"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.