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.