to evolve, as I haven't really developed a complete philosophy as to what journalism is. Stay tuned as it continues to develop and change...

Atlanta non-News

Of the top five news stories on ajc.com, only one deals with what I would call news:

1. R&B singer Lyfe Jennings arrested in Smyrna (GA town)

2. Rockmart man claims $42 Million lottery prize

3. Don't have sex, win a $10,000 wedding

4. Dogs linebacker out for rest of season

5. UGA to fire professor who hid sex crime

Please, don't agree with me, and comment to tell me why you don't, but I see all but the fifth most popular story as non-news. 

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports on hard local and national news stories, but those listed here are the most popular, most read stories as of today. The AJC, much like other news websites, lists a "Diggs"-like most popular story feature. What types of stories are being read less than those listed above?

Some are just interesting:

"16,000 Georgians haven't claimed tax checks"

"Missed phone call haunted man who punched killer in court"

Others are of importance to local readers:

"Runoff for Senate seat could make Georgia 'center of the universe'"

"Atlanta jobless rates rise"

What does this focus on entertainment news mean for the news industry? It seems like readers are less interested in traditional news and more interested in entertainment news. Take, for example, TMZ's huge jump in ratings over the last 12 months and CNN's dropping ratings compared to the last election cycle. 

Atlantans don't care about the senate race or corruption in government, they want to read about scandal in entertainment, whether it is presented in print or on the internet. Does this mean to say that they would not buy a newspaper, not because of readily available blogs or alternative media, but because of the focus? People, Us Magazine, and Entertainment Weekly aren't seeing any of the ad revenue slump; their magazines are doing just fine.

I think that some of the focus that we put on blogs and alternative media as the usurpers of the newspaper is misplaced. Much of it, I would think, has to do with changes in our societal focus. This, perhaps, is a more complex trend to track than ad revenue or circulation extent, but it seems to be having an effect nonetheless.  Demand removed from the newspaper probably has a complex and varied set of causes, many of which we're probably overlooking in our discussions of the industry.

 The supply has shifted to entertainment because that's where the demand is, not in newspapers.

More AP News

My last blog post was on the Associated Press, and how the Tribune Co. has given notice that they will discontinue membership in the cooperative. 

This week, AP executive editor Kathleen Carroll told the Poynter group that newspapers would most suffer online in their break from the AP. With up to the minute news wire and rich new AP video content, newspapers greatly benefit from AP material on their websites. 

It makes sense to me. It would cost news organizations a fortune to match the variety and quality of AP video releases- straining an already burdened news industry. 

The article went on to explain that the AP is finding more profit in media other than newspapers. Carroll explained that "with international markets growing and broadcast and online clients ready for an extended report," the AP doesn't have to cut prices on their services to newspapers. They are doing just fine. 

This is yet another indication that newspapers are fading out. The AP is making their money more and more off of new media. Considering that the AP is owned by newspapers, it seems as though there may be a conflict of interest there. 

Interestingly, the article also listed profit projections from ad revenue. According to Goldman Sach's estimate, newspapers can expect to see profits drop by almost $7 billion in four years.  That's a ton of money without adjusting for inflation. 

It seems like all signs point to the downfall of the modern newspaper. Is all of this like watching the Titanic go down, commenting until it touches bottom? Your comments please. 

From Most Widely Circulated to Least: All Are Losing

From both ends of the spectrum, more news that the newspaper industry is taking hits left and right. 

In Berkeley, CA, the local high school newspaper will be the beneficiary of a $6,000 bailout collected by local residents. The gift to the school's newspaper with a school readership of around 3,000 students will sustain the newspaper for at least another year. Berkeley High's "The Jacket" has been feeling the economic crunch along with its larger, professional counterparts. 

The Tribune Co., owner of twelve newspapers including the "LA Times" and "Chicago Tribune," has announced that it will cut ties with the venerable AP within two years. The Tribune Co. decision comes after other papers, including The "Star Tribune" of Minneapolis and "The Bakersfield Californian," also gave the required two-year notice of discontinuance. Spokane, WA paper "Spokesman Review" has decided to avoid the two-year notice and will faze out AP articles by the beginning of 2009. 

It seemed to me that if anyone would weather the storm battering the newspaper industry, it would be the AP. The possibility of high school newspapers failing didn't even enter my mind, so far-fetched a possibility it seemed. That's like saying the church newsletter will fold because of lack of circulation and ad revenue (even though that is something that is happening as well, with churches moving their bulletins to the internet).

Is it possible that the crunch of the newspaper industry has nothing to do with revenue, but rather with a larger trend. Obviously the internet is playing a role in the demise of the newspaper, but my assumption had always been that the internet move was a symptom of the larger economic disease, not the other way around. Have newspapers become cliche to the point of irrelevance? I had always thought that it was the greed of the corporations and the high costs of producing a paper that would eventually kill the business, but could it be that we just don't want newspapers? The AP is the epitome of traditional news, with inverted pyramids, terse style and high journalistic standards. AP is the symbol for a united US press corp. It's the AP, for crying out loud! And if high school newspapers, which have never, ever, been for profit, can't stay afloat, especially in wealthy Alameda County, I mean, stammer, stammer... 

I wonder if this is how they felt with, well, the last time a news medium died. I can't think of one. The radio is still around. TV is going strong. Maybe when the last town crier died? The AP isn't dead yet, but this is most certainly another nail in the coffin for newspapers.

Small-time paper, Big-time rewards

Karen Brentlinger was not "born a journalist." 

Brentlinger has written for the Pike County Journal-Reporter since 2002. Before that, she was a physical therapist, an entrepreneur, and a stay-at-home mom. Being a reporter, she said, has been one of the most satisfying roles she has ever played in her community. 

"I jumped at the opportunity to delve into my small world on a larger level," Brentlinger said. "I wanted to give something worth sharing to the community."

It wasn't a feeling of civic duty or ambition that led Brentlinger to journalism, rather, a love of writing and humor.

"I saw the local paper as a little too serious, like it took itself too seriously. I wanted to write a humor column," Brentlinger said.

The Pike County Journal-Reporter reaches just 15% of Pike County's 17,000 residents. As a small-time reporter, Brentlinger feels mostly unrestricted in her writing. As long as she covers the Williamson, GA city council meetings that make up her regular beat, Brentlinger is free to cover other stories she feels most important. 

"My favorite articles to write are human interest stories," Brentlinger said. "Those type of stories can at once draw us together and broaden our world."

As a small newspaperwoman, Brentlinger does not see any modern threats to the structure of her community paper. Blogging and community journalism have not yet become a major influence in the largely rural, farming community Brentlinger covers. The focus is more on connecting the community and serving its residents.

"I once had a reader from Atlanta track me down, call me, and tell me that an article I had written changed the way she looked at the world," Brentlinger said. "She said that it had changed her life." 

Brentlinger sees journalism as a place where honest, principled individuals will always have an outlet to report the world as they see it. Such a role is seen as a great burden to Brentlinger. 

"There is great power in the written word, and, as Spidey says, with great power comes great responsibility," Brentlinger said. 

War of Words

Journalism is a dying trade.

These days it's more "entertain-alism," but pretty soon those last fragments of journalism will die off and the line will be gone, much as it is with "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." When the only driving force behind news reporting is not only money, but turning a consistent, heavy profit, the days of legitimate journalism are numbered.

The film shown in class suggested that this corporate greed will bring about the demise of journalism as we know it. A deregulation of the markets in the '80s could only have led to the greed. The news media have gone from making a quality product to shooting for the tactics used by blockbuster film-makers- string the audience on with as poor quality a product for as long as you can, and then give them something exciting enough to fend off boredom.

I know that blogging and citizen journalism are on the rise and are profitable, but they are not journalism in the traditional sense of the word. A well-paid blogger has no incentive to increase accuracy or professionalism; he or she is already making money with very little effort. Besides, it seems that most bloggers do not aspire to journalism; they simply want to be heard.

New Media as a Meteor

As an 8-year-old, I was enthralled with the novels of Michael Crichton. I had seen "Jurassic Park" in the theater more times than I'd care to admit, and had gone on to read most of his novels, essays, and speeches. At the time, Crichton was making news about a speech he had recently written about what he called the "mediasaurus."

Please read the speech in its entirety here.

I bring up a 15-year-old speech about the media because, in it, Crichton makes some startling predictions about what the mass media would become. He predicts the downfall of newspapers, the rise of customizable news subscriptions (essentially RSS feeds), and the dominance of the Internet in bringing people news.

Some of Crichton's predictions panned out, some didn't. More important than his ability to accurately predict the future of mass media are some of the issues Crichton raises in his speech, all of which are important today. These are the underlying issues of what we discussed in Comms 239 today- that the news industry is suffering from what other industries would see as dissatisfied consumers. The press chalks it up to unpredictable changes in the media that make earning a living the old-fashioned way increasingly difficult. Crichton poses the hypothesis that consumers are seeking alternative media because Media 1.0 are failing to deliver a quality product. Readers are finding their news online because it is more likely to present a more accurate picture, or, at least, one that caters more to their wants. Readers are finding that, contrary to what their parents believed, newspapers may not be the most accurate, insightful, or interesting way to present the news. They have become obsolete.

To think of news as a service, one whose monopoly is being broken, is an insightful way to look at it. I think that, for a long time, the press viewed themselves as the only producer of the news, the only option for learning about current events. After years of assuming that there is a need for a middle-man, the media are finding themselves going the way of the cobbler and the candle maker. Why not get the news directly and disseminate it yourself? Why accept a watered-down, simplistic version of the truth?

Essentially, this question has yet to be raised. Consumers still expect their world to be organized and presorted before it's shown to them. With the current information revolution, however, this is an issue that will come to the surface, if only in the subtext. In a way, it already is. Consumers want a variety of news sources, available for free, so that the real story can be discerned from between the lines. Hopefully that is an eventuality that we will reach- a free flow of information that does not oversimplify or understate issues that shape our world.

Reporter's Priviledge

I'm conflicted about 'reporter's priviledge.' 

I see the theoretical need to protect sources whose information is of a sensitive nature. I understand that sources, especially whistleblowers, might not come forward if there's a risk of their identity being exposed. I get that journalists may have ethical qualms about giving up information about their sources.

What I don't understand is why reporters are the only source to which whistleblowers can turn. In fact, I know that they are not. In a business, wrongdoing should be reported to superiors and, in some cases, law enforcement authorities. In government, there is a series of checks and balances in place for insiders who see fault to turn to for justice. 

While the panel spoke about shield laws last week, the lingering question in my mind was "Who gave the press the right?" I'm not talking about freedom of the press; they can print and report whatever they want. But when a reporter's knowledge can lead to obstruction of justice, I'm not thinking about the First Amendment, rather about the rest of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers certainly wanted a free press, but not at the expense of justice, the legal systems in place, and the general safety and prosperity of the American people. 

RonNell Jones of the panel shared some of the results of her investigation into subpoenas being issued reporters. The numbers were high, yes, but what sort of cases did the subpoenas come from? What was at stake in those cases? Was the judge justified in issuing a subpoena? She said that prosecutors were taking shortcuts in petitioning for subpoenas for journalists, failing to do the research themselves. Yes, what about those lazy civil servants who take pay cuts, extended hours, grueling case loads, and little thanks to try and keep criminals off the streets? Better they do the work than journalists. Or they should repeat the work a journalist may have already done, just so as not to inconvenience the reporter.

No, I think the burden should remain on the reporter. It should be up to the journalist to find credible sources, inspire trust in their sources, and be held responsible for their knowledge in a court of law. Unlike the confidentiality between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, and priests and the penitent, a source can get his or her information out through more official, lawful, and responsible ways. Then, once the news is actually news, the journalist can report on it. 

McCain's Inside Joke

http://tinyurl.com/mccainprivatejoke

One of the reasons that the news media is losing credibility is lack of professionalism. Professionalism, in this case, meaning a methodical, reasoned approach to reporting the news. When journalists act like ravished piranhas, frenzied over every drop of blood in the proverbial water, audiences begin to lose interest in every convulsion that a story generates.

The point made in the above link is that the public has grown numb to fleeting media obsessions. With that numbness to the trivial comes a numbness to the significant. Obviously ears perk with obviously substantial news such as terrorist attacks, but apparently people are glazing over when it comes to election coverage. Such, as the above blog contends, is the case with McCain's ludicrous protests to Obama's use of the word 'lipstick' in a stump speech, which credible news outlets quickly pointed out as unfounded and sensationalist in nature. The baseless attack had no effect on the polls. Also, the media has pointed out apparent holes in Palin's self-touted reputation as a reformer, citing inconsistencies in her alleged rejection of the now-infamous 'bridge to nowhere.' Evidence of her supposed hypocracy went unnoticed by the public.

Has the news media become the boy that cried 'wolf'? I believe that in some ways, it has. When news coverage more resembles user-submitted content on YouTube than actual news coverage, both in professionalism and hyperbole, it's time to question your source of news, if not the industry itself. How can journalists solve this problem? Reverse the trend. Be frugal in reporting the news. Strive for objectivity. I take offense at the growing assumption that journalists can't be objective. What, are they too ignorant to know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity? Because that would be the only excuse- a flawed and invalid one.

The McCain campaign can ignore the media because the American people are. What an unfortunate trend, and there's no one to blame but the media themselves.

All the President's Men

(part deux of what's turning out to be a series on my heroes of journalism)

If Edward Murrow made me want to be a journalist, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were my inspiration to get into newspapers. The type of investigative journalism that led to Nixon's resignation wasn't made for t.v., wasn't suited for television. The patient cracking of a massive conspiracy that led all the way to the oval office could only have played out in black and white on the page. Woodward and Bernstein weren't great writers, per se, but they were tenacious as hell. They stuck to the story even when there wasn't a story. Their tenacity led to a changed perception of the trade. Ed Murrow was an innovator and a pioneer, but "Woodstein" showed the world that you don't have to be a pioneer to make a difference. 

The reporting by the Washington Post on the Watergate scandal also brought to my attention another essential aspect of journalism- the excitement that comes with breaking a story. The pages of Woodward and Berstein's "All the President's Men" almost crackle with the energy of good journalism. It's a type of excitement that I haven't seen anywhere else. Those two men knew that they were doing something important, something dangerous, and something that could change the nation. That enthusiasm carried over into their investigation, fueling them on when reason and sense might have suggested retreat. That's the unique excitement of journalism, a rush you couldn't keep me from if you tried.  

Good Night, and Good Luck.

I'm going to name my first born son Murrow (pending spousal approval, of course).

I'm not often affected by films, much less by ones which are trying to affect people, but "Good Night, and Good Luck" made me want to be a journalist. Even today when we watched the movie trailer in class, I got choked up when Murrow's words about not living in fear were read. After seeing the film last year, I bought and read "Edward R. Murrow and the Birth of Broadcast Journalism." Murrow's fight against McCarthyism wasn't necessarily a fight at all; it was good reporting. He reported the truth without fear of the repercussions. Now that's courage. Not the type of courage that it takes to win the big game or ask a girl out on a date, but the type of courage that involves putting everything - your livelihood, your reputation, your freedom - on the line for something that you believe in. Murrow had the opportunity to back down, to take threats, and to give up, but he didn't.

"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the moment, unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility."

In Murrow's day, no one would report the truth. Ironically, now every reporter tries to be the watchdog, going for the throat of any public figure who's unfortunate enough to invoke McCarthyism is some small way. In doing so, they often cover the truth. Those reporters are missing the point of Edward Murrow's legacy. He was not a sensationalist; rather he fought sensationalism. He was not quick to cast doubt or mistrust on our government; rather he called for an levelheaded, reasonable, informed approach to democracy. Murrow did not pander to his audience or sponsors for ratings; rather he reported what he felt was right, even at the risk of disassociation. Edward Murrow was a patriot, brandishing that Constitutionally guaranteed more successfully than most in his profession, then and now. Edward Murrow, and what he stood for, is the reason I'm going to be a journalist.

deLuzuriaga Crossed THE Line, and Several Others

Sleeping with the most prominent and influential person on her beat? Sending salacious emails documenting their scandalous affair? Did Tania deLuzuriaga step from one side of the camera to the other, thereby throwing any professional ethics out the window? Hard to say. I haven't seen any reports that names the source of the emails deLuzuriaga allegedly sent administrator Carvalho, but the fact that deLuzuriaga declined comment adds come credibility to the allegations.

One of journalism's most cherished attributes is objectivity. I doubt that objectivity would have been easy for deLuzuriaga when she was having inappropriate sexual relations with a frequent subject of her reporting.

This underlines what seems to be a common trend in journalism these days. Hopefully Bill O'Reilly isn't sleeping with anyone that he covers (unless he happens to be interviewing his wife), but that isn't what I mean. The proverbial wall between the story and the narrator is quickly dissolving, beginning with and mostly centering around partisanship. It's one thing to be passionate about your work, but the role of a journalist is to be passionate about reporting the story, not necessarily passionate about (or in deLuzuraiga's case, with) the story itself. By pulling themselves into the news, journalists lose credibility, even if their popularity, hits on Google, or ratings grow. And grow they will, as in the case of deLuzuriaga. She must have known, somewhere inside her, that she was putting herself in the news with her and Carvalho's actions. Maybe that was the appeal. It certainly seems to be the case for Bill O'Reilly and other pundits, who thrive off of the notoriety that comes from their partisan stances and vocal interaction with news events and stories. Whenever O'Reilly gets involved, he becomes part of the story. People didn't watch his interview with Barack Obama to learn more about Obama. They watched in anticipation, like NASCAR fans waiting for a wreck, of O'Reilly attacking Obama in some way. The reporter was half the story.

Obviously media bias and sex scandals are distant in relation, but deLuzuriaga's story got me thinking. I hope for her sake that the allegations turn out to be false, but somehow I doubt that they are. It seems that she, as with many journalists, didn't know where to draw the line.

News of the ATL

AJC.com, the World Wide Web face of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, is much like the city it reports: busy, racially diverse, and keeps you coming back for more. It's a website that I've been following off and on for several years now, mainly because of the close connection with another staple of life in Atlanta- baseball's Atlanta Braves. More than just reporting the news, ajc.com gives an excellent broadsweep view of Atlanta, covering local news equally with local social and cultural events. Brought to the site by more in-depth reporting of the Braves than ESPN has (especially when they're losing), I found myself being drawn into other news stories whose headlines were blared on the sidebars. Not being entirely familiar with all that the website has to offer, I'm looking forward to exploring ajc.com more fully throughout the semester.

What is a Journalist? What is Journalism?

"A journalist reports the news," and with that, journalism is defined.

News as a commodity is an interesting concept to define, for it can entail the most mind-numbing minutia ("I took out the trash today") or the most universally affecting phenomena ("747s hit World Trade Center"). A broad definition of news lends to a broad definition of a journalist, and perhaps such an inclusive idea of journalism isn't as new as we may be inclined to believe. How long have newsletters, pamphlets, and mass mailings been prepared and published for families, businesses, church groups, communities, and among friends. The essence of journalism as a trade is evolving as new media develop and evolve, but evolution in the press is nothing new. Though changes in technology have been occuring rapidly since Gutenberg, the breadth of the term "journalist" is only now widening to include all who comment or report on "the news." The advent of Web 2.0 makes the melting pot seem bigger, but it can't erase the multitude of smaller pots that preceded it, albeit on a less technological front.

The process for defining journalism should be approached as you would approach defining an artform. Take, for instance, the film industry. Few would argue that a 15-year-old kid who films his sister running around in a T-rex costume, enacting the gist of a vague plot would be considered good filmmaking, but it is filmmaking nonetheless. The difference between that kid and an award-winning director entails such things as training, judgement, instinct born of experience, and the extensive resources that are required for professional filmmaking. Maybe that kid was Peter Jackson, director of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Anyone can make a movie, but a good movie? The same is true of journalism. Anyone can report the news, but would you rather watch the journalistic equivalent of 15-year-old Peter Jackson's film or his later, more professional Rings movies? Anyone can rant, rave, or express opinion in a blog or on YouTube, but what value do such actions hold without the training, experience, and insight and resources needed to inspire trust in the public mind? Just as with films, sometimes lightning does strike, as in the case of Matt Drudge, but such examples are rare. It serves remembering that Drudge's story on the Lewinski scandal was one that Newsweek had already investigated but chosen not to report.

A journalist is anyone who reports on the news. Journalism is the art of reporting the news. The debate should not arise over what is journalism and what is not, rather over what good journalism means. Such a discussion is one that takes place internally inside every news consumer before he or she decides which news sources to trust. Corporate news outlets should see this Journalistic Revolution not as a threat, but as an opportunity to rise above the fray, reporting the news truthfully and professionally.