Category Archives: Journalism

“The Beltway-Blog Battle”

Posted on by

Writing in Time Magazine, James Poniewozek has an interesting take (The Beltway-Blog Battle) on the passing of Tim Russert.

“…the press lost its most authoritative mass-market journalist, just as it is losing its authority and its mass market.”

The New Meida vs. Old Media argument got tiresome a long time ago, but Mr. Poniewozek offers a fresh take. A few paragraphs to wet your whistle:

“In their original division of labor, the old media broke news while the blogs dispensed opinion. But look at two of the biggest stories of the Democratic primary: Barack Obama’s comments that working-class voters are “bitter” and Bill Clinton’s rope-line rant that a reporter who profiled him was a “scumbag.” Both were broken by a volunteer for the Huffington Post website, Mayhill Fowler.

Traditional reporters were aghast at Fowler’s methods–the Obama meeting was closed to press (she got in as a donor), and Fowler did not identify herself when speaking to Clinton. But mainstream media had no problem treating the scoops as big news; if she had overheard both quotes in the same way but told them to a newspaper instead of publishing them, that would have been considered a coup.

The case against Fowler, in other words, was about process and credentials, not content. If sources stop trusting us, reporters asked, how will we do our jobs? But however sneaky her methods, Fowler’s stories prove that one reason sites like Huffington have an audience is the perception that Establishment journalism has gotten better at serving its powerful sources than its public. Fiascoes like the Iraq-WMD reporting gave many the impression that the old rules mainly protect consultant-cosseted public officials who need protection least.”

[For more on the Mayhill Fowler story, here’s a bit of audio with Arianna Huffington, speaking at Guardian News & Media’s internal Future of Journalism event on 18th June 2008.]

Mr. Poniewozik poses this rather rude question regarding MSM: “…if 3 million people read Drudge and 65,000 read the New Republic, which is mainstream?”

HuffPo starts local news push

Posted on by
Reply

“The Huffington Post is planning to expand into local news across the US, founder Arianna Huffington said last night, beginning with a site edited for the community of Chicago. Huffington said the Chicago site would aggregate news, sports, crime, arts and business news from different local sources as well as contributions from bloggers in what will be the first of a series of projects in “dozens of US cities”. The Chicago site will initially be curated by just one editor.” —Guardian.co.uk

I’m a bit bothered by “aggregate news, sports, crime, arts and business news from different local sources.” This suggests (to me) that a HuffPo editor in St. Louis, should they expand to that city, would link to stories from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website. Or even our statewide news network, when we do a story with St. Louis relevance.

Which is way the web works, of course. I’m not quite sure what about this plan bothers me. Maybe it’s: What can a single Huffington Post editor provide that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website cannot?

Is it a matter of putting an editor in each of the top 50 markets… have them aggregate stories and links to local news sources… and building an online audience that is smaller while accomplishing all of this at a fraction of the overhead?

Or is it that the people behind the Huffington Post just get the web better than most of the other guys?

“When was the last time you saw a dead American soldier on TV?”

Posted on by
2

FlagdrapedcoffiinI was talking with a co-worker about Lara Logan’s (CBS Chief Foreign Correspondent) recent appearance on The Daily Show. She posed the question, “When was the last time you saw a dead American soldier on TV?” She was making the point that media in the U. S. has been MIA on the war in Iraq (except for that victorious march into Baghdad).

My co-worker’s take was: “The only reason to show a dead American soldier would be to turn someone against the war.”

Or maybe that war is news and death is part of the story?

Actually, I didn’t have a response. I can understand that view coming from W or Rumsfeld (back in the day). But how many citizens feel the same? How many would rather not to see the bloody reality of war on their TV screens?

By this logic, we also shouldn’t be seeing the critically wounded at Walter Reed. Or can we translate missing limbs to a “don’t-let-their-sacrifices-be-in-vain” message?

So I’m asking myself why we saw more dead troops during the Viet Nam war, and it came to me. We had lots of reporters on the front lines in that war. But not so many on the mean streets of Baghdad.

In the old days, you could make a career filing reports from the front lines. Sure, you could shot, but you weren’t likely to wind up the star of a YouTube beheading video.

Naw, American journalism took a pass on this war. Better to let the Brits cover this one.

“This blogging stuff”

Posted on by
1

Springfield Mayor Tom Carlson got all Rottweiler’y on the local press recently and among his complaints, anonymous bloggers:

“On top of that, we have this Internet thing that’s going on now, this blogging stuff. Used to be, if you wanted to say something, you had to put your name it … now, there’s this anonymous character assassination that’s encouraged, in order to sell newspapers or other media outlets.”

It’s been a while since I heard/saw “this Internet thing.” One of my favorite expressions. But His Honor and I do agree on the anonymous blogging issue. He has no way of knowing if the blogger who is ripping him a new one is his opponent. And we have know way of knowing if the blogger who supports his every action is his press secretary.

Already missing Tim Russert (and my dad)

Posted on by
2

Johnmays250

And I’m not sure why. I didn’t “know” the man but, like many of his faithful viewers, felt as though I did. NBC devoted the full half-hour of the evening newscast to memories of Tim (“Mr. Russert” doesn’t feel right).

Maybe it’s my new-found interest in politics… or Father’s Day rolling around again… but I’m reminded of my pop, who died six years ago.

Dad was not the “family man” Tim Russert was reported to be. At least not demonstrably so. But he had his passions and radio was one of them. One I shared.

So, in memory of Tim Russert –and my dad– I share this interview I did with my dad shortly before he retired from radio.

PageCast: Short, sweet and real

Posted on by
Reply

There are just so many things I like about The PageCast, I’m not sure where to begin. First, what is The PageCast.

It’s a 60 second video by Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin, previewing the three stories that he thinks you should be watching for today. You’ll find it on the top/right of The Page. Big whoop, right? Okay, here’s some of the things I like about this simple idea (and this particular PageCast):

  • It maximizes the reach of a popular, plugged-in political reporter.
  • It’s short. One minute. Easy to watch, easy to produce.
  • It’s real. Or at least it appears real. Today’s PageCast was recorded in what appears to be Mr. Halperin’s hotel room in South Dakota (prior to Tuesday’s primary). And he obviously just came from the gym or a run. (Note to TV and Hollywood directors: THIS is what real sweat looks like. Not the little spritz you put under your star’s arms and on his chest. Save this image for future reference). And Mark hasn’t shaved yet. The guy looks like we all do on a Sunday morning.
  • Zero production. If I had to guess, I’d say he recorded this with his Mac Book sitting on the hotel desk. Probably in one take. He emails the file to some web monkey who uploads to The Page and it’s done. No crew, no director, no editing.

The news directors of our radio networks would be great at this. And their listeners/readers/viewers would eat it up.

UPDATE: My buddy Kay reports that Mark Halperin records PageCast between 7-9 a.m. (usually), wherever he happens to be and in whatever he happens to be wearing. If he’s on the West Coast, he usually records them at night. He thinks of what he wants to say just before he begins recording (or in the shower or at the gym), on his MacBook Pro (edits with iMovie).

The idea was prompted by the desire to put video on The Page, while keeping it easy to produce and watch. Just as I suspected. Simple idea, well executed.

New media can’t get here soon enough

Posted on by

Proto-blogger Dave Winer thinks the real problem revealed by Scott McClellan’s new tell-all book is that the press was complicit in beating the Iraq war drum:

“But corporate-owned media isn’t interested in helping us make decisions as a country, they’re only interested in ad revenue. That’s why it’s so important that we’re creating new media that isn’t so conflicted, and why the question of whether bloggers run ads or not is far from a trivial issue.”

When it comes to national media, there really are not that many outlets that need to be manipulated. Four TV networks; maybe that many cable news channels; a handful of newspapers with national reach. If you can juke them, you’ve got a lot of the country juked.

The sooner their influence is diminished, the better. There will no longer be even the illusion of “national media” and people will have to work (a little) at being informed. Sure, the willfully clueless will still head for blogs and news sites that confirm their view. But the rest of us will stop trusting (if we haven’t already) news organizations that are child’s play for political spin-miesters.

Old dogs and new tricks

Posted on by
Reply

Mindy McAdams (Teaching Online Journalism) always seems to have fresh insight into the state of journalism:

“I see a few people in almost every newsroom (usually less than one-quarter of the staff) embracing the new ways of communication and trying to spread their journalism and enhance their organization’s outputs via new channels and techniques. I see a lot more people who are worried, even frightened, that there will be no place for them in this new world.

The latter group interests me a lot more than the small number of chained-to-the-barricades dinosaurs (who also exist in every newsroom) — because they are very different from the dinosaurs. They are not resistant because they think the Internet is a short-lived fad, or because they fail to see its potential, or because they are in love with the smell of ink on paper. Rather, they are resistant because they don’t know how to train themselves — they are waiting for someone to hand them a tool and show them how to use it.”

This is a point I tend to overlook. And journos –if I may generalize– aren’t the type to admit they don’t know how to do something and ask for help.

End of TV news anchors?

Posted on by
1

Lost Remote’s s Cory Bergman thinks J-schools should downplay anchor careers:

“Journalism schools, as a public service, should strongly discourage students from pursuing an anchoring career. The emphasis should be on the “do-it-all” multimedia journalist who can produce, report, write, shoot and edit both on TV and the web. Flexibility is key.”

And if you need another reason to be discouraged from pursuing a career as an anchor…