Medill Media Watch

49th ALDERMANIC ELECTION

2007-05-29T12:15:00.000-07:00

Banning Bad News in Iraq

2007-05-20T21:05:00.000-07:00

This week, the Columbia Journalism Review reported that the Iraqi government is now censoring the press. It was reported that last week in the Guardian that, "police in Baghdad fired warning shots into the air to force a group of Iraqi journalists to leave the scene of a car bombing that killed seven people." This struck me as ironic, seeing that Iraq is trying to become democratic, yet, they are destroying a fundamental component of democracy--free press. In fact, the Iraqi government issued a decree stating that journalists are no longer allowed to access sites of car bombings or other violent attacks. According to Iraqslogger, the Iraq Interior Ministry Operations Director Brigadier General Abdul Kareem Khalaf gave the following reasons for censoring the press:

*the ban is to protect journalists from getting hurt (but embedded journalists already and journalists working in war torn countries already know they are at a heightened risk of injury or death)

*journalists need to be kept away from these sites because they damage/tamper with evidence (however, photographs and video are good tools to preserve a crime scene)

*journalists are disrespecting the dead by taking photos and video footage.

*journalists reporting on terrorism and attacks gives the attackers and victimizers information that they achieved their goals.

Clearly, the only reasons I could possibly accept are the latter two. But, there is something so inherently wrong with firing gunshot to scare away journalists. Not to mention, this is completely against democracy. First and foremost, these journalists are reporting on incidents that occur on public not private property for the most part. I can only wonder, how can Iraq become a democracy if it is going to suppress a free press? In all honesty, I believe coverage of these events is vital because it informs citizens and foreigners of the state of security in Iraq and the progression of the war.
Perhaps what is more disturbing is that last November, the Iraq ministry created a media surveillance unit to "watch over" journalist. Thus, if journalists reported things that were deemed unacceptable to Iraqi government (i.e. anything that diverted Iraqi attention away from the war on terrorism) legal action could be brought against the press. This is absolutely shocking, not to mention, the press was forbidden to cover parliament there too. So, in a system where checks and balances is suppose to include the press, how can Iraq ever be a democracy? In fact, how is this still not a dictatorship?--With the ministry at the helm, deciding what gets shown to viewers and what does not get shown or heard.
While I do believe Iraq is a deadly place for journalists--I do not believe the Ministry is looking to save their lives. After all, they are shooting warning shots to get journalists away from bombings...therefore, if one does not yield to the warning they get shot. So, I do not buy this story from the Iraq ministry. In addition, war reporters are well aware that their lives are in danger. Even Medill offers a 3 day seminar at Quantico to teach aspiring journalists how to remain safe when embedded for war reporting. Journalists who choose to do this type of reporting know why they are in for and do not need the government babysitting them or acting like a big brother.
Overall, while the images of dead soldiers, dead Iraqis, totaled cars and gruesome images have inundated us for more than four years now--we still need them. As CJR states, journalists who report from these sites are recording history. I have to agree with CJR that although it gets redundant, "this is the job of journalists, to continously cover these stories--and a democratically-elected government should know that."
But the larger picture may be the treatment of journalists globally. In Cuba, Fidel Castro has imprisoned journalists, in Colombia journalists are kidnapped and used as political pawns and the Chinese government constantly interferes with its press. But in terms of press restriction, we do not have to look far, even in the United States, journalists have few protections and rights. Everyday, journalists are being subpoenaed for their notes and placing the core of journalism (source confidentiality) at risk. Clearly, Journalists Without Borders Needs and other journalism organizations need to band together on a global scale to ensure the rights of journalists and to protect the trade before it becomes another arm of the government.
On a further note, I am curious to know what the Iraq government plans to do with soldiers and Iraqis placing homemade documentaries and footage on YouTube? For now, the Pentagon has banned the use of YouTube by soldiers. Is this not a form of censorship? I believe that because the U.S. is partly responsible (actually solely) for Iraqi freedom and democracy, that Iraq is learning to censor the press from the U.S.--after all, we are Iraq's role model. Therefore, if Iraq sees our government jailing journalists, forcing the release of records, ignoring FOIAs and censoring on YouTube (which is not a journalism/media outlet), they will mirror this behavior. I cannot help but think the U.S. government banned YouTube use because the U.S. Army and other soldiers created their own news channel, Multi-National Force Iraq, that shows firefights, destruction of bomb-making facilities, etc. In the end, the U.S. is essentially doing the same thing as Iraq (or vice versa) by shutting down firsthand accounts of war and other compelling reports. While the station will be back next month, guess what, it will be edited by the Pentagon---so censorship here we come!

Some thoughts on the reports

2007-05-20T19:12:00.000-07:00

I've seen everybody reflecting on their Medill Reports, and I can understand. My issues have been slightly different though. It's not about the access, its about what happens once you get the access.

The background on my story is that I'm follwoing the story of a young man convicted of murder, but who might have been wrongly convicted. The sole witness on whom the entire conviction was based has told people he was lying, now he has to be found.

But there are a ton of inherent risks involved in a story like this. The first is that on Tuesday, I'm going to jail to interview a convicted murderer. Yea, it was a tremendous feeling knowing that I got the interview, but now what? First of all, it is a little unnerving to conduct an interview in a maximum security prison. And while I generally believe in this guy's case, I've never spoken to him before. I don't know what he's like. And my entire story hinges on his ability to communicate his point of view.

I also get one shot at that interview. One chance to ask the questions, one chance to get all the shots I need. That's a lot of pressure.

The second part of my story was the part that got me on edge. The murder was gang and drug related. And while I do believe this man convicted was probably innocent, that means there is somebody out there who did do this. And that person probably won't be too happy with attention being refocused on a case they considered dead.

The murder took place on the far west side and it was important that I go out there and shoot some locator video and get a sense of the neighborhood. When I told this to an investigator at the Center on Wrongful Convictions, he insisted that he come along, to have our back. And I'm pretty thankful he did.

It was a complete culture shock. He would point out drug dealers on the corners, every car would slow down and look at us. Someone came up to us asked what we were doing there, he told them a story on real estate. I would never have come up with that one on my own.

But I started thinking about what it would have been like to go out there alone, or me and another Medillian. I would have feared for my physical safety. I don't know, after you get the interview, after you find your story, there are still so many more hurdles.

Youth News

2007-05-20T17:07:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago I came across a quick blurb on Media Bistro about a news magazine show that NPR is launching in September, called--tentatively--"The Bryant Park Project." The program is self-described as targeting 25 to 44 year olds and will be a daily, 2-hour news show.

Jay Kernis, the senior vice president of programming at NPR, describes it this way on NPR's website:

“When we first announced this program, we said it would serve a generation of public radio listeners and online visitors who want the high-quality, fact-based journalism of NPR News, but in a different voice."

The voice he's talking about is a younger, hipper, tech-savvier one.

This is a concept that intrigues me from the start. I have always been frustrated by the lack of strong, young programming available through traditional media outlets. What frustrated me even more were the constant reiterations that media giants are trying precisely to find new ways to engage and attract my demographic. From the looks of it, they haven't been trying very hard. At least not when it comes to news.

Since reading the quick blurb about the NPR launch, I've been thinking about my frustrations even more. And this project--for once!--seems to be exactly what I want: smart, thoughtful news programming that has a young, fresh perspective. Now all that remains to be seen is whether this show will really be all it says it will, or could it be just another gimmick? A way to attract a particular audience without, ultimately, doing anything to keep it?

Even with the research I've since done on the show, I'm not quite sure. Alison Stewart will be one of the hosts. She comes off of MSNBC's "The Most." which was a creative show that did it's best to blend online and broadcast. It's clever and certainly spunky, but is it at the end of the day really a fresh take on the news? In my opinion, it's all about packaging. But the more I think about it, the more I conceed that packaging is not only a large part of it--it's a legitimate part. Sure, the news I care about as a young person might vary somewhat from the news my parents care about. But, at the end of the day, a good and important story can resonate with anyone if told from a perspective she can relate to.

Whether mere packaging or not, NPR's endeavor is one that I find truly worthwhile and long overdue. I'm crossing my fingers that it's fresh from start to finish. But even if it's just a young wrapper on an old package, at least it's a start.

Rewarded for good reporting

2007-05-20T10:20:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine has a relative who produces a morning news show in Detroit. Recently that friend got to accompany his relative and the news show staff to a Detroit Red Wings playoff game and sit in their suite. As a big hockey fan, I was naturally very jealous (not to mention the free food and drink). Then he told me the suite was provided by the team's owner.

I was a little supsicious about those circumstances but he was emphatic that the owner had provided the suite. According to my friend, the owner called up his relative and commended him for the morning show's fine reporting on the Wings' latest playoff run. As a thank you, he offered the suite up to the news team.

I first wondered about what kind of coverage would get a team owner (or perhaps a corporation, etc.) to call and say "good job." Did that mean it was actually quality reporting, favorable reporting or just a lot of coverage? People pay attention to themselves (or their properties) when it makes the news, but do they value quality coverage (accurate, fair, balanced?) or just being in the news?

Then I began to wonder why they would take the owner up on the offer? Of course stations want to reward good ratings and good reporting, but couldn't they have done it on their own nickel? I don't even accept sodas from sources let alone lots of sodas inside a suite at a major sports arena.

If my friend's story is right, it really makes me wonder. I don't think it was acceptable to attend the game on the owner. Even if the owner was commended them on fair, accurate and balanced reporting, I think it may get altered to "favorable" coverage after attending the game.

It is probably hard to be too negative about a team that is on a playoff roll (and sports are one of the few things Detroiters can rally around), but it can't all be favorable coverage. Ticket prices are a major pain for fans in Michigan's bad economy and there were lots of empty seats throughout the first two rounds. I'll bet this didn't show up in any of the morning show highlights. There are also always opportunities to discuss bad in-game decisions and to have tough interviews with players.

In journalism we all walk a fine line between news and promotion. I know you can't do a "high ticket price story" for every game, but that would be one way to have a balanced collection of newscasts.

This just shows me that there are more decisions in a newsroom that need to be vetted. Outside-the-newsroom factors deserve the same kind of careful examination that in-story decisions receive.

IPVT is IT

2007-05-19T21:55:00.000-07:00

The new age of media is all about interactivity. We see that trend unfold via blogs, Web forums, user reviews, etc. all over the Internet. But how about interactivity with your television screen? No, not the type you’re thinking of (hint: It doesn’t involve cousin Joe screaming at the TV when his home team doesn’t score.)

IPTV is the buzzword. Okay, I have to insert a disclaimer here: That’s according to my brother, who works on Microsoft’s IPTV product. But a recent Google News search for IPTV revealed the following sample of headlines: “Motorola to Buy Another IPTV startup,” “IPTV drives merger and acquisition surge for telecoms equipment makers” and “BroadcastAsia 2007 to focus on IPTV.” But also: “Can IPTV really compete?”

IPTV is a new form of delivering television, as the acronym implies, via Internet Protocol. Internet providers, such as AT&T, provide you with access to the Internet via cable modem and also transfer data into video stream to display it on the television set.

But IPVT is not simply watching the Internet via your TV tube.

It means that you can potentially get the same advantages from watching television as from surfing the Internet. Read that sentence again. That’s huge! The opportunities are vast. Interactivity is just one benefit.

With cable, you can only set the screen to one channel at a time, much like radio. But with IPTV, you can send multpile video streams directly to a set up box, which can display multiple videos at the same time.

You can watch a basketball game from three different angles, or you can view a video inside a screen, for example different channels at the same time. Video will truly be on demand when you actually want it. You could vote for the next American Idal straight from your remote. Or zoom into that detail or manufacturer’s information on James Bond’s car, during the newest 007 movie. Incoming calls to your phone during your favorite sitcom will be easy to deal with because caller ID is displayed on your TV – since AT&T provides both information anyway. Or you can discuss Oprah via IM chat with your friends while you’re watching. The possibilities are limited by our imagination.

What does this all mean for the broadcasting world? If we think about how the Internet has exploded in the past decade or so and how it has become such an integral part of our daily lives, it’s fair to say IPTV is the future of television.

Television viewers have traditionally been more captive and more passive than Internet users. (Note how we refer to television audiences as viwers, and to Internet audiences as users.) IPTV will certainly change the way we watch TV, and if nothing else, I hope that it will force us, media people, to think about providing content that's more intelligent and engaging.

Pick up your phone!

2007-05-19T14:08:00.000-07:00

Getting a good story is all about access-- and it's extremely frustrating that as more people are skeptical of reporters, getting people to talk on camera becomes a power struggle.

Setting up Medill Reports interviews this week was probably the most stressful week, contrary to what I was expecting. I thought that with more time, this week would be comparatively more laid back in terms of scheduling interviews. I was dead wrong.

My stress level steadily increased from Monday to Thursday trying to get a hold of people. Four straight days of worrying whether or not your story is going to fall through is definately not a good feeling. I would sit in front of my computer looking for different numbers to call; I would have a friend (who doesn't even live in Chicago) to check my gmail for me every 10 minutes if I needed to leave my computer.

It was amazing-- and I probably would've found it a little humorous if I wasn't so strung out-- how no one was calling me back. The worst feeling was that this woman, who decided not to be in the office from Monday to Thursday afternoon, had the fate of my story in her hands. Maybe a reporter should never give someone that much power, but I didn't know who else to turn to since this person was the director of my program, the holder of all the statistics and connections to my "face."

To give some background, my MR is on a preschool program that's facing a decrease of federal funds. And my "face" had to be a family attending one of these centers. Of course the major obstacle was to somehow shoot broll of preschoolers. At first, Chicago Public Schools told me I had to go through their communication department, who then had to go through their legal department, etc. etc. Luckily-- after going down an extensive list of preschool centers-- I found a school that was approved for me to go visit without me having to go through CPS' numerous hoops.

As of now, I'm still having problems getting a simple comment from CPS on my preschool program. I understand that I have to go through communications, but when the comm director ignores my calls and emails, what do I do? When I try calling the board members directly, of course they transfer me back to the communication director's answering machine. When they finally do touch base with me, it's usually to say that they haven't found anyone yet to talk to me and that they won't be able to meet my deadline because of the short notice. Um, does the media relations office not understand the deadline pressures?

My point is-- maybe I don't really have one and just wanted to release some of frustration (and some anger and outrage). But doing this story, I felt like everyone else controlled my access to the classroom, to the individuals I spoke with, to the board members, etc. I really felt that people were suspicious of my story so I definately made a conscious effort to distance myself from anything that could make me look like a voyeuristic creep who wants to just take footage of young children.

I know it's all part of the system and there are rules to follow, especially when it comes to schools. But as a reporter who really believes there's a good story to tell, it's dissappointing and disheartening when it's like pulling teeth just to get someone to pick up the phone.

News To Me

2007-05-19T12:41:00.000-07:00

News To Me, the first cable news program comprised of user-generated video, debuted on Headline News on today, May 19, at 12:30 p.m. The program is hosted by Eric Lanford and showcases the most compelling videos, pictures and stories traversing the Internet. The program will air on Headline News each Saturday and Sunday at 12:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m.

With content ranging from serious to humorous, Lanford updates viewers on current events through the eyes and lenses of citizen journalists. Lanford also interviews many people who have submitted CNN I-Reports, content captured by CNN viewers with personal cell phones, cameras or other devices. By speaking directly with I-Reporters, Lanford gains insight into what it felt like at the scene as they captured their footage.

Viewers can submit material through a “Send Your I-Report” link at CNN.com or by e-mail at ireport@cnn.com. Submitted I-Report material undergoes the same extensive vetting process CNN employs for all content that goes on air or online.

To me, even though it airs on television, the program looks very fit for the web and looks somewhat like what we're trying to accomplish with our webcasts. It's very untraditional and combines citizen journalism with host segments and interviews. The thing that stands out the most is that the material is nothing you would ever see in mainstream media. It's very specific to people's lives and situations and gives a view of America most people wouldn't see.

I think it's interesting that Lanford talks with the people who sent in the material about their submissions. They talk with each other as the viewer explains the video he or she submitted. It's also interesting that a lot of the material sent in is cell phone video footage. It makes for a very amatuer look to all of the footage, which is unique.

It will be interesting to see what viewers think of this show. I also think it is something that could eventually move toward the web. I think it's a fun addition to slower weekend news programming and I look forward to see where it goes and if it leads to other similar programs.

Remembering the fallen

2007-05-19T12:21:00.002-07:00

It was a devastating night Thursday for ABC News and the entire journalism industry. Two of its men were ambushed and killed in Baghdad after leaving the ABC News Baghdad bureau. Few people know these men's faces, or even their names, but they were the eyes and ears for ABC News in Iraq. These men went behind the lines, where American journalists couldn't go due to danger and the intense risk of death. Cameraman Alaa Uldeen Aziz and soundman Saif Laith Yousuf captured footage of the war so we can better understand what is going on overseas.

It is a terribly horrifying job, but these men were brave enough to do it. I commend them and their sacrifice made me think of the other journalists in Iraq that get little recognition, yet do what most journalists wouldn't think of doing. They report the hardest news, the most devastating news, and clearly the most dangerous news. They don't appear on our television screens, nor does ABC flash their names or pictures on the screen when they use feed they have collected, but they are the reason we are able to see footage of the war in Iraq.

Click here to see an article on the ABC Web site

It was interesting reading some of the comments that articles surrounding the deaths of Aziz and Yousuf created. One blogger suggested that war correspondents be given small handguns to protect themselves in emergency cases. Here is an excerpt from his comment: "I feel journalist should have to have a small arms course and be issued handguns as personal protection to at least give them some security in themselves and their comrades." This really made me think, and I have to somewhat agree that this may not be a bad idea. Journalists should be able to protect themselves when reporting in cases of war, where danger lurks around every corner, and where the unexpected could be deadly.

Other comments sparked my attention as well. ABC devoted a lot of its Friday news coverage to the death of their employees. It was necessary I feel for them to do so, but it stirred up a lot of emotions for their viewers. One comment read: "These guys signed up to be combat correspondents. It comes with the job. What about the AMERICANS over there that are dying leaving families behind to weep. I wish ABC had this much devotion when it came to covering fallen AMERICAN soldiers as it does to one of its own employees." It is a catch 22 for ABC News and other stations--they have to cover the war in Iraq, but should they report every death of every American solider that falls victim to the war? I wish they could, every solider that goes overseas to fight for freedom, democracy and peace deserves praise, remembrance and devotion, but is this realistic?

My heart goes out to EVERY family and friend that has lost a loved one in Iraq. It is a terrible loss and I hope and pray that all this war and terror will end very soon. May all those that have risked their lives and lost rest in peace.

Remembering the fallen

2007-05-19T12:21:00.001-07:00

Interactive Web article dilemma

2007-05-18T16:12:00.000-07:00

I just read this article (http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=103&aid=123269) about an article posted on a California newspaper's web site and the comments it elicited. The article was about a 40-year-old woman who had a full-term baby 2 days after finding out she was pregnant. The woman's sister had called the newspaper about this "miracle" - the woman had been trying for years to get pregnant before unknowingly conceiving and then delivering the healthy baby. The article featured a picture of the woman, who happens to be overweight, and the newborn. What was supposed to be a feel-good story turned awful after people started posting rude and disgusting comments about the woman and even her baby. They said the woman ate donuts and fast food all day, couldn't clean her house because she was too fat, was immobilized by her weight and most appallingly, that the newborn was alternately going to be taken away from the mother or would grow up to be a fat, drain-on-society. The editor and reporter were horrified for subjecting the woman to the comments. This was supposed to be a feel-good story after all. Interactiveness and participation are the future of news, but how do we deal with idiots who post horrible inaccuracies as amendments to stories? Will sources and subjects be in jeopardy in the future for fear of stinging posted comments? How can readers' comments be controlled without exercising censorship?

The Long Interview

2007-05-18T09:16:00.000-07:00

Working on Medill Reports has allowed me to experiment with different techniques as a reporter. Usually, when I am daily reporting, I go into a story already with a pretty good idea of what I’m expecting people to say. Sometimes, when my last interview is pretty late, I will begin scripting before I have even finished the last interview. I go into that last interview with an idea of the exact bytes I need, and as soon as I get them, I pretty much close up shop.

I sometimes feel bad after these interviews—sometimes I’m more worried about deadline and getting good sound bytes than taking the time to get to know someone and hear their story.

However, with Medill Reports, I have the luxury of a little extra time. Last night, I decided to try something new. I am focusing on postpartum depression for my story, and I was interviewing a woman who went through severe postpartum depression and also her husband. I decided I would take as much time as I wanted and let her answers really guide my questions. And I’m really glad I did that!

I went in thinking of postpartum depression in a certain way. I had read articles and listened to doctors, and had my own notions of the disease and what I thought she was going to say. However, her case, her symptoms, and her emotions were so different than from what I imagined. My interview with the woman lasted an hour and I also got to spend some time with her children, shooting them, and talking to her husband.

I left her house feeling so satisfied—knowing that I really let this woman talk and tell her side, and now I can go into the edit bay and sort through what she said and let her story guide the direction of my story. It won’t be me plugging her sound bytes into a pre-written script.

However, now I’m faced with a second dilemma. This is a four minute piece. I spent a good two and a half hours at someone’s house and now I’ll probably use a minute at most from that. I know I have to get over it—but it makes me feel bad!

Originally, I was going to cover postpartum depression for a daily reporting piece—but after making some phone calls—I knew I could not do the topic justice in a minute and thirty seconds. That is why I chose it for Medill Reports. Now—my challenge is piecing together all these stories and perspectives into four minutes. I still don’t think that’s enough time!

Whose story is it?

2007-05-18T08:35:00.000-07:00

This week I've had to ask myself a lot of tough questions. I'm reporting on incarcerated mothers for Medill Reports. I've had trouble convincing incarcerated moms to let my videotape them interacting with young children. Nearly all of the seven women I've tried to recruit as my "face" have had reservations about including their kids in the story.

Some mothers worried that students at their childrens' schools would see the film, then stigmatize their young sons or daughters. Mothers who are working on regaining custody of the children worried that participating in the piece would jeopardize their parental rights. Other mothers worried about what they might accidentally say or do -- and whether that could affect their already strained relationship with their children in the future.

Regardless of why they resisted being interviewed, I found most of the women cared about their kids.

I had to ask myself, did I care about their kids, too? To be honest, I admire the hesitation these women showed about letting my shoot video of their little ones. Most of the children were elementary school age, when other kids can be mean.

A 7- or 8-year-old Misa would have been horrified if all of the other students discovered such a family secret. I know I would have faced a backlash among my peers at school. I can't even imagine the kind of stigmatization that might create.

If I were to step outside of reporter mode for a moment, I'd say forget using the kids. I would use the mom, show the children's hands and feet, and assign pseudonyms. But ... I'm still a reporter.

And I need the b-roll. My face is a grandmother who was willing to let me interview her daughter and grandson. I'm still wondering about how much I should show of her 8-year-old grandson. I don't HAVE to use the b-roll of the grandmother and her grandson playing Nintendo or rock-paper-scissors. But it makes the story more compelling, more emotive.

Much of this dilemma boils down to the question: "Why am I covering this subject?" I don't want a series of talking heads. There's no feeling there, no sense of how the treatment of incarcerated women will affect lives.

I tried to think about whom my 5-minute piece will ultimately affect: viewers who know nothing about incarcerated mothers, people who work with incarcerated mothers, and -- of course -- the incarcerated mothers. In this case, the woman I inteviewed will probably be affected most.

She was OK with me filming her grandson and felt her message could help other women like her. It's my duty to make the story worth watching. Otherwise, I'm wasting everyone's time -- the viewer's time, my time and the grandmother's time.

In the end, this is her story and if she's OK with sharing it, I guess I should be OK with it, too.

Something uplifting, for once

2007-05-18T08:05:00.000-07:00

We've been talking a lot on this blog and in class about apperance, and how important it is for those of us who want to be in front of the camera. We've talked and written about female sportscasters, redheads, last names and every sort of other thing that we think might be held against us when we go out into the job world. But watching a whole bunch of TV this quarter (and over, say, the past 20 years) I've realized more and more all that stuff doesn't really matter that much.

I'm not going to go all Oprah and talk about how it's all "what's on the inside that counts." But I think it is, ultimately, about good reporting. The more I see, the more I realize that sure, maybe looks and all those other things help, but being a great journalist can trump all that.

Think of all the people who have succeeded in broadcast journalism despite their flaws. Barbara Walters, first and foremost. She can't pronounce her r's and has a lisp, but she's interviewed basically everyone there is to interview, hosted any number of programs and has made a great living doing it. There are some others you probably don't know about. Jonathan Ross, a British TV film critic, also can't pronounce his r's. Diane Rehm, an NPR talk show host who has interviewed everyone from Bill Clinton to Maya Angelou to Sandra Day O'Connor, has spasmodic dysphonia.

Or what about bald guys, or those who wouldn't be considered traditionally "good looking"? Peter Mansbridge, the lead anchor of the national news in on the CBC in Canada, is a perfect example of someone who has had a long and prosperous TV career despite not having a 12-inch high coif. Or look at John Clayton, who has been a reporter for ESPN since 1995 despite looking like (depending on who you listen to) either Stewie from Family Guy, Tweety Bird, or a whole bunch of other things entirely.

But despite the jokes, I'm not trying to pick on Clayton. The point is, the guy's a fantastic reporter. He's so knowledgable that his ESPN colleagues call him "The Professor." So it doesn't matter that he's not telegenic, or that he's got a voice that sounds like he's been sucking helium right before going on air. He can deliver news and content that viewers can't get anywhere else. He's forced the network to overlook his other shortcomings, simply through his journalistic cred.

It's all kind of heartening to me. It's nice to know -- despite all we hear about the superficiality of TV -- that even if I go bald, or my voice isn't perfect, or I have a bit of a Canadian accent, or I have a Jewish last name, my smarts and good reporting skills can win out. It's nice to know that you can find and keep a job just based on your abilities, and that it is possible to be front and center on TV even if you're not the "typical" TV personality.

(Still, I really do hope I keep my hair.)

How do you sugar coat a pill like environmental news?

2007-05-17T15:59:00.000-07:00

The New York Times reported Thursday that Alexandra Wallace, executive producer for 'NBC Nightly News,' "plans to beef up the program’s environmental coverage, a process that has already begun with the appointment of Anne Thompson to be the network’s chief environmental affairs correspondent." It was interesting to see because the headline of the article was "New Producer at ‘Nightly News’ Seeks to Regain NBC Dominance." I sincerely hope the implied interest in environmental news is accurate, but I also think it's arguably the toughest beat to cover.

As a public concern, environmental news probably peaked around the late 80's. I think this was influenced by stories like the Exxon Valdez spill or a garbage barge like Mobro 4000; they seemed simple and easy to communicate, one reason audiences were able to connect with them. By the time Earth Day 1990 rolled around, the environment was a HUGE deal, lavished with a lot of media attention and helped by a huge push for environmental practices in manufacturing and daily activities (recycling, energy efficiency, etc.)

Two decades later, the stories aren't so simple. The most pressing environmental issues are far more complex; like any complex issue that's difficult to pack into 90 seconds, these issues are often considered tougher and less appealing to cover in broadcast. Even in 1990, mainstream media avoided analyzing climate change with much detail; granted, there was less research then, but the topic was simply too abstract, too complicated.

Even worse, environmental news has been politicized, which is incredibly unfortunate because research in natural sciences has always prided itself in objectivity or at least as an academic field propelled by an objective search for the truth.

The problems with environmental news coverage is more disconcerting because according to the Metcalf Institute for Marine & Environmental Reporting, the public learns much of what it knows about scientific issues through the media.

So how do you report environmental news? How do you make people understand and care?

A few years ago, John Carey convinced his skeptical editors at Business Week to make climate change the cover story. In a media workshop sponsored by the Metcalf Institute, Carey "[recast] the common approach of the scientist-versus-skeptic and avoided scientific 'controversy' by instead focusing on how the world will change, what policies will address those changes and, irrespective of continued controversy, how business is reacting to global warming. The science was somewhat secondary...Instead it was policy that was the hook and how it 'was changing in response to science,' how policies are becoming institutionalized and why."

It's worth noting that before she took on environmental news, Anne Thompson (not to be confused with the Variety columnist of the same name) had been chief financial correspondent for NBC News since March of 2005. Obviously, it brings up other issues to have scientific information framed through a financial analyst's perspective, but it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Your career aspiration is now out of service...goodbye.

2007-05-16T16:30:00.000-07:00

At the risk of sounding glamour-greedy, I have been aspiring toward international/foreign network correspondence since I can remember. Christiane Amanpour's work inspired me to pursue a career in journalism, partly because I admired her creative ability to report stories and maintain poise and porfessionalism in any environment. Like Amanpour, I wanted to be based in London, preferably CNN or BBC, and travel all over the world finding the breaking news and delving into the worldy meaning and significance behind them. While my dream to become a foreign correspondent has subsided a bit, I was a bit unnerved when I read on Poynter.org that foreign correspondence is essentially disappearing. Where are they going? According to Fons Tuinstra, who wrote a blog titled, "Foreign Correspondents Abandon Ship," the foreign correspondence job title is becoming obsolete. Tuinstra wrote that citizen journalists have displaced, and continue to displace, foreign correspondent positions - partly because viewers are demanding more local news and news that is relevant to their lives. This means to me that my career aspiration is gradually, or not so gradually, signing off the journalistic scene.
The blog outlined the disappearing act of foreign correspondents and listed some organizations that are trying to combat it. One Dutch publication, called De Volkskrant, placed an ad on their Web site calling for foreign correspondents. Tuinstra calls the media out on this contradiction. He said he was confused because his foreign correspondent peers were "on their way out" and then all of a sudden there is an ad in favor of hiring them. His only conclusion is that an upcoming FCC meeting regarding the foreign correspondent position "changing with the times."

"Tomorrow the Shanghai Foreign Correspondents Club (SFCC), which has been virtually dead for a year, holds its annual meeting in a desperate attempt to survive the changing times. Today, Maria Trombly -- very briefly -- grieves her departure from foreign correspondence."

I will be grieving as well - aren't foreign correspondents widely respected for their work? I have not encountered anyone who says Christiane Amanpour is a "bad" journalist.

My dilemma arises in figuring out whether I should continue to pursue this position or not. Personally, I am drawn to being a foreign correspondent because I think the global and worldly stories should appeal to everyone in the world. Also, as opposed to local news, you have an entire globe as a medium. In my career, I need to travel and find in depth stories to pursue. But unless foreign correspondent positions resurface, I guess it's time to re-think these aspirations of mine.

Don't Read!! Personal!!

2007-05-16T12:29:00.000-07:00

Don’t Read, Personal! Now that to me is a pretty clear message. It was written by Anna Nicole Smith on the inside of her diary. Excerpts are being released to the Associated Press, and they are running with it.

I understand that from a business standpoint it is probably a good idea to let her personal thoughts be known to the public. After all, she had more than her fair share of coverage when she died. But, it still makes me wonder what kind of person would release such private thoughts of a person who no longer has any control over who is reading them.

Now, like I have said in previous blogs, if you don’t release the information… someone else will to get ahead. This is true in many circumstances in the media. But, when do personal values finally play a role in the business decision you make. While I was intrigued with reading parts of the diary, I felt like I was violating her privacy.

I do not think it is fair to be releasing excerpts from someone’s diary. It is just wrong.

“The public now can discover that she was delighted by rough sex, ecstatic over the prospect of plastic surgery for her breasts, and fearful of a jealous boyfriend,” the AP writes.

First off, is this really news? Second, what kind of person wants to let out this personal, private information?

These questions bring me to my next point. I really did not stop to analyze and think about what is newsworthy until I came to this school. I did not stop to think about how information that is being reported is in direct conflict with everything I believe in. While I always absorbed the information and talked about it on occasion, I probably would not have put it out there. In this business, like I said, someone else will.

It honestly makes me wonder if this is what I want to do for the rest of my life. The farther and farther I get into analyzing the news every week, the farther I want to get from it. Most of these stories are not helping anybody. This Anna Nicole story is just down right hurtful. Her private thoughts are now out for the world to see.

This is not the first time I have had these thoughts either. I feel like I am in a compromising situation. I am already here and will have this degree. But, do I really want to cover stories such as this one that I feel is so wrong. Absolutely not! So where does that leave me? Is there a place for me in this business? Everyday I wonder that. I do not think it is worth it to me to compromise my values, in this case, “Do unto others as you’ll have done to you.” I would never want anybody to do this to me. So how could I ever do it to someone else?

Ultimately, stories like this that are released on a daily basis make me question my decision on whether or not this is the right profession for me. While unfortunate, it crosses my mind daily.

How skeptical is too skeptical?

2007-05-12T22:54:00.000-07:00

If you've played the card game "BS", you know that calling someone's bluff can cost you when you're wrong.

Journalism seems similar in some ways. Sometimes you have proof that someone is lying. When you call it, you win. Other times you just have a hunch. You can either call the supposed lie and face the consequences, or remain silent and play it safe. It's a tough decision.

It all boils down to skepticism. How much is too much?

This week Jim Lehrer talked about journalistic cynicism on ABC Australia's Media Report, a half-hour analysis of the mass communication industry.

Lehrer is a veteran PBS reporter who has covered major stories, including John F. Kennedy's assasination and Watergate. He said reporters need to be wary of officials, but they should avoid becoming obsessed with the "gotcha" game.

"If somebody in the media just assumes everybody in the government is a liar, that's no way to operate," Lehrer said. "You have to have a healthy scepticism, you have to be alert, but you also have to try as a reporter, to understand these decisions, and understand what's in the minds of the people who are making these decisions on behalf of the public, particularly when it comes to war and peace."

A question about the media's handling of the Iraq War prompted Lehrer's comment. He said the media shouldn't solely bear the blame for the nation being complicit with the White House's agenda in Iraq. Lehrer said a lack of information was also responsible for the lack of oversight.

Clearly, United States media were not skeptical enough when the Bush administration invaded Iraq. Few reporters questioned the White House claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

What would have happened if a maverick columnist challenged the WMD allegations? Very few experts and officials were casting doubt on President Bush's accusations at the time. Would that rebel reporter sound like a leftist hack, confirming the consertive wing's view of the liberal media? Would she have successfully turned the tide of our zeitgeist, preventing the present problems in Iraq?

I guess it's too late to mull over the hypotheticals. But I do think reporters were pulsing to the administration's drum beat -- and I think some of them still do. Injecting personal skepticism into a story without attributing the cynicims to someone else is always dangerous territory. Sometimes it takes a outsider like Bob Woodward in Watergate. His lack of experience helped him to question the political machine.

When I learned that Carol Lam, former United States attorney for San Diego, was dismissed, I remember thinking, "What in the world? This sounds fishy." On the morning the news broke, I told a Medill grad student who was in the legal RPA that he should check it out. I lived in San Diego when Lam successfully prosecuted disgraced ex-Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. I remember her intellect, her dedication and her blue-ribbon reputation among the media.

Still, I thought I might have I missed something. Immediately after I spoke with my class mate, I wondered if I had sent him on a wild goose chase. I knew nothing about the federal justice system, and I almost felt embarassed to raise a red flag. I first heard about the story on NPR on the "L" -- maybe I tuned in after the reporter explained the reason for her dismissal.

Turns out, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she thought the firings were politically charged immediately after the dismissals were announced. That legitimized my conspiracy theory. If she and other Democratic lawmakers hadn't spoken up, I know I would have discounted my intuition.

When do we dismiss a hunch because of our ignorance? And when do we confidently call BS?

More Katie....

2007-05-11T12:55:00.000-07:00

A recent gallup poll surveyed Americans about network nightly news anchors Charles Gibson, Brian Williams and Katie Couric. Overall, all three were evaluated more negatively by Republicans than Democrats. This seems to make sense since the media has a reputation of being more liberal, especially among conservatives. The more interesting aspect of the survey was that Couric had the most negative ratings and she did not fare better in the eyes of women.

With 24-hour news like CNN and the like, it seems like hardly anyone tunes into these evening newscasts anymore, but interestingly enough, that isn't exactly the case. The survey showed that 35 percent of Americans watch these nightly news casts everyday. That number seemed pretty high to me since I'm not sure who can make it home to work by 5:30- for those of us in the central time zone. I'm jealous of those people! It also makes me think this viewing audience must include people who don't work, whether they're stay-at-home moms or retired people, etc. Too bad the study didn't exactly break the viewing audience down in that way, so I can't say for sure.

It's quite strange to me that Couric is not faring better among female viewers. But as a female viewer, I actually tend to agree. I can't actually relate to her as a fellow woman. Her personality and way of delivering the news is not really my style. I'm thinking many other women feel the same way I do. I relate to her Today Show replacement, Meredith Vieira, much better than I do Couric. Vieria is much more down-to-earth and not trying to act ditzy just for attention. She does have her moments but overall I feel much more comfortable getting the news from her.

It's strange that I would actually prefer to get the evening news from a male, but according to this survey, so would many other women. I just don't think Katie Couric is the best representation of the average American woman and definitely not the finest female news personality. I feel her journalism is slightly lacking but also her delivery is not really up to par with the seasoned hosts on the other networks. It just shocks me that you can become the host of the CBS Evening News and really not even be very good. This goes to prove that it's very hard to tell who's going to make it in this business and who's not. It seems to have more to do with luck than talent, which is a scary thought as I begin my career.

Paris Hilton vs. Iraq? Never thought I'd say that...

2007-05-11T11:43:00.001-07:00

So, I was talking with one of my friends in the car yesterday about how it is really sad that more people in the United States know about Paris Hilton and her new saga than about what is going on in Iraq. Could this be true? Not for many of the people here at Medill, but outside our bubble?

I decided to take a poll online. I sent ten IM’s out to my friends asking them all if they knew what was going on in Iraq today. Only one of them knew what was going on. Some of them responded with how in the world would I know that, Abby? Don’t judge. I honestly do not think my friends are the only ones.

For those of you out of the loop, Paris Hilton is facing jail time. As of Thursday, she could spend three weeks or less in jail rather than the original 45 day sentence because of overcrowding. She violated her probation in an alcohol-related reckless driving case.

Most likely, everyone reading this already knew that… but how is it that nobody knows what is going on in Iraq? Do people even care anymore? Many of the people I sent IM’s to did not care about Iraq, which I find unfortunate. When I asked them why they cared about Paris Hilton, they said they did not care… it was just all over the news.

In Iraq today, their President announced his country would need U.S. troops for one to two more years. I am surprised that nobody had heard of that, because many of the people I asked are pretty open about their feelings on the war… yet they had not heard about this.

I cannot say that I was not totally intrigued by the whole Paris Hilton saga. I love celebrity gossip. I just wonder what news is more important to people these days. I realize there will always be an audience for the ‘What is going on in Iraq?’ news… but I strongly believe it is becoming smaller and smaller by the day. I realize I am making bold statements, but when you ask ten people if they know what happened in Iraq vs. what happened with Paris Hilton and only one person can answer the question of what happened in Iraq, where is that hard news audience. I think it is slowly fading.

I want to make it clear as my last point that I am not saying the audience for hard news will slowly fade away completely. There will always be an audience for that, but just how big will it be?

Curt Schilling, hypocrite

2007-05-11T10:26:00.000-07:00

Let me put my biases up front. I dislike Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling. I think he's an unrepentant self-promoter, someone who spouts his mouth off at any moment, and, from what I've heard, not a very nice guy. But even for Schilling, his recent talk about Barry Bonds on a Boston radio station was over the top.

According to the Boston Globe, this is what Schilling said on WEEI on Wednesday, when asked by the morning show hosts if fans should hold their noses as Bonds tries to surpass Hank Aaron as baseball's all-time home run leader:

“Oh yeah. I would think so. I mean, he admitted that he used steroids. I mean, there’s no gray area. He admitted to cheating on his wife, cheating on his taxes, and cheating on the game, so I think the reaction around the league, the game, being what it is, in the case of what people think. Hank Aaron not being there. The commissioner trying to figure out where to be. It’s sad.
"And I don’t care that he’s black, or green, or purple, or yellow, or whatever. It’s unfortunate… there’s good people and bad people. It’s unfortunate that it’s happening the way it’s happening.”
The reaction to Schilling's comments was swift, and he was widely criticized for being insensitive and in part untruthful. He then apologized for his remarks on Thursday. But that's not really what I want to focus on.

Instead, let's turn to Schilling's blog, where he made that apology. Through the blog, 38pitches.com, Schilling likes to claim he has made the sportswriter obsolete. By connecting directly with fans, he says, he no longer needs to have his message mediated through the media, and that the traditional sports media is old-guard and irrelevant.

That claim, though, is total bunk.

First, look where Schilling made his comments -- on a talk radio station. If he really felt he could completely shun the media, he wouldn't make a weekly appearance there. Second, look where most of the response to Schilling's comments came -- in the media. It was discussed on sports talk radio and on TV. Odds are, Schilling would never have apologized for his comments if they hadn't gotten so much play in the media. Third, there's nothing in the world Curt Schilling loves more than talking about Curt Schilling. Without the media, his chances of getting his message across would be greatly diminished (after all, how many people read his blog compared to how many watch ESPN?).

(Apologies in advance for the terrible baseball pun I'm about to make, but I can't help it -- three strikes, and Curt's out.)

Schilling's a hypocrite because he hasn't gotten rid of the media -- he's just made more fodder for it. Indeed, I think this incident just reinforced how important the media is. We need the media to act as gatekeepers and disseminators of information. Without the media, we often wouldn't know what offends us, what uplifts us and what entertains us. Sure, I'll be the first to say that I hate when the media jumps on a bandwagon. But think of the alternative; imagine how much worse off we would be without the media to shape our perceptions, let us know what's important, and give us news we otherwise wouldn't hear. The media reporting on Schilling's words helped cause enough of a backlash that a man who claims to pull no punches actually apologized.

That's why I'm not worried about Curt Schilling or all this talk of a "new media" universe. It's incidents like this that show us the significance of traditional media. As long as someone needs to reach a vast audience, as long as there are issues that need to be discussed in a community forum, and as long as there's controversy, the old guys still have a big role to play.

For instance, look at how many blogs simply take most of their stories from traditional media, and then add a few comments of their own, without doing any original reporting. Without the traditional media, those guys would be nowhere.

So I think it's safe to say sorry, Curt, the sports media hasn't been eliminated -- and won't be as long as there are idiots like you out there to keep us relevant.

Outsourcing news

2007-05-11T10:07:00.000-07:00

James Macpherson, the editor and publisher of Pasadena Now has hired two reporters from India to cover the Pasadena City Council. The meetings are broadcast on the internet and the reporters will watch the meetings online and then write their articles. One of the benefits he cited of having the reporters cover the meetings is that they often run late into the night. Because of the time change, the reporters in India will be able to watch the meetings and work on their articles while the rest of the staff in Pasadena can go to bed. The editors will be able to come back in the morning and have the articles ready to go.

I think this is absolutely ridiculous! One of the most important things reporters need to be is very familiar with the area they are covering. We talked about this in class last week--the first thing you need to do when you get a job is go out and get to know the place you are covering. That's going to be a little impossible for these guys in India.

True--they can watch the meetings and write about them--but they won't know the implications of what they are writing about. They don't know the intricacies of the town. They probably have no idea how decisions will effect the people in the town.

I really hope this isn't the beginning of a trend of outsourcing! This really does not fit in with the trend toward hyperlocal news either!

Medill Reports

2007-05-11T09:48:00.001-07:00

I read an article in the Sun-Times a few weeks ago about Gage Park High School on the Southwest side. They are suffering from massive overcrowding that the reporter surmised has led to an uptick in school violence and just hotter tempers. A first year teacher talked about his experience of being hit in the head and having to go to the hospital after breaking up a fight. A student said she was scared about accidentally bumping into someone in the teeming hallways and getting in fight trouble. I was so excited after reading the article - it had names, specific examples, numbers - I thought this would be a great idea for my final project. I thought, "This reporter has done some work for me already." I was not so lucky, though. I called the first year teacher, and he went on and on about how "two-faced" the reporter was and how he was afraid he would lose his job after the article came out. He said the principal was so angry about the article and that everyone at the school would be very hesitant to talk to the media ever again. I assured him I was not interested in smearing his school, but he seemed unconvinced. After 3 calls and 2 e-mails to the principal, she still has not responded to me. I am certain I'll have to ditch this story. I read another teacher's blog about the article. He said everything in the article was true, but students and faculty were angry about the school sounding like thug land. I have not had an experience where I have had to appear "two-faced." But I was almost ready to tell the first year teacher whatever he wanted to hear to get him to talk to me.

Flowers? For ME?

2007-05-11T09:44:00.000-07:00

I'm not a huge fan of Roger Ebert's film criticism. I'm not saying he's bad, but I rarely read the Sun-Times and the last time I saw his syndicated broadcast from start-to-finish, the late Gene Siskel was still hosting.

In recent years, Ebert has been battling cancer, and he's currently recovering from another operation. Well, a couple of days ago, he received some flowers and a handwritten card. They were from Rob Schneider.

Schneider, of course, is a former writer and cast member of "Saturday Night Live." Since then, he's made plenty of comedies, none of which are critically acclaimed. They've all been panned by numerous critics, and for the most part Schneider never made a fuss. However, for some reason, Schneider took offense in 2005 to Los Angeles Times critic Patrick Goldstein's pan of "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo," responding with full-page ads in Hollywood trade papers. He took a shot at Goldstein, pointing out he never won any journalistic awards and basically called him a "third-rate, unfunny pompous reporter who's never been acknowledged by his peers." Ebert took it upon himself to respond, pointing out in his column that Goldstein had won a National Headliner Award, a Los Angeles Press Club Award, a RockCritics.com award, and the Publicists' Guild award for lifetime achievement. Furthermore, Ebert wrote, "as chance would have it, I have won the Pulitzer Prize...Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks." Not surprisingly, the two kind of went back and forth until both fell into chilly silence.

Then all of a sudden, he gets these flowers.

It's kind of refreshing to see this happen between two people who've shared a good deal of professional animosity. Journalism's obviously a tough career. It's tough to move up, and until you do, the pay's usually lousy, you're overworked, and when you've got a small check and enormous stres working against you, the only thing that keeps you going is probably job satisfaction, but nothing on earth can guarantee that for everyone. So you do what you have to do to succeed, which probably means getting tough interviews, and to get consistent access, you've got to play ball.

It's probably been that way forever, but it doesn't make it any less frustrating to see it everywhere. You see it in certain White House reporters who are never heard at press conferences because of the questions they ask. You see it with certain Sunday morning news shows that get better guests because the host has no problem killing time asking about football instead of tougher questions one might get from another host on another channel. You see it in local television shows too, probably small town newspapers...you have to have a smooth way with words or good diplomatic skills, but it gets very frustrating when a reporter's getting too cozy, too close, too friendly with their subject in exchange for exclusive access.

Granted, Roger Ebert is basically a film columnist/critic/buff and Rob Schneider isn't exactly an important figure in the world, but you can still appreciate what Schneider's done. Critics ought to be honest about their opinions, regardless of what it'll do to their professional relationships with certain artists, and while Ebert's honest, direct opinions have obviously ticked off Schneider, the flowers acknowledge Ebert's responsibility as a critic (not unless you believe a bouquet of flowers will somehow turn Ebert into a fan of his work). Imagine if Vice-President Cheney did the same for Seymour Hersh. A ridiculous pipe dream, but everyone's entitled to romantic delusions now and then.

Sweeping through local news

2007-05-11T09:43:00.001-07:00

It's May and that means it's time for TV to get sweep-tastic!

And this exciting time of year means that we are about to get bombarded with advertisements for special reports when the news isn't on and tease-laden broadcasts when we are actually trying to watch the news.

Advertising and promoting your product seems like no big deal for most of corporate America, but should the news industry be held to a higher standard? So often in local news, the TV personalities are promoted to get viewers to watch ("the most trusted news team in town!") and three times a year during sweeps it's the stories that get that treatment.

Two of my favorite ads that I've heard this week were all about that staple of sweeps: the investigative report! So what news stories are so important that they require their own advertising? On CBS 2, there will be a serious look at lawn fertilizing. A quick rundown: We don't want pesticides on our food, so what are we really putting on our lawns that our KIDS PLAY ON ALL SUMMER? (This ad I heard on the radio)

Another one from CBS 2 (that I saw Thursday night) was promoting the TV turnover to digital that is looming in the future. With the aid of wacky graphics and a doomsday voice, the ad threatened the future of your TV!

These are probably both worthwhile news stories, but the ads and threats seem to cheapen their value. Maybe viewers connect with this sort of stuff, but do journalists need to do this? In the day and age when revenue trumps content, it seems like your work isn't quite good enough if it can only stand on its own - it needs to be promotable, too!

This seems to blur the line of journalism into too much audience focus, i.e. what is marketable to them, instead of what is necessary for them to know about. I'm buying the audience-centric approach, but it can't just rely on what you can SELL them on or scare them in to watching.

Can we trust local news to give us good investigative reporting when it is not November, February or May? There are plenty of good stories out there and certainly some will come up during these three months, but I have a hard time with basing an investigation on how you can sell it during sweeps. I'm sure this will always be a problem that journalists will battle (or buy into) during their careers.

Now this is priceless

2007-05-11T09:31:00.000-07:00

Rupert Murdoch says global climate change is a serious issue and News Corp. is going to take major steps to become carbon neutral. Murdoch thinks global warming is real, he thinks its a serious problem, and he's making changes at all his companies. All this according to an editorial written by him in the New York Post.

But what happens now to all the deniers and doubters at Fox News.

For weeks, months and years, Fox News has been decrying global warming as leftist propaganda. To start how about this article that Fox News posted on its website, in a news position even though it is an anti-global warming screed. Guess now that Rupert is on the global warming team, this guy won't be getting many more invites to the corporate website.

But what about those Conservative and Fox News icons, Brit Hume and Sean Hannity. Two men who live to bash Al Gore as an alarmist and a cook. Brit Hume ran this piece to reduce the credibility of climate activists. He clearly chopped up some guys soundbyte to make it seem like he's saying we should reduce the number of people on earth, silly Brit. We all know his real point was that emissions dervied from human activity is the problem. Rupert probably wouldn't agree with you on that one.

How about another one of Brit's greatest hits. He ran this piece on May 2nd , again the aim seems to making global warming sound less legitimate. Cow flatulence and rice farming, oh Brit you're too funny.

And I don't want to keep picking on the hapless Hume but this one probably takes the cake. Murdoch is committed to making all of his businesses carbon-neutral, but Brit says that its not worthwhile. In fact, he says carbon neutrality is a rip off! A direct contradiction of everything the big boss man came out for. Not that I think Hume should be looking over his shoulder, worried if Murdoch will fire him. But I'm willing to bet that Brit will tone his rhetoric down a tad.

And we can't let Sean Hannity get away unscathed. Hannity, has a wavering position on global warming, it tends to be whatever fits his political need of the day. That isn't all too surprising, he is not a journalist, more of a political operative. In this interview, instead of debating the merits of global warming, he plays politics by attacking Al Gore. Politics not policy, salicious instead of substance. I'm guessing Rupert Murdoch lives the kind of personal lifestyle that Al Gore does. Does that mean Sean Hannity will go after his boss with the same vigor?

So let's break down the fundamental question behind all of this. Will these conservative crusaders no longer hammer "liberals" for blowing the global warming issue out of proportion? My guess is probably not, they're too beholden to Murdoch to slam an issue he has raised the profile of. They will find other things to lash out at the left on.

But won't it be so hypocritical if all the people on Fox News stop calling global warming a farce? This is a fair and balanced media organization, so we should expect them to continue to advocate both sides of the issue, right? They never did advocate both sides of the issue and they probably won't going forward either. They will just ignore it.

All this speaks to an even larger issue of one man's influence (Murdoch) over the journalistic product of an entire organization. His announcement yesterday could dramatically alter the course of Fox News, the New York Post and countless other journalism outlets around the world.

I wonder what the Wall Street Journal's position on global warming is?

Local news, outsourced?

2007-05-11T09:30:00.000-07:00

Is local news still local if it's covered by someone on a different continent?

According to an article in the L.A. Times, editor and publisher of the Pasadena Now Web site hired two reporters last weekend to cover the Pasadena City Council. One lives in Mumbai and the other works out of Bangalore.

Thanks to technology, the reporters can view the council meeting via the web from 9,000 miles away. (On a side note, these two reporters get paid between $7,200 and $12,000 a year.)

City council meetings are probably the least interesting events to cover, so snaps for any reporter who can get out of it. But journalistically speaking, this move is probably not the most ethical or effective. Can you get reactions and comments from overseas-- especially when India is 12.5 hours ahead of California time.

It's not that the reporters aren't qualified for the job-- supposedly one of the Indian presshounds is a graduate of the Berkeley j-school

This slightly reminds me of the Jayson Blair affair. One of Blair's many problems was the fact that he started to choose details from photographs to create the impression he had been somewhere or seen someone.

Speaking to our econ class last quarter, a Reuters Reporter alerted us to Reuter's outsourcing practices. Reuters runs a news bureau in Bangalore, the Silicon Valley of India, where it reports on company earnings-- even the businesses based in the U.S. The wire service also relocated lots of jobs to Singapore in 2004.

Another example is with Financial Times. The paper outsourced six intro-level editorial jobs to the Phillipines in March. The paper laid off 30 jobs in the past few months and saw the outsourcing as an attempt to fill the gap.

Journalism jobs are already being cut-- now they're being sent overseas. It's not excatly comforting, as an aspiring journalist, to keep seeing how journalistic integrity is being jeapardized by cost-cutting measures.

Outsourcing is a bold move by media outlets, but I think that this should definately raise some red flags.

Papers in the Papers

2007-05-11T08:44:00.000-07:00

This week I watched as an inside news scandal seemed to unfold in process. I felt particularly atuned to it and intrigued by it because of our recent case study work. The paper in question was The Wall Street Journal. And the scandal? The possibility that one of the Journal's top executives leaked information on the pending Murdoch bid to a Hong Kong businessman accused of insider trading.

The first coverage I saw of this story was in The New York Times on Tuesday.

Why Wall St. Journal Editors Held News of Murdoch Bid
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/business/media/08journal.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Andrew Sorkin reported on the challenges the Journal's editors faced when privy to early information on Murdoch's bid to buy Dow Jones. This breaking news was one of the largest business stories of the year, but The Wall Street Journal left it to CNBC to break the news.

As Sorkin wrote:
"The Journal’s decision raises a nettlesome issue for the media: what are a news organization’s obligations to report important market-moving news about itself or its parent company before the news is officially disclosed?"

Turns out, The Wall Street Journal's news obligations and corporate obligations would become even stranger bedfellows as the week progressed. What started as a story about editorial ethics quickly turned into a story about business ethics. Sorkin's Times article hinted at this when he wrote:

"One unusual aspect of this story was that some investors may also have learned about the deal before the news broke, and traded on that information. As a result, the questions of who knew what and when they knew it inside The Journal could become an issue in inquiries by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York state attorney general into an unusual spike in trading in options to buy Dow Jones stock ahead of a formal announcement of the offer."

Soon enough this was exactly what happened. The following day, Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal published what felt like a piece provoked by the Time's probbing. The article, Insider Trading Alleged in Shares Of Dow Jones, revealed that a Hong Kong couple--Kan King Wong and Charlotte Ka On Wong Leung--were being investigated officially by the SEC for insider trading after turning an $8.2 million profit on Dow Jones shares. The catch? The wife's father is close friends with David Li, the director of Dow Jones. It was the father who transferred investment seed money into the couple's account days before the news of Murdoch's bid officially broke.

What ensued has been a slew of building articles and investigations by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and other news outlets have joined in the reporting as the story has grown. What was seemingly prompted by a Times article has been covered much more thoroughly by the Journal itself. As Sorkin wrote in the first line of his initial article, "One of the trickiest things for a news organization to do is cover itself." But for all the challenges of self-coverage, there is also an inherent edge.

The Wall Street Journal has provided far and away the most in depth, investigative reporting on the scandal--not least because it has access to figures like David Li himself. Whereas the Times' stories are riddled with "refused to comment," the Journal gets quotes directly from the source. Editors at the journal might have initially let the story of Murdoch's bid go covered by other news outlets, but it seems that now they've decided to create a virtual monopoly on the sensitive information. The ethical decision-making of covering their own story--what to put in, what to leave out, and how firmly to press their company's own executives for real answers--will be the center of attention as the rest of the story unfolds.

Medill 2020...maybe

2007-05-10T21:05:00.000-07:00

I have started to try and decide what to do with my life when August rolls around and I officially am a Medill alum and have to enter the real world and get a JOB! I must admit, I cannot wait! I am looking forward to finally have a stable income, living closer to my friends and loved ones, and making my parents proud (or relieved that they don't have to fork out tuition anymore!)

Since I am get depressed when the temperature drops below 40 degrees, I have decided that my heart (and body) are made for the west and southwest areas of the country...I would love to move back to Phoenix where the sun is always shining. My friend who works in Scottsdale, AZ put me in contact with one of her colleagues' good friends, who just happens to be a veteran employee at the NBC affiliate in Phoenix. I emailed her to see what advice she has for me as I begin the job search in the southwest, and how to make my way to a large market like Phoenix.

Here is a snippet of her response: "It's hard to give solid advice via email, but I will tell you the Internet is the next big thing.Many news organizations (including ours) are changing the way they operate to accommodate the net and all its resources.I would highly suggest you get familiar with it and have some Internet related courses on your resume."

So...maybe those Web casts will come in handy. (or maybe at least the notion of "writing and producing for the web"). I just thought I'd pass this little message along as we all have been frustrated at times during the past few quarters, wondering why we are the ones facing Medill's transition and if it really is mirroring what is happening, or going to happen, in the news industry. I think we all are going to be very successful at whatever we do...who knows where people will end up and if we all will remain in the broadcast field or find that our passion lies in a completely different industry. I have faith in everyone...and I know the process of getting there is very stressful.

Set high goals for yourself...and ultimately aim for happiness.

Nancy's Fall From Grace

2007-05-10T19:13:00.000-07:00

The verdict was handed down from Court TV this week--Nancy Grace's show on the network would be cut from 2 hours to 1 hour, to make room for a show hosted by Star Jones. Grace, who spent 10 years with the network, quickly responded that she is leaving her show "Nancy Grace: Closing Arguments" to focus full-time on her legal analysis program, "Nancy Grace" on CNN Headline News. And quite frankly, I am glad we are going to see less of Nancy and that we can now contain her to one network.
I have a great disliking for Grace, who in my opinion, brings drama to the news set--making a bad name for legal analysts. Her antics on her show and attitude were "disgraceful." I lost most of my respect for Grace after her interview with Melinda Duckett (whose 2-year-old son had gone missing) ended with Duckett dead because she had shot herself after Grace grilled her and called her an irresponsible mother. While this incident was later turned into an episode of Law & Order, the fact remains that Grace was believed to be responsible for this woman's death. Critics cited that Grace blamed the weak-minded woman and attacked her verbally and had actually convicted the mother for the disappearance. While it is great for attorneys to cross-examine witnesses in a court of law, she did this as a journalist--and journalists should not play judge and jury--they should stick to delivering the facts. If I were Court TV, I would be so very greatful that this monster is leaving. Every other show on the network is great besides hers.
Oh and let us not forget the interview with Elizabeth Smart, the kidnapped 14-year-old girl she badgered. Finally, Smart had to tell Grace to stop. (If this isn't a red flag I do not know what is--that this woman should not be allowed to interview anyone, let alone a child.)The following is the transcript from the interview:
GRACE: Did your kidnappers tell you they would hurt you or your family if you tried to get away?

ELIZABETH SMART: You know, they did. And I really am here to support the bill and not to go into what — you know, what happened to me, what the whole — like, what is in my past because I`m not here to give an interview on that. I`m here to help push this bill through.

GRACE: And I want you to push the bill through and I want people to hear your voice.

When we take a look back, there`s a shot of Elizabeth Smart, and here she is, four years later. And frankly, it`s a miracle that she was ever found. You know, a lot of people have seen shots of you wearing a burqa. How did you see out of that thing?

ELIZABETH SMART: You know, I`m really not going to talk about this at this time. I mean, that`s something I just don`t even look back at. And I really — I really — to be frankly honest, I really don`t appreciate you bringing all this up.

GRACE: I`m sorry, dear. I thought that you would speak out to other victims. But you know what? I completely understand. A lot of victims don`t want to talk about it and don`t feel like talking about it.

Clearly, if a 14-year-old knows something is wrong with Grace's interview tactics, she is not fit to be on television or talking to anyone--after all, her body count is at one. Anyway, I am glad Grace is off one show--lets get her out of CNN too. Let TV be rid of garbage and lets bring in quality legal analysts--not jokers.

Do people still watch Nancy Grace?

2007-05-09T17:25:00.000-07:00

Boo Hoo - Court TV reports Wednesday said Nancy Grace announced she is leaving the network to focus entirely on her CNN Headline News show, "Nancy Grace." Grace hosted a two-hour show on Court TV called "Nancy Grace -- Closing Arguments." Sources say Grace has been consdering the move for some time now, but my questions is when will she consider moving entirely off air?
I have not met one person who believes Nany Grace is anything but annoying.
Nancy Grace makes me embarrassed to tell people I am interested in legal reporting because whenever I say that I am, people follow with "So, you want to be like Nancy Grace?"
No, absolutely not. To give you an idea of how Court TV is contributing to my point in taking her off air, they are replacing her show with Star Jones' new show -- that is unforunate on several levels.

1) Nancy Grace is being kicked off because of Star Jones
2) Star Jones is kicking Nancy Grace off of her show.

Both points are pretty embarassing for Grace, I think.

What about Grace made her such a celebrity for crime and investigative reporting? It was suprising to me when I read that her CNN Headline news show has experienced higher ratings recently. Who still watches her?

Hopefully decreasing Grace's airtime will make way for new legal reporters who can succesfully convey the complicated world of legal affairs to viewers who seek substantial information, not tacky, insensitive statements that annoy you more than anything else.

Just because Court TV is saying Bye to Grace, I hope that does not mean Headline News will give her more air time.

A Slow News Week or Just Bad Editorial Decisions???

2007-05-06T21:09:00.000-07:00

This week was probably a slow week in news...at least I hope. I was absolutely disgusted with prominent news outfits showing the David Hasselhoff tape or running stories on Paris Hilton going to the penitentiary. And, to make matters worse, these stories were not in the B block of new or the C block, they were top stories or the subject of entire shows.
On three news channels, the Hasselhoff story seemed to recycle itself every 15 minutes. The news outlets would continuously roll the tape of Hasselhoff drunk on the bathroom floor of his Las Vegas home with his daughter videotaping him while he launched obscenities at her and the camera and picked at a sloppy hamburger. In between these rants, he would say, "I am a recovering alcoholic and relapse is a part of recovery." The videotape replaying was overkill. And, it was not newsworthy. Can someone please tell me what was newsworthy about this non-story? Clearly, this was done by stations for ratings and nothing more. Who in the morning editorial meeting said we are going to run with this story? Nonetheless, how much embarrassment can one family handle...do news organizations not care that young kids are involved in these situations?
Now, what is most startling is that this story has still not died. Yesterday, the news networks ran stories with Pamela Bach, Hasselhoff's ex-wife making claims that Hasselhoff assaulted her in drunken rages. Thus, supporting Bach's allegations that Hasselhoff's alcohol abuse is what prompted their divorce. Now, it does not end here either...today, the news organizations both local, national and international (broadcast, radio and print) are running stories with Hasselhoff lashing back at his wife and her assualt allegations. Now, at this point, I feel like the media has become the stage for divorces and marital disputes to play out. I would expect to hear about these stories on E! or Inside Edition, but why is NBC devoting whole shows to this issue? Why do I have to see David Hasselhoff drunk on my television screen at 5 am, 11 am and then again at 4 p.m.?
In the past two weeks, we have dealth with a similar situation with Alec Baldwin and his abusive message to his daughter Ireland. Now, the question I ask is...who is leaking these tapes to the media? Can we get to the bottom of that? Maybe herein lies the news. The common denominator in all of these stories are out of control fathers who are either going through divorces or that are just recently divorced and not on good terms with their exes. Clearly, the exes have motive...not to mention, what child would not show their parent what the other parent said on tape or did on-camera. While both mothers have denied leaking the tapes, I want to know who is the source here. Is it them? Are they being paid for these tapes? And, if they are selling these tapes, doesn't that make them the bad parent for airing the family's dirty laundry on national television.
Also, can we stop giving publicity to these leaked tapes. They have no substance and are ridiculous. I would rather do MOSs all day on the street asking Chicagoans how they feel about the city or country than air these worthless peices of garbage that take up valuable air time. And can someone please send Hasselhoff back to Baywatch where he belongs.

New York v. Chicago - Media Style

2007-05-05T19:04:00.000-07:00

As some of you may know I'm on the road this weekend, in New York City. There are so many similarities between the media institutions in the two cities, but there are also a couple of striking differences. In bullet point form I'm gonna go through those similarities and differences as I see them. This is a highly unscientific exploration, but I figured it would be fun.

- Editorial Perspectives: Both New York and Chicago have newspapers that represent both sides of the political spectrum. I think this is a good thing, a little balance never hurt anybody. In Chicago, the Tribune generall can be relied on for a somewhat conservative voice, though that has been moderated recently. The Sun-Times is generally liberal. Here in New York, the Post and Wall Street Journal are strong conservartive voices. While the Daily News, Newsday and of course the New York Times are very liberal. It's so very important to have balance in this area, but in Chicago I get the sense that there is a little less balance. If only because both newspapers endorsed Mayor Daley, despite an amazing amount of legal trouble. One of the two major dailies stepping out and trying to prop up another candidate would have been interesting and certainly more balanced.

- News Radio: WBBM 780 and WCBS 880 are essentially the same, 24 hour news stations that are CBS affiliates. More interesting for me is the sports radio situation in Chicago as compared to New York. More options and competitiveness in Chicago has left the top two stations tied. Whereas in New York WFAN continues to dominate WEPN. Both markets are highly competitive and very balanced.

- Television news: I've decided to pick out an oddball difference between the two markets, but one that deeply bothers me. In Chicago, Bob Sirott on NBC offers a "One More Thing" commentary at the end of the 4 o'clock news broadcast. He also has a background in talk radio and seems to inject opinion into a lot of his stories. I like him, I find him entertaining but I do not think he's anchoring style is entirely journalistically inappropriate. None of the news anchors in New York offer commentary like Sirott does. A number of years ago Bill Beutel was the main anchor at ABC 7 in New York, and he occasionally offered commentary. But that time has passed. And I feel like Chicago is entitled to have its news reported without an anchor's opinion. That kind of stuff wouldn't fly in New York, and I hope it doesn't go on for much longer in Chicago.

And on a non-media related point, New York sports teams are clearly more dominant than Chicago's. Feel free debate that last point in the comments as well.

Baldwin vs. Hasselhoff

2007-05-05T11:45:00.000-07:00

I was surprised by own reactions to two intimate, though definitely not positive, celebrity father-daughter moments exposed to the world.

The first one was actor Alec Baldwin’s vicemail, err, I mean voicemail. The worst parts of the voicemail to his 11-year-old daughter included “You are a rude, thoughtless, little pig, OK?” at the end of a long tirade about how he feels stood up by her for not making a telephone appointment.

The second incident was actor/singer David Hasselhoff, caught on tape by his own 16-year-old daughter Taylor-Ann, lounging shirtless in a hotel room, drunk to the point where he can barely pick up a hamburger. Taylor-Ann’s imploring questions to him “Are you gonna stop [drinking]?” are heartbreaking, and so is Hasselhoff’s response: “'Cause I’m lonely.”

Watching the “news” about Baldwin left me disgusted with the way NBC milked this non-story. When it was aired on the Today show, Matt Lauer said “This is so disturbing on so many levels.” I wanted to know, where? As far as I can tell, Baldwin was trying to parent his daughter. He was audibly upset and angry, but he was reasonable in the literal sense of the word: In his message, he explained his reason for being upset at her, how she made him feel, what he would have expected of her. We may disagree with the method of parenting, but this voicemail is a far stretch from abusive or destructive. Any snip of argument between family members would have seemed contorted if aired like this.

So when NBC steps into a parenting situation, a private moment, milked the story for its celebrity value, made it look like news with two experts chiming in (TMZ’s managing editor and NBC’s chief legal correspondant), and then itself became a conduit for a nasty divorce, and possibly, a pawn for one of the sparring ex-spouses, I think it has definitely lost some credibility points as a respected news organization.

Now…having vented about NBC, it’ll be difficult to explain why I felt that The Insider and other television magazines were right about airing Hasselhoff’s drunk moments. But I’ll try.

Hasselhoff really was at a low when he let himself be filmed like that. Contrary to Baldwin’s inadvertent public display of disaffection, however, Hasselhoff was no longer in control of his own actions while in the presence of his underage daughter. Hasselhoff was not parenting, more than that, he was setting a horrible example as a supposed role model. What if he hadn’t just been intoxicated from alcohol, but from weed or worse? Although I felt sorry for him, I didn’t feel that this scene was exploited or dramatized – the human drama spoke for itself.

So why would this drunken scene merit public airing when Baldwin’s rant did not? Well, besides the fact that one was about real misfortune (alcoholic dad) and the other was not (angry dad), what the viewer takes away from Hasselhoff’s video is the tragic implications of alcohol on a child, who has been forced to become the reasonable voice to beg her parent to stop drinking. Fame has to do with it to the extent that alcohol and drugs feature prominently in certain lifestyles. In cases like Hasselhoff’s, it may take some extreme action, like the one committed by his daughter, to sober up the person.

As for Baldwin’s voicemail, what I took away from it was that parents should be extremely cautions when “handling” their children, using only gloves and cotton candy, even when they are out of line.

Maybe this discussion is not so much about journalism as it is about parenting. Unless of course, the media influences the way we parent, as NBC did when it chastised Baldwin for yelling at his daughter.

Paris Hilton is in trouble again....does anyone care?

2007-05-05T11:00:00.000-07:00

For about 12 hours or so, the main story on many news websites was Paris Hilton. Apparently, a judge sentenced her to 45 days of jail. Why? She drove with a suspended license, in violation of her parole. In case you don't remember - or don't care - she was involved in an alcohol-related traffic incident not too long ago. Actually, she's been involved in several, it's just this last one that REALLY counted. Anyway, she got hit with her sentence, and then her mother threw a little tantrum over it.

At this point, does anyone really care about Paris Hilton? Even if it's a slow news day, this is the kind of story news organizations should bury.

Actually, the AP went one better (or at least tried to ) back on February 13:

"Next week the print team is planning an unconventional experiment: We are NOT going to cover Paris Hilton.

“Barring any major, major news, we are not going to put a single word about Paris on the wire,” the memo continued. “If something does come up, big or small, we encourage discussions on whether we should write about it.”

“Hopefully we will be able to discuss what ‘news’ we missed...the repercussions of our blackout for AP both editorially and business-wise, and most importantly the force that cause the world to be fixated on this person who, despite her shallow frivolity, represents an epochal development in our culture.”

That was the entertainment editor's e-mail to his co-workers. The experiment ended when Paris was arrested for driving without a license.

Can't these websites found some better news to use? I guess this one's special because she may actually go to jail, unless her lawyers can pull some other trick out, but what's the interest in these stories? Celebrity gossip is always popular, but how many people are actually dying to hear more news about her, much less, another story about another driving incident?

In Methods, they keep hammering it into us that we're suppose to report stories that bring in a certain audience, but at what point can we wonder if that audience is worth getting, if that story's worth telling, if what we have is even worth showing?

UPDATE:
The New York Times picked this off the AP wires:

"One fan, Joshua Capone, wrote to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asking him to intervene and keep Hilton out of jail.

"'She provides hope for young people all over the U.S. and the world. She provides beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives,' Capone wrote in a letter to Schwarzenegger posted online on Hilton's myspace page."

Please, please, PLEASE let this be a sarcastic joke...I need SOME faith in humanity...

Shield Law

2007-05-04T21:33:00.000-07:00

This week several congressmen introduced a bill that would legislate a federal shield law for journalists. I stumbled across this in the New York Times on Thursday in the Op Ed section. I was surprised that this was the first I had seen or read of the bill - just a short opinion article buried in the back of the paper.

NY Times Article

The bill, called the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, was introduced Wednesday by congressmen and senators of both parties (Democrats Rick Boucher, John Conyers and Christopher Dodd, and Republicans, Mike Pence and Howard Coble and Richard Lugar). The measure would confer a reporter's privilege, though only up to a point. As the opinion article revealed:

It is not a blank check. The bill would set reasonable criteria that would have to be met before unpublished information could be subpoenaed from reporters in a federal criminal or civil matter. Prosecutors would have to show that they had exhausted alternative sources before demanding information. They would need to show that the sought-after material was relevant and critical to proving a case, and that the public interest in requiring disclosure would outweigh the public interest in news gathering.

Like the reporter, I agree that this is a necessary measure to preserve freedom of the press, and the ability for the media to serve as our nation's watchdog. Journalists cannot be expected to serve as critical news-gatherers if sources are unable to trust that their confidentiality will be protected. At the same time, I think the bill is right to place some limits on the privilege it would offer us. If journalists are truly acting in the interest of society at large, then they should also understand that there are points when their confidential material should be revealed in order to serve the greater good.

I personally take some issue with reporters like Josh Wolf, who seem to stand on principle for a universal privilege that cannot hold up under the weight of pragmatic concerns. In his case, I don't think there was an overriding reason to protect the material he had gathered. If reporters are to have this privilege, they must also understand the reasons it has been given to them, and the limits of those reasons. Perhaps the best chance we have in obtaining a federal shield law is to show that we would not abuse it.

Takeover politics

2007-05-04T14:06:00.000-07:00

The Journal has posted its sign: Not for sale. At least, not yet.

This week Dow Jones union president Steve Yount sent a letterto members to say he's not happy about a potential sellout to Rubert Murdoch. The News Corp. bid for the Wall Street Journal's parent company apparently sent shudders through Dow Jones ranks. Yount tried to cool the panic about a Fox-ification overhaul.

"We believe that what's at stake here is the essence of everything you do: the unquestioned integrity, objectivity and independence of Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal," Yount wrote in the letter.

He goes on to say he was particularly troubled by what Murdoch told the New York Times. The media tycoon said he was "sometimes frustrated by long stories." Yount balked at the statement:

"I'm afraid Mr. Murdoch doesn't understand why the Wall Street Journal is the Wall Street Journal. Not everything is five paragraphs and picture. Dow Jones did not become the most trusted source of business news and information in the world by serving up News Nuggets."

He ended the message with a promise to "continue the fight to preserve the quality, integrity and independence of Dow Jones."

But is he fighting a futile battle?

I think it's quite possible that News Corp. could buy out Dow Jones. Murdoch is determined to add a high-brow gem to his crown of media enterprises. He's willing to pay two-thirds more than share value - so either he has a personal mission or he's peeking around the corner to the Journal's lucrative future. The Bancroft family, which controls Dow Jones, has vowed to vote down Murdoch's agressive charge for the Journal. But there's no telling whether the media maven will pitch an even more irresistable bid if he's shot down the first time around.

Regardless of who wins this ownership battle, I am confident that the editorial board will maintain the integrity of the newspaper. The union president's message was refreshing. The entire media world -- from the corporate executives to university professors, ahem -- is abuzz about "audience." Everyone wants to know what's on the elusive consumers' minds. Are they looking for substance, style or a balanced blend of both?

Yount seemed to value substance. That's not to say Murdoch doesn't appreciate substantive reporting, but he's more likely to impose a certain style to the newspaper's articles. People like Murdoch believe news must be easily digestible, snazzy and quick.

That may be true for most consumers, but I think the Wall Street Journal has special readers. Its editors figured out the benefits of a niche market long ago, when the publication began targeting educated, finance professionals. The publication's readers are time-pressed and might appreciate Murdoch's "news nuggets."
But they're also curious and patient enought to carve out time to read an 1,000-word story, unlike Murdoch, who said he doesn't have patience to read some Wall Street Journal articles all the way through.

The newspaper retains subscribers by providing background and context that's largely unavailable elsewhere. And, honestly, if the Wall Street Journal isn't showing the bigger picture, where will readers find that perspective?

One thing is for sure. If Murdoch wins the Wall Street Journal with his unsolicited $5 billion deal, there would be major changes at his new trophy property.

The D.C. Madam

2007-05-04T12:55:00.001-07:00

She's all over the news. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, dubbed by the media "The D.C. madam," is accused of running an illegal prostitution ring in Washington D.C., which supposedly serviced a number of high profile political figures.

Palfrey insists her company was not illegal. She said her employees were hired by clients to perform "fantasy sex," which never constituted actual sexual contact.

The government has seized a number of her assets making it impossible for Palfrey to hire a legal powerhouse. So instead of relying on hotshot lawyers, she has enlisted the help of ABC News to track down clients who she says she can get to testify on her behalf that nothing illegal took place. She provided the station with hundreds of pages of phone records.

In turn, ABC is having a field day with the story. This tantalizing tale has come just in time for sweeps. The story has been in the public eye for a few months but the network has been able to keep alid on most of the details in time for May sweeps. They have been dropping little teasers--a name of an alleged client here and another name there--in order to build interest for a May 4th 20/20 tell-all.

I guess I don't really have a problem with what ABC is doing in this situation. Let's face it...they lucked out. She could have gone to any network with her client phone lists and she chose ABC. There was no information in there that was time-sensitive, so why not wait until sweeps to reveal the names during a highly publicized special.

However, I have to wonder if networks ever have crucial stories, stories that could impact the health and welfare of thousands of viewers that they sit on and wait until sweeps to reveal. I can think of a number of investigative stories that stations play during sweeps--chances are they had the knowledge long before that month, but chose to wait to air it.

If news is supposed to benefit and inform viewers, the whole concept of sweeps and the behaviors it promotes at stations kind of contradicts that.

However, in the case of the D.C. Madam, I don't think it really mattered when the story was told.

As for what's going to happen next? Guess we'll have to tune in...

Not Barack, but Katie Couric falls in the polls...again

2007-05-04T09:34:00.000-07:00

So you probably think I am obsessed with Katie Couric or something, but I am really just disappointed and saddened to see such a renowned and talented female journalist fall to her professional doom.

Once, the lovable, perky and friendly TODAY show host, news-watchers around the world seemed to think that she had what it took for them to turn to first thing in the morning. She was relentless, yet compassionate and could report on the devastation of hurricane Katrina to the latest summer fashions. People liked her and respected her.

So what has changed so much that one-third of Americans now say they have a negative view of Couric? In the most recent Gallup Poll released Thursday (May 3rd) "One-third of Americans say they have a negative view of Katie Couric, her personal popularity lagging behind rivals Charles Gibson and Brian Williams just as her evening news program trails in the ratings."

The article continued to say that:
"She's handicapped by the number of people - 29 percent in this poll - who explained their negative opinion by saying they simply "don't like her," Gallup said. Once one of the most popular personalities in TV news, her negative ratings crept up during her final years at "Today.""

BUT, she definitely doesn't lack in name-recognition. "At least people know who she is," Gallup said. "Only 13 percent of the respondents said they had never heard of Couric, compared to 19 percent each for Gibson and Williams."

See the entire article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/1401AP_TV_Poll_Anchors.html?source=rss

So what went wrong? In my opinion Katie should have NEVER left the TODAY show. Her counterparts (Matt, Al and Ann) helped make it seem like one big happy family, so people tended to want to tune in more to watch Couric. However, I think toward the end of her TODAY show reign, she lost sight of her goal as a journalist and became too engulfed in the tabloids and the whole "hollywood" scene. She even began dressing differently, and frequented the cover of PEOPLE and The Enquirer regarding which celebrity wedding she attended and who she was dating. I hope that Couric is able to get their act together. I do have faith in her abilities, but in a business where patience disappears as fast as coffee in a newsroom, I don't know how long CBS and the viewers will wait to see if things change. After all, in this biz, ratings are pretty much everything.

A time for celebration or mourning?

2007-05-04T07:08:00.000-07:00

May 3rd was World Press Freedom Day.

Heres a snapshot of what happened so far this year:

25 Journalists were killed worldwide.
5 Media assistants were killed.
125 Journalists were imprisoned.
4 Media assistants were imprisoned.
65 Cyberdissidents were imprisoned.

These cyberdissidents are going to prison simply for wanting to provide the public with information. China had the largest number, 50. The U.S. wasn't on this particular list, but that doesn't mean we're exactly innocent.

Blogger and freelance journalist Josh Wolf was sent to prison in August of 2006 for a month and then back to jail in September. Wolf, a Californian, had filmed a demonstration at a G8 summit in 2005 during which a police vehicle was attacked and damaged.

A federal judge ordered him to hand over his film and he refused, sealing his fate. The 24-year-old will probably stay there until a grand jury finishes its investigation of the attack in July 2007.

According to Reporters sans frontiere, press freedom in the country has been on a decline since the jailing of New York Times Reporter Judith Miller for three months in 2005.

So far little progress has been made in terms of protecting jouranlists. In June, the federal supreme court declined, again, to rule on the right of journalists not to reveal their sources.

And to put this in perspective, the United States is ranked 53rd (2006 figures) in the press freedom index. Seriously? It's sad that each year less-developed countries move up on the index and the U.S. continues to drop. The U.S. fell nine places since last year.

I am definately surprised by this number. (Finland was ranked #1 and of course North Korea was last along with Turkmenistan and Eritrea). But maybe not for journalists out there dealing with the government every day the strained relationship between the Bush adminstration and the press.

So when a large part of the world seems to recognize the importance of freedom of the press in making a society work, were are we going?

Barack Obama secret service - is it even a story yet?

2007-05-04T00:45:00.000-07:00

I know journalists must look to journalism before public service - that's their job. Tonight on the Chicago ABC, CBS and NBC stations, each 6 o'clock broadcast started out with the new Secret Service detail on Obama. The major point for all coverage was that there have been no threats against him but that this was the earliest a candidate has ever needed Secret Service protection. I guess I was shocked that this was hot enough to lead the newscasts here - yes, it was new and thus "news" but it wasn't really a story yet. The presidential race hasn't really begun and no specific threat has been released. It may have been news, but what was the point? There was some "watchdogging" involved, I suppose, because Obama has made no comment and the only video for the story was Obama walking with what looked like bodyguards with hearing aids. I had seen the story on the 5:30 network news for NBC and ABC, so maybe I was just informed enough already of something I didn't think was that newsworthy in the first place. But our stations leading off with something I didn't think was that much of a story - I was surprised. Wasn't there anything else going on? I couldn't tell you. After flipping through the top of each show looking for something different, I switched away from news altogether.

Lots of Ponce

2007-05-03T23:16:00.000-07:00

The Sun-Times reported Tuesday that WMAQ-TV is set to hire another Ponce... Anthony Ponce, son of WTTW's Phil Ponce and younger brother of WLS-TV reporter, Dan Ponce. This is just a little incestuous. How many Ponce's can they get in the Chicago media market?

The story is kind of funny on its own, but the way the article was written sounded like it was an advertisement taken out by the Ponce family to announce their son's new job. It was quite humorous that Phil was interviewed for the article. My favorite quote:

"I've been on cloud nine ever since Anthony got the news," said proud father Phil. "For Ann and me to have both our sons back home doing what they love is a dream come true.
"And I'm thrilled that each will be working at one of the top local news stations in the country. Now if we could just get our daughter back home from Manhattan!"

Now, I know nothing about Anthony's reporting ability. He has most recently been at WISH-TV in Indianapolis and maybe he's done a great job, who knows. He, like his brother, is also a Medill grad. Oh, and they both went to Indiana University for undergrad. This is a lot of family togetherness. That's great; I love my family but I just don't know if I could follow my sibling's every move.

I know families often get involved in the same profession and maybe they have some sort of "broadcast gene," but I highly doubt it. I think this just really proves the point that "it's who you know" that can really get you ahead in any profession.

I actually think Dan Ponce is pretty good. He's young-looking and fresh-faced, so he brings a different look to the newscast. And I think he does a pretty good job, so I can't say he doesn't deserve it. But I do think there are probably many other deserving journalists with more experiece, but that's just how these things work.

I just think it might get kind of humorous to see two brothers reporting at the same time slot. Hey, they'll probably even run into each other while out on stories, which seems like some sort of conflict of interest, but I guess there is nothing you can do. If this were any other profession, I would think nothing of it. The problem is that it's television and so it's really noticable.

I hope that when I see Anthony on NBC5 for the first time, he does a great job and I can feel confident that he was hired for the right reasons. I also can't fault him for using his connections; I fully plan to use mine and to network to try to position myself for employment. Hey, maybe I should shut up because as a fellow Medill grad, the Ponce's could be in my network one day.

Glenn Beck and CNN craziness

2007-05-03T22:22:00.000-07:00

I know CNN is a business first and a news organization second. I get that. I also know that CNN promotes its own programming all the time, and that doesn't really bother me; it's no different than Fox advertising for Bones during American Idol. Still, the cross promotion with Glenn Beck that I saw on the network yesterday was too much.

During the Newsroom afternoon segment, the anchors had Glenn Beck, host of his own talk show on Headline News, on to discuss global warming. Now why is Glenn Beck an expert on global warming? Other than the fact that he spews a tremendous amount of hot air, he knows nothing more about it (and probably a lot less) than you or I do.

But Beck was hosting a special about global warming, so CNN brought him on -- during the middle of the news day, on a serious news program -- to talk about his views on the subject.

So the cross-promotion was cringe-worthy. But what's worse is that, in the pursuit of the ridiculous notion of objectivity, the media keeps giving time and space to people whose views have been almost entirely discredited.

I'm not going to get into the science of global warming here. Suffice it to say that it's happening, and that it's in all likelihood man-made. Somewhere around 95 percent of the world's scientists agree on this, if not more.

So why, when we read or see stories about global warming, are both the "yes it's happening" and the "no, it's not" sides represented? Would we include the views of Holocaust deniers in stories about the WWII? Or the views of those who still believe in slavery in a story about reparations? That's what this is akin to.

But the media feels a need, for whatever reason, to kowtow to people who don't believe in global warming. The same thing goes for evolution. These are proven scientific facts. The media shouldn't give both sides a say, just for the sake of "objectivity" and "balance."

We in the media should be in the business of truth-telling. Plain and simple. Sure, there should always be room for skepticism. And even when the vast majority of people agree with something, we should question it -- but only if necessary, not because we feel we need to go through the motions of doing so.

When something is scientifically supported, when it's observable before our eyes, and when there's physical evidence of it -- we should just call it as we see it. That means saying when something is right and when crackpot views are wrong.

As I said above, our job is to tell and report the truth. It's to inform. It's to clarify. It's not to distort and confuse and give credence to ridiculousness just because we feel some need to be "objective."

Time 100 Most Influential People... to spark a debate?

2007-05-03T17:16:00.000-07:00

So, just recently, Time came out with their 100 Most Influential People issue and I think it is going to spark a debate. In fact, it already has within my group of friends…. Because why? President Bush did not make the list. Interesting…

THE LIST:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100/article/0,28804,1595326_1595332,00.html

I have one friend in particular who is extremely disturbed by this… partly because he is a die-hard Bush supporter… but I will admit, most that are not Bush fans were upset by this too. Why you ask? Well… let me explain. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama and Former Democratic Vice President and “Oscar winning movie star” Al Gore and not my favorite person but definitely left-wing Rosie O’Donnell all made the list.

AND… on top of this, Osama bin Laden made the list. I can honestly say the above didn’t shock me too bad. Osama bin Laden shocked me, and upset me a little bit… as well as many of my friends. I want to defend CNN and Time magazine in this situation and say there is no bias, but arguing that to my friends is very difficult. They are right to say, “C’mon Abby, open your eyes! The network is biased!!!”

To add all of these people to the list and leave off the President of the United States, whether popular or not, the man has influential powers. I mean, an overwhelming majority of the country is against this war, but he has the power and influence to keep us in it. For the U.S. President to be left off the list and all of these other people make it is a little bizarre to me.

I’m a little torn too, because in a way, I am glad to see that he didn’t make the list. It, in a way, feels like the people are finally being heard… but then, all of that meant nothing to me when Time put Osama bin Laden on the list.

A quote from our E-mails:
“I know you all probably think I'm nuts, but this is the most blatant and severe example of media bias that I have ever seen. This is actually so sad it is making me nauseous. Rosie O'Donnell and Osama bin Laden make this list, and not our President? Seriously, God help us.”
That is a quote from my friend Jesse. Obviously, he has strong feelings on the matter, but I think that many people are having similar thoughts, whether you like or dislike Bush. Them and not our President?

It’s been going back and forth between my friends and me for a day now. I’d like to see what other people think, that is the sole purpose for this blog. Do you guys think CNN and Time are biased and why? I am having a hard time defending myself and defending journalistic integrity on this one.

The business deal that could shake business reporting

2007-05-02T14:26:00.000-07:00

First purchase, Dow Jones. Second purchase, the world.

Rupert Murdoch made an offer to buy Dow Jones this week and his proposal is stirring up the news industry. Not only would he add Dow Jones, but he would add a large property in The Wall Street Journal. He would likely create a business reporting channel in the vein of CNBC (which it seems like he's going to do anyway). And then News Corp would become too large for the planet and it would have to start its own.

Last month Sam Zell bought the Tribune Company and all of its entities. There is some thought his early plans include improving Web offerings. From the speculation that I've read about the Murdoch deal, a heavier Internet presence isn't far from his mind, either.

Is this good or bad for journalists? Internet reporting appears to be the wave of the future, and Murdoch wants to catch his before it breaks on the beach. Surely there will be more opportunities, but it will change the way business is reported. Speed is vital in business reporting and competitive pressures will likely make it more so. There seems to be a demand for competent business reporters, so maybe this is a good thing in terms of employment numbers.

But are we just pawns in media conglomerates? Fox News Channel anchors John Gibson and Neil Cavuto interviewed each other in the wake of the developments and were speculating about the security CNBC employees would have if the deal went through. That made me wonder about how journalism fits into the chess game of media conglomerates.

It also makes me wonder about the likes of Zell and Murdoch. The Chicago real estate tycoon is new to the news business, but will he stop with the acquistion of the Tribune Company? For Murdoch, the news business is old hat - but where will his global domination (or pursuit of it at least) finally stop?

How would another business channel affect the TV landscape? We've got three major cable news networks - why not another business channel? It means more jobs! With the strength of the Wall Street Journal behind it, the channel would have instant credibility.

But it could also water down the reporting so that both channels are just repeating themselves...kind of like the news channels.

The only thing to wait for now is to see if Murdoch can actually buy Dow Jones. There are indications that it will be tough but Murdoch probably didn't build a media empire by being timid.

YouChoose on YouTube

2007-04-28T13:55:00.000-07:00

YouTube is gaining traction on television. That’s just my own empirical evidence from watching tv. A few weeks ago, one advertiser for a hygiene product called on viewers to submit their best video on YouTube for a national competition. This week, Fox was asking viewers to submit videos of why they supported any particular presidential candidate.

I logged on to YouTube and came across its YouChoose 08 channels, complete with a patriotic-looking logo that encourages you to “Face the candidates” on its site. A channel, by the way, is described as “YouTube members who upload videos.”

At least 15 candidates are currently featured and channels are aptly named for the one they endorse, such as Brownback4President or BarackObamadotcom. Each channel contained a host of videos about the candidate of choice. GovMittRomney had the most videos, 92 in all, while Brownback4President only has two. But then again, Brownback4President only joined the YouChoose 08 ring a month ago, a mere new kid on the block, while johnedwards had been around for more than a year.

As we look back in history, election campaigns, like wars and other political events of significance, have always seemed to leverage the latest technology and in doing so, pushed the media’s reach and limits permanently.

This will certainly be true once again in this election cycle.

I’m sure politicians are looking for YouTube and other social networking sites, like MySpace, to reach out to younger audiences…(I’m not trying to age-discriminate, but I guess the general presumption is that younger folks tend to spend more time on those Internet sites.)

But -- will it have the effect that everyone, at least the candidates, are hoping for?

Last week, JP showed us in class that pundits and politicians hoped the same when television began to gain popularity but failed to deliver. Will the YouTube/TV combo go down the same path?

With Fox possibly featuring some of those videos on its airwaves, and as with some other YouTube videos making the evening news, it is possible that somehow younger voters will be more attuned to what’s happening on the campaign trail and respond, not just with a mocking video but by…voting.

We’ll just have to wait until after the election to see, but for now, there is hope (yes, again) at least for those of us who are optimists. Pessimists will surely decry the new developments as undermining credibility, fairness, accuracy, etc. ..the traditional mainstays of journalism.

The Daily Show: So over?

2007-04-28T08:32:00.000-07:00

Maybe it's just me -- although I don't think it is -- but has the Daily Show gotten incredibly stale lately? At this point, I just slog through it because a) there's nothing else on TV at 10pm and b) I can't wait for the Colbert Report, which has put the Daily Show to shame over the past couple of years.

To me, the Daily Show's best weapon is its incredible tape library, and its willingness to challenge people on the things they say. It also works incredibly well when it makes fun of the ridiculousness of cable and network news.

My favorite thing the show does is when it will play a clip of something someone said the day before, then compare that with something they said two years or three months or even a week earlier that completely contradicts what they just said. In that, it does a fantastic job of attempting to keep politicians and officials honest, when cable and network news never has the guts do to anything like that.

The other thing the show does well is when it takes something like the State of the Union address or Alberto Gonzalez's testimony before the Senate, and keeps a count of how many times the President says "liberty" and "freedom" or how many times Gonzalez says "I don't recall" (64 times, if you're counting, according to Dana Milbank in the Washington Post). It illustrates just how much these people try to stay "on message," at the expense of concrete promises and believeable answers.

Additionally, it's fantastic at keeping tabs on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and even local news affiliates (such as when it made fun of the attack ads that one Fort Wayne station ran against another's weather team). It shows us how ill-informed their anchors can be, and how the incessant cycle of 24-hour news networks can lead to some terrible news coverage.

Indeed, the show does seem to have the ethos that the world would be a lot better off without constant cable news and pundits (its "Great Moments in Punditry" series, where kids read transcripts of arguments between TV commentators, merely serves to remind us how ridiculous 90 percent of the things they say are). Jon Stewart's demolition of "Crossfire" for emphasizing the differences between America rather than embracing constructive goals we can work toward together is a part of this as well. The Daily Show, by mocking TV news, does, I think, hope to make TV news respond to the criticism and deliver better journalism rather than the puff pieces, weird news and silly human interest stories that we see all to frequently. And through the way it satirizes those stories (e.g. the piece it did a while bHack about a guy who guards the US-Canadian border in Vermont for illegal immigrants) does make it a goal to snap TV news out of the lazy holding pattern it's been in recently. And it's actually changed the profession -- we no longer use those reporter reaction reverse shots as much because the Daily Show has made such light of them. And for this it should be commended.

So if I think the show does so much well, why do I think it's gotten so bad? Well, the problem is, it hardly does any of these things anymore. Instead, it's now more of the Saturday Night Live "Weekend Update" variety, which is "Have person say first half of sentence, cut to anchor, have anchor deliver punchline completely different from person's intended end of sentence." Yuk, yuk, yuk. There's nothing particularly brilliant about writing a bad joke from an easy set-up. And while Weekend Update is occasionally funny, it's only on once a week. When you get that same style four days straight, it becomes tiresome.

And while the satire of those long feature packages was clever at first, I think the shtick has worn off. Now, we know what we're getting and it just doesn't have the same resonance.

Finally, there's the problem with Stewart. He's a solid enough host, but he differs from a real news anchor in that he tries to put himself front and center in an obnoxious way. Sure, anchors are prima donnas a bit, but Stewart is over the top, to the point where it's beyond satire. His imitation of President Bush's voice, his high-pitched "Nutty Professor" whine, and his mannerisms during the show generally have just gotten more prevalent lately, which has made the show worse.

The joke with the Daily Show should be all the ridiculous things our leaders say -- especially on CSPAN (see Sen. Ted Stevens' comment about the Internet being a series of tubes) -- that go uncovered in the mainstream media. The joke shouldn't be made by Stewart preening in front of the camera.

Meanwhile, Stewart is a very good interviewer -- when he has someone on who is worthy of being interviewed. He's great with authors, politicians, officials, business leaders and other journalists. I think the guest list should be limited to those people. But far too often, it's actors, musicians and other celebrities -- people who, generally, have very little of substance to say. How can Stewart not find it hypocritical when he and his writers make such fun of our celebrity-obsessed culture, but then he turns around and wastes six minutes of the show having a random actor pimping a movie on as a guest?

One more quick point: I think my view on this has been impacted by the launch of the Colbert Report. The writing for Colbert is far fresher, the formula less stale, the host far more engaging, the satire more blazing, and the segments just more downright hilarious. I realize some of the Daily Show's decline could be because it lost a number of writers to Colbert, but as I mentioned above, the show can do what it does best without a tremendous writing staff. All it needs is a bunch of interns logging tape.

I'm curious what you all think: Has the Daily Show lost something off its fastball? Has it jumped the shark? Has it been eaten by the shark that is Colbert? Let me have it.

Debating the Debate

2007-04-27T19:55:00.000-07:00

It seems so far away, but the presidential campaign is in full swing. And this Thursday we were treated to the first debate, aired on MSNBC. All eight declared Democrats squared off and for the most part each candidate received equal time.

The viewing public was probably focused mostly on whether Hillary would look presidentital or if Obama would have any substance. But people like Rep. Dennis Kucinich and the unbleievably obscure former Sen. Mike Gravel were the ones who created the most excitement. But seriously, we're so far away from the election, what's the point? Will anybody even remember this debate?

In my opinoin, the answer is a resounding yes.

TVNewser has the ratings and viewership numbers for the debate on MSNBC. Over 2 million people were watching, and the usually last place MSNBC won the ratings battle for cable news. the debate also aired on the NBC network affiliates in the critical primary state of South Carolina. We may be months away from any votes being cast, but the American public is paying attention.

MSNBC hosts the first Republican debate next week, featuring titans like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, along with the Mike Huckabees and Duncan Hunters of the world.

A lot has been written and said about this early start and the media focus on just the frontrunners limiting the ability of a Jimmy Carter like dark horse to emerge. Well MSNBC including all of these candidates and giving them equal time could provide some much needed exposure.

Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd made strong showings last night, and being on the same stage as Clinton and Obama will only raise their profiles. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is often overlooked in this race, but he made some provocative points about gun rights and his experience on the world stage.

So what does this all mean? It means that we're beginning the process that will determine our next leader. And it probably deserves this much time, debate and attention. The next president will determine the course of the war in Iraq, the future of our Supreme Court, and the agenda for a host of other domestic issues.

CNN and Fox News have debates scheduled for the near future. Though Fox's Republican debate on May 15th, will not include all the GOP candidates. Instead the network will limit the participants based on polling and other criteria.

But it's at least worth noting the programming that Fox News was airing while MSNBC was doing post-debate reaction and coverage.

Greta Van Sustern was doing a hard hitting story on Hugh Grant and unfortunate incident with some beans. She was also in LA for an interview with Prince von AnHalt, you know one of those weirdos who claimed to be the father of Anna Nicole's baby.

Quite a contrast in journalistic priorities and programming. I wonder if MSNBC can get Howard K. Stern during the Fox News debate on May 15th?

Court TV has a new schedule...

2007-04-27T19:15:00.000-07:00

You may not know his face, but you probably know his work - "To Know Him Is To Love Him," "He's A Rebel," "Da Doo Ron Ron," "Be My Baby," "Then He Kissed Me," "Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)," "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin"...even if you hate oldies radio, you've heard these records in countless movies. They may be credited to different artists, but these records were all produced by the same man: Phil Spector. One of the most influential figures in rock, he's also had a long history of emotional instability, and in 2003, his turbulent personal life finally caught up with him. Now facing homicide charges for the death of Lana Clarkson, Court TV is planning to broadcast the whole trial.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "the last time a California megatrial was televised, the defendant was O.J. Simpson."

Personally, I think the public should have plenty of access to the court, but I have a lot of conflicted feelings regarding access and all the extra baggage that comes with covering high-profile trials.

In the article, media attorney Kelli Sager says "studies have found TV cameras to have no effect on jurors, witnesses or trial proceedings," but you have to wonder how this study was conducted and whether an accurate scientific study is even possible. Even if the impact is minimal, looking back at the O.J. Simpson trial, the whole thing was a circus from start-to-finish. A brutal double homicide was diminished by endless camp and bad talk-show jokes (Dancing Itos?), and nearly everyone involved cashed-in on their 15 minutes of fame. Court TV wasn't a public service anymore - it was the ne plus ultra of "reality" television, long before Survivor hit the airwaves on either side of the Atlantic.

Then again, why should anyone complain? More than half the U.S. population saw the verdict live on television, which is really impressive considering the verdict happened in the middle of the day. I was in calculus at the time, and my teacher stopped the class when she saw the other math classes rushing by the doorway to the nearest TV. None of this was planned, the whole school just stopped and headed for a television set like trained cattle. I was grateful to get out of calculus, but the fact is, there were a dozen other things I could've done, and I went with the rest of the herd without protest.

If I was a gambling man, I'd bet against the likelihood of a repeat. Spector doesn't have the same celebrity status as Simpson, his lawyers' argument probably won't have the same level of controversy, and even if Spector is eccentric in the most unendearing way possible, I don't think it'll be enough to draw the same audience.

Still, the groundwork has been set, and with TV ratings still experiencing a gradual, downward slide, it'll be interesting to see how this will be covered (or marketed, if you want to be REALLY cynical about it).

The Politics of Politics

2007-04-27T18:03:00.000-07:00

One of the topics that appeared throughout the week on television news sites was the first Democratic political debate, hosted by MSNBC. I came across a range of criticisms, from the ridiculously early timing to the overblown full-day coverage. I've been thinking about these objections and my own distaste for gimmicks, but--the more I thought about it--the more I found I had very little to complain about.

I think it's commendable that a news station would make a point of devoting 24 hours to discussing politics, whether a marketing ploy or not. The promotion of informed political activity/discussion is one of the key foundations of journalism, and I think too often there is too little time devoted to really covering the issues and the people that represent us and make decisions on our behalf. In some ways, it's never too early or too excessive to spend a full day talking politics.

What I think people are criticizing though, and understandably so, is just how much of a charade it's all become. Sure, politics may always have the air of the theatrical, but news coverage doesn't have to be like that. It's almost as though the stations themselves are buying into the "rock star" politics and promoting the station's image in much the same way a candidate would.

I do think that MSNBC has some fantastic political minds that know the issues inside and out, but I also think they let the conversation get stale more often than they should. They regurgitate the same fluffy headlines about Clinton and Obama, blowing insignificant details out of proportion and disregarding important issues because they take too long and too much "inside baseball" to explain.

But I suppose, in the end, I think something--however gimmicky--is better than nothing. If it gets people thinking about politics for a day, or if it simply makes a statement about what a news station thinks it should commit its resources to, then I think that's an effort worth getting behind.

Alec Baldwin on The View

2007-04-27T15:03:00.000-07:00

This was a dry media week for me. I saw Alec Baldwin on The View this morning. Clips from the interview with Barbara Walters and Rosie O'Donnell had been played on many other newscasts that I'd seen before The View's airing. Baldwin gave an "exclusive" to talk about the phone message he'd left for his daughter. And it wasn't much of an interview - it was Rosie, Alec and Barbara sitting on a couch all facing forward - kinda awkward. Rosie and Barbara never really asked questions of Baldwin that put any pressure on him. It was more Baldwin making points and saying "can I finish this? when do you have to go to break?" Baldwin introduced us to the term "parental alienation" and explained how his ex-wife makes his daughter feel as if she is betraying her mother if she loves her father. It was like Baldwin's petty gossip mixed with a Dr. Phil episode. I guess I was impressed that Rosie did not go crazy on him, but it ended up feeling like a Baldwin public relations exercise (he has a book on parental alienation coming out). If Barbara was going to have him on at all, how could she have not lassoed some appearance or comment from the "evil ex-wife" Kim Basinger? Maybe when she's on The View, she's not a journalist. But I expected more from her.

Honoring our journalism heroes

2007-04-27T13:42:00.001-07:00

Next Thursday is the 17th Annual World Press Freedom Day. Reporters Without Borders, a non-profit dedicating to helping investigating, exposing and protecting human rights violations against journalists, is commemorating the day in a number of ways. It will be publishing a list of "predators," men and women who directly attack journalists or instruct others to do so. This year's list will reportedly includethe president of Laos and Azerbajian along with members of Mexican drug cartels who killed journalists.

It will also be dedicating a journalist's memorial in France, which will include the names of the 1,889 journalists killed since 1944.

I had no idea a day like this even existed and that groups like Reporters Without Borders exist. I really feel like I take freedom of the press in our country for granted. Freedom of the press in America is why I can walk down the street and start filming, it’s why people give me permission to enter into their lives and capture their most intimate thoughts, and it’s why I can ask government officials the tough questions and then go home and not worried about being harmed.

The number of journalists killed or imprisoned this year alone is shocking. 23 journalists and five media assistants have been killed. 124 journalists and four media assistants have been imprisoned this year. And, there are 13 journalists currently being held hostage in various countries.

I cannot express how horrible these numbers are. These are the people traveling the world and asking the tough questions. They are examining drug corruption and reporting on wars. They are standing up for the people with no voice, and they are facing death for pursuing such a noble cause. These people are so dedicated to human rights and are truly fulfilling the tenets of journalism by traveling to these places and asking the tough questions.

Should I feel guilty, as a journalist, that I'm nowhere near as courageous as them?

When I hear about reporters traveling to dangerous situations, I always ask the same question..."how can they stand to voluntarily put their life on the line like that?" I imagine how much their families and loved ones must be suffering as they worry about them. I feel so guilty and wrong for thinking that. It makes me feel like a lesser journalist than these people when I admit to myself that I probably would never want to travel to a war zone.

Any journalist that goes to Iraq or goes to any dangerous situation is a hero in my book. Anyone who who potentially sacrifices their life for a story in these places deserve way more than a day to be remembered.

More than two sides

2007-04-27T12:33:00.000-07:00

This week immigrantion-rights activists protested a raid on an alleged fake ID ring in Little Village. They were outraged by arrests made Tuesday midafternoon at a strip mall. The protestors said ICE was trying to intimidate people who want to participate in a May 1st immigration rally.

Click here for news report

This issue sparked a blogging firestorm on the Chicago Tribune Web site. Columnist Eric Zorn published an online piece about the raid and following protest on Wednesday. By 4:30 p.m., readers posted five dozen blogs on the subject. The opinions ran the gamut, from Minutemen rhetoric to ardent illegal immigration support. The spectrum of opinions represented this issue's multi-faceted nature.

Often we hear from two stock characters in illegal immigration news stories -- the Minuteman and Mexican community activist. But the issue is not so black-and-white. There are many shades in-between, so to speak. Chicago is home to immigrants of many nationalities. They would also be affected by immigration law reform. Let's hear from them, too.

Also, much of the debate revolves around the economic ramifications of illegal immigration. Often we hear impassioned arguments driven by anecdotes. While personal stories are critical to humanizing the issue, this story also screams for hard numbers. The problem is that economists disagree about the net effect of undocumented immigrants who buoy industries -- like agriculture and construction -- and those that sap social services. The conflicting opinions aren't easy to sort out on television, which explains why I haven't seen much economic analysis (involving statisitics and graphs)on local TV news. The director of the American Society of Newspaper Editors wrote an enlightening column about the complexiities of reporting on immigration on Poynter's Web site.

This story may not have garnered the same media attention as the MSNBC presidential debate, but, in a hyper local way, it gave an interesting glimpse into what's sure to be one of the hot-button issues of 2008.

Something to laugh about

2007-04-27T12:26:00.001-07:00

It's been almost two weeks since the tragic events at Virginia Tech. When students returned to class on Monday, the news media covered it to signal the healing process had to begin. It also seemed to signal the end of nonstop coverage from Blacksburg. That left a tremendous news hole to fill.

One of the stories getting play this week was President Bush's dance routine with an African drum group. Across TV and the Internet, this "story" was all over. I saw it for the first time Wednesday on Letterman as part of his segment "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches" and I really laughed. I thought it was an old clip the Letterman writers had dug up. The next day, I began to see it everywhere and realized it was pretty fresh when Letterman picked it up.

It wasn't just the late night talk shows that re-played it over and over. It was getting actual coverage on news programs. What makes me wonder about this story was what made it newsworthy. I have three hypotheses.

1) It was captured on video and news outlets had the video, so they showed it.
2) The leader of the free world did something silly and it was noteworthy to show it.
3) We all needed something to laugh about after the long 10 days covering Virginia Tech and there was a huge news hole to fill.

Without cameras there, I doubt newspapers would have tried writing up this dance. This goes back to an earlier blog I wrote about the omni-presence of cameras (about another GOP dancer, "MC" Karl Rove) and the changing ways we can see our government leaders.

As for the second hypotheses, it was noteworthy - not necessarily "newsworthy" - to show the president having a little fun and being silly. How could you resist showing this video and talking about it when you saw him banging on that drum? Love him or hate him, the dance was fun and funny to watch. It was something to laugh about, not laugh at. The problem with this type of coverage is that the event was lost. Obviously Letterman won't say what the event was for, but I only heard one news outlet say why President Bush was jamming with that group - they were there as part of a malaria awareness day. (CNN Pipeline did a story about the clip's appeal - watch it here http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/moos/2007/04/27/jm.bush.dance.cnn&wm=11)

The third hypothesis seems pretty likely. Consciously or not, the decision was made to show this and slap it all over the Internet by many news outlets and it may be related to giving the viewer something softer (much softer) after the intense Virginia Tech coverage. It probably still would've gotten play if it hadn't followed the week in Blacksburg, but maybe viewers gravitated to it more because of what we all collectively felt like we had gone through. There was also a tremendous amount of resources dedicated to Virginia Tech over the past 8-10 days and this story was an easy "get." The cameras were already there to cover whatever press conference had gone on, and then they were still rolling when this little nugget happened. If news directors could fill a minute or so with Bush's boogie, then why not?

My one contention to the reporting was the after-thought given to what the press conference was actually about (if any thought was given at all). At least for the sake of context, tell the viewer what led to this happening!

This was a funny clip but journalists need to vet funny stories just like they would a hard news story. Why are we running this or posting this to the Web and what can we do inform as well as entertain? Just because something is funny or soft doesn't mean it can stand on its own without journalistic decision making. Now if only the cameras could catch Cheney dancing.

The superficial

2007-04-27T10:16:00.000-07:00

Lately my collegues and I have been joking around in the newsroom and brainstorming catchy, alliterative "broadcast names" to replace our hard-to-pronounce, hard-to-spell, non-TV-friendly surnames. As someone with a last name that has been mispronounced and misspelled my entire life, this topic of discussion is especially interesting. (I also have to admit that I have always been interested in names for some odd reason.) But these fun little talks have made me wonder about what bearing superficial things, like your name, have on your future in broadcasting. I would like to think very little, but I guess I can't be entirely sure.

I read in interesting article in Slate a few months ago about how names have affected the fate of political candidates. It was quite clever, but it's hard to determine if things like this have more to do with coincidence than anything else.

I hope that we've moved on from the cookie-cutter newscaster persona and are willing to welcome diversity in terms of name, looks, hair, style and personality. But I think we've all succumb to some pressure to conform to broadcast standards. Most of us recently cut our hair, waxed our eyebrows, bought expensive makeup, shopped for conservative clothing and some, who shall remain nameless (no pun intended), have toyed with the idea of changing their names. I can't lie; the thought has crossed my mind. I have decided against it mainly because A. Even though I'm not crazy about my last name, I don't really want to change it and B. I don't really know if it would make any difference anyway.

I would hate to think my name really determines my success as a journalist. Even more, I would hate to think that wearing dangly earrings or getting on the desk without a blazer would affect my journalistic ability. But don't get me wrong, I'm not downplaying the importance of appearance for television personalities. It's the first thing people see. You have to look nice and speak well or otherwise viewers will miss the important story you have to tell.

I'm also starting to think that with so many people competing for broadcasting jobs, diversity may work in a prospective employee's favor. As a caucasian female, I don't exactly stand out in the pool of applicants. Therefore I have to stand out as far as talent, personality and unique style. I hope that we will continue to embrace diversity and judge at skill over the superficial. For now, I'll wear my broadcast suit, tease my hair and hope that my unfortunate last name doesn't work against me.

Move over Medill...interactive television at Ball State

2007-04-27T07:45:00.000-07:00

Ball state in Indiana is taking journalism to a different level. The university has an Interactive Video Design course that combines computer science and journalism graphics students to produce an interactive news television broadcast-live! The newscast aired at the Center for Media Design at Ball State Thursday night.

Click here to see the article from Ball State Daily News Online.

According Vinayak Tanksale, a Ball State Computer Science instructor who oversaw the students that worked on the project, the newscast allows viewers to control the content of the show. The results and feedback seem promising. The software and design Ball State students created allows viewers to pause and shrink live television to see related content, check stock quotes or scan news tickers for more stories. People are also able to go online and customize what information they want to see, such as local weather and sports scores

Apparently some media companies in the United Kingdom are using similar technology to create this interactive type of T.V. news, but the concept is fairly new in the United States.

We want to prove that interactive television can be done on deadline, on a daily basis," instructor of journalism Jennifer George-Palilonis said. "This broadcast is a really great way to move forward and inform the industry."

John Dailey taught the course and noted that the 25 students who worked on the project exceeded his expectations.

"[Interactive television] gives you ownership of your television again," Dailey said. "With television now, you just sit back and watch while someone else drives the content."

Does Medill know of this?? It is obvious our program is retiring its traditional ways of teaching journalsim, preaching the "Medill 2020", multimedia approach...but should Medill start teaching and producing interactive television news? Maybe--if it's the next big thing in television news.

But that is the real question, if interactive television news will take off. Will people want to be more involved in their T.V. watching? I question if Americans will jump for joy over interactive news on their T.V. sets, or if they will want to continue to sit back and zone out in front of the tube.

Check out these other interactive television websites:

ITVT
A guide to interactive T.V.

OpenTV

Junk Mail Journalism

2007-04-27T07:26:00.000-07:00

Every morning I need my four cups of coffee with some CNN news. I like a little dose of politics and international news to get my day started-- what I don't need to see is a piano-playing cat.

The video first appeared on Youtube debuting Nora the cat. Supposedly this was all the rage on Youtube and therefore was picked up by CNN. But seriously? The anchor lede went something like, "You've probably seen this video on Youtube, but...." Exactly. Why show it again?

They even assigned a reporter to the story who came on set to give us more details. I was just appalled that a story like this would even make it on a rundown. Sure maybe some would say the video is "way too cute" to miss but it's not like people would've missed out on it since the video is making its rounds everywhere. I'm not sure why I was so upset by this story, but I just felt that CNN was playing into people's hands and giving them a useless story. Plus Nora was a bad player.

So I guess my point is that there are too many stories that come from lazy reporting. Videos from Youtube shouldn't be a daily occurence on the news. I don't think I would've minded as much if this story was just on CNN.com (or another media outlet's Web site). But when people tune in on weekday mornings to know what's going on in the world, Nora the cat just doesn't fit in.

And that brings me to Ryan Fitzgerald, the guy who has nothing to do but talk to random people all day on the phone. This again was a Youtube posting.

Fitzgerald posted a video with his cell phone number on it and offered to "be there" for anyone who wanted to talk. The media outlets ate this story up. CNN also invited him to come on the set of Amerian Morning. Not surprisingly, he was on his phone most of the time even as he was on live TV. Supposedly he's recieved more than 5,000 calls and text messages and it's great that he's being a friend to all, but I just don't find something like this informational at all.

What has happened to news value and judgement? Maybe I'm being naiive when it comes the news business, but I think journalism is also about remembering that stories can be popular but pointless and that it's your job to demand better.

Playboy's "Girls Next Door" to Become Journalists

2007-04-26T21:53:00.000-07:00

This past week, I was watching an episode of "The Girls Next Door"--the reality TV show about Hugh Hefner's three girlfriends (Bridget Marquardt, Holly Madison and Kendra Wilkinson) that made me re-think journalism. In this particular episode, Bridget had Hugh Hefner hire a video editor to put together a resume tape so she can fulfill her dream of being a reporter. While Bridget does have a master's degree (in real estate), on television, she appears to have nothing between her ears. Not to mention, she is always in the nude, jumping out of birthday cakes in corsets or talking about inappropriate things. And, while I thought there is no way this girl will get a serious journalism gig, I was wrong. This week, I learned that news directors all over the country have flooded the Playboy mansion with calls to hire Bridget--without even having seen her tape, only her obnoxious behavior on her reality show which always revolves around her being naked, drinking or partying. I just find this completely discouraging that local stations would want to put someone like Bridget on their staff. Somewhere deep down in my heart, I believe in real journalism and being a watchdog. But, when things like this occur, I am led to believe that this business is shallow and that real journalism has died. After all, Bridget has never reported for a station or done one internship. Nevertheless, could a viewer really take Bridget seriously after she has posed nude and starred in Playboy films? Where is her credibility--because with me, it is in the toilet. But, that has not stopped Los Angeles Stations (the #2 market) from making her offers to anchor. Not to mention, it is rumored that she will fill in on the View! I mean, she appeared as a guest on the View last year where Barbara Walters literally made fun of her and told her what she was doing with Hefner was "sickening." Now, she is going to be her colleague?!? Oh and let me not fail to mention, ESPN is dying to get their little mittens on her...and what is her sport knowledge...zero... besides having met Peyton Manning at last year's Midsummer Night's Dream Party at the mansion.
And, there is more to this frightening story people. Another member of Hefner's "Blonde Mafia" is entering print journalism--Holly Madison. In this episode, Holly started working for Playboy magazine, shadowing the editor-in-chief, a position she hopes to take over (Note: There are many students out there that would just die for an internship with this female editor or even to have five minutes or her time...but they do not get the time of day). So, she headed into the magazine's headquarters and directed a photo shoot for the cover, headed up layout and managed content. Now, she is an associate editor-in-chief...a job created for her by Mr. Hefner. Mind you, while Holly is a little more conservative, she still has no journalism background. However, she contends that "Hef has secretly been teaching her the ropes!" Now, everyday, I see my fellow Medillians in magazine work so hard to get stories and hope for a job when they gradaute...and this girl just gets to jump to the front of the line because she is with Hefner? Now, I am not saying that everyone or even anyone at Medill wants to work for Playboy, but let's face it, it is a successful magazine and a job is job. If your only offer to write or do layout came from Playboy, I am betting that a Medill grad would take it--even I would. But, again, in this situation, maybe this playmate picked the right medium to work for...since they made her what she is. But, she certainly did not pay her dues and is making a joke out of the position.

However, the part that really irks me is that these girls have absolutely no journalism experience or exposure. They do not realize that journalism is serious business, not just a chance to be on television or a way to get their name in print. They are getting involved in this because they think, I am already a reality star, so I can be on television, and another television gig is a reporter/anchor. I would not have a problem if they hosted a stupid show, but to put them on television to tell hard hitting stories or to write articles is an absolute atrocity. Bottom line--in my opinion--these girls are missing the point of being "watchdogs" and just want to maintain their celebrity status. So, what better way to do it than become a journalist? I think not. And, to the news director that hires Bridget for a reporting position (and she is not looking to do sports or entertainment...but serious work) shame on you...I hope you get replaced by a playmate one day. Then, you will know how I feel about this issue, disgusted that no talent people are getting jobs people work at and train for for years of their lives.

Was a line finally drawn by ABC?

2007-04-26T14:59:00.000-07:00

I have been a fan of “The View” for a very long time. I watched it all through college almost everyday… and to pass up the opportunity to discuss Rosie leaving the show, for whatever reason, is just too good.
I will say first, however, I was a very loyal viewer, no pun intended, until she came on the show. Honestly, the best way to describe it… I just couldn’t take her. It definitely qualifies for a talk show, but the women on “The View” can be considered journalists. If I had a spot on that daytime program, I would think of myself as a journalist. Everyday, they discuss issues in the media. Yet, one of the women on the panel always took it too far… Rosie. While it did seem to boost ratings, her rants were ridiculous. Most famous… making fun of Donald Trump openly about giving the former Miss America a second chance.

Second most famous… calling Kelly Ripa a homophobe after she hosted a show with Clay Aiken (who by the way has never publicly said he is gay).

Third most famous, all of the comments made on the war in Iraq. She is extremely outspoken about this, mostly fighting with one of her own co-hosts, Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
Now, as an aspiring journalist, I am disgusted by her comments. I believe it is not normal to not hold an opinion, yet as a journalist it is our duty to the American people to first give the facts and if our opinions are allowed, as they are on a show like “The View” to give them in a tactful manner. Call me out if I am wrong… but I just think she is crude.
According to Rosie and Barbara Walters, it was a contract disagreement. Apparently, Rosie wanted one more year and ABC wanted three more years. Somehow, I find it hard to believe. And, I am not alone. Meredith Vieira asked media critic of Vanity Fair Michael Wolff on TODAY if it was true that was the real reason of Rosie’s departure. He responded, “Let me put it simply: Baloney.”
With all of the controversy she has stirred up, I completely agree with Wolff. It is baloney that they could not agree on a contract. I truly and honestly believe that she was asked to leave. Making comments, such as the ones she has, publicly is a turn-off to me. I think that as public figures, which journalists and talk show hosts are, you have to be careful. Obviously, this is a show that supports stating your views. But, in this case, it has gone way to far… and on national television.

Will campaigning help CBS?

2007-04-25T17:29:00.000-07:00

We've seen them all before -- the large billboards jutting up from an undisclosed location off highways across the country plastered with a team of anchors smiling and bug-eyed, looking straight into the cars driving under them. Since I was little, I'd look up at these station advertisements and I'd imagine my portrait blown up fifty times and plastered on the billboard. What i didn't think about was that these boards serve as advertisements and campaigns for not only the stations, but the faces. Those larger than life smiles seem to say, "Watch my show and listen to my station because my friendly smile and perfectly groomed appearence means I'll give you the news you care about." I never took them to be serious. But I was driving on the highway yesterday and noticed a billboard that took this idea to the extreme in a last ditch effort. Splashed across this particular billboard was a familiar face with her familiar smile and head tilt: Katie Couric. But it wasn't just her smile that made me think, "Oh god, it's Katie Couric again." The billboard read, "Choose Couric."
Now we are not only advertising, we are campaigning! In what I can only interpret as CBS's desperate effort to climb in the ratings and not have to fire Couric, they are resorting to campaigning and telling drivers on the highway to "choose" and essentially elect to watch Couric.
I think CBS could have done better. Understandably, Couric is not fulfilling her purpose in helping the network's ratings -- in fact, she's has proven to be counterproductive. I read an article that said she was in danger of being let go because CBS remains in third place. But there was nothing that verified this fact more than a tacky highway billboard with a message that resembled a cheap political campaign without any substance.
Since when did journalism resort to such political tactics? I think we are in a dangerous spot if viewers are gauging their devotion to news anchors and reporters from the campaigning they receive.
Another scary thought is networks resorting to billboard advertisement. I have always asociated billboard advertisments to be cheap and desperate -- they are overdone and larger than life to catch attention for a product that needs advertising. More often than not, you find law offices that promise to get you all the money you deserve from your personal injury. The billboards are more often than not covered in tacky coloring to catch your attention, contributing to my opinion that these billboards are obnoxious advertising.
Has CBS really resorted to advertising Couric in this way? If I were Couric, I would never allow myself to be on a billboard that demanded people to "choose" me. That phrase plastered on the billboard diminishes her credibility further, in my opinion. It's a cheap and tacky attempt to gain viewership -- I would be extremely surprised if this works for CBS.

The closest picture I could find that is the background for the billboard.

http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/08/21/image1916409.gif

Lost in the shuffle

2007-04-21T13:29:00.000-07:00

The Virginia Tech shootings rightfully dominated the headlines across the country for most of the past week. But there are two significant events that occured that occured this past week and both didn't get the attention they usually would have.

Attorney Genearl Alberto Gonzales' testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee was a critical moment for his personal job safety and the future of the Bush administration. The hearings would have led the nightly news and captivated the front covers of newspaper's across the nation. As it turned out, even though the hearings were covered, the story was buried behind Virginia Tech.

And that is a completely understandable decision by news organizations everywhere, the country is still reeling from the shock of that horrible tragedy. But Gonzales' testimony shouldn't be ignored. In fact the Chicago Tribune ran a long editorial about the testimony. With both Democrats and conservative Republicans assailing the Attorney General, it seems like only a matter of time before he is forced out.

Howard Kurtz, the brilliant media columnist for the Washington Post, discussed how the media covered the Gonzales testimony. (He links to Dahlia Lithwick, of Legal RPA seminar fame) The moral of the story is, even though the story got somewhat buried, Gonzales is in serious trouble.

Here in Chicago, there was an election this past week. I know some people might have missed it, and by the voter turnout numbers its pretty clear that a lot of Chicagoans missed it too. But the end result of Tuesday's runoff elections were that Mayor Daley suffered what could be a major setback.

His favored candidates including Shirley Coleman, Ted Matlak, Madeline Haithcock, Dorothy Tillman and Michael Chandler all lost. And the new aldermen say that change is on the way. That remains to be seen, especially here in Chicago where Daley always looms as larger than life.

But here's where the aldermanic story gets tricky. There was coverage, from the Tribune to television, it was certainly noted that Mayor Daley suffered a setback. But are the media outlets in this city prepared to hold the new aldermen accountable for their campaign promises?

When an overwhelming story such as the Virginia Tech tragedy strikes our country the media go into a single-minded mode. And for a case like this, I believe overwhelming coverage is justified. I just wonder at what point the media needs to start recognizing that other things are going on around the country. And especially the local media, at what point do local stories come back to the forefront?

Sports as a distraction, until it gets distracting

2007-04-20T14:54:00.000-07:00

The Virginia Tech tragedy was hard to avoid this week and most people didn't want to avoid it. We were all drawn in by the terrible week in Blacksburg and we wanted to soak up every detail to answer "why" and "how."

I reached my personal breaking point mid-week when I grew exhausted of the tag "Massacre at Virginia Tech" and seeing image after image of devastated students. I had to abandon the around-the-clock coverage and tune into something else - sports.

Personally I was relieved to stop thinking about Virginia Tech because this week saw the NHL playoffs in their first full week, baseball getting going and the NBA wrapping up its regular season. I watched a bunch of the talking head shows on ESPN and on more than one occassion, the hosts said they hoped their half-hour of air time could make us forget about Virginia Tech for a few minutes. It was working for me.

The sports news really let me escape my thoughts for a while. But then I slowly began to realize how mind-numbing it can be. Perhaps ESPN has been consumed by the 24-hour news beast, but their news style is really stale and when it's not, it's all speculative.

I'm glad Greg Oden is going pro not only because I'm a Michigan fan, but because I get to stop hearing the SPECULATION of whether he would go pro after his first year of college or not. Along with the speculation surrounding Kevin Durant's future, this was the non-story of the century. Sports media made it a story, thought it had some buzz and wouldn't let go all year. It was as if everytime they mentioned "Oden" or "Durant" along with the words "who will be the number one pick" this year, they got a bonus. Now we only have to suffer a few more months of guessing who - Oden or Durant - will go number one because they are both foregoing the rest of their college years. Then we can forget about them for a few years while they wallow on some pro team's bench.

A story that is not being covered is the NHL playoffs. I'm not going to make a personal statement about how enjoyable hockey is, I will just say that ESPN's "coverage" is embarrassing - there is none! If Barry Melrose wasn't under contract, would ESPN ever talk about hockey? Instead of beefing up Sportscenter with more game highlights and playoff analysis, I get to hear more about Pacman Jones and more speculation about who will be the NFL's number one draft pick (anyone who's seen the nauseating "On the Clock" segment for NFL teams knows what I am talking about). The lack of attention hockey gets is frustrating and makes me wonder how ESPN makes its editorial decisions (see j?'s post a few weeks ago).

I'm watching ESPN right now and they are actually COUNTING DOWN to a game tonight between the Red Sox and Yankees. It's April! And after this game they'll only play EIGHTEEN more times this year. I don't know if this is "East Coast bias" or if ESPN really thinks we want the Sox-Yanks rivalry forced down our throats. It's fun when both teams are in the playoff but the only story here is that Alex Rodriguez is red hot. That could be discussed in a minute or two and the other 28 teams in the league might then get some attention. I'm a baseball fan, but it seems like ESPN has realized Sox-Yanks is an easy ticket to cover, but it is so uncreative. There is no justification for this type of coverage other than stirring up the hype machine (I must own up to the fact that I felt the Michigan-OSU football game countdown last fall was disgusting).

So much of sports journalism now seems driven by who has big endorsements, who is getting in trouble off the field and which experts are picking who for what. There is little analysis of games, little examination of player performance and too much hype.

We demand a lot from our "regular" news but what about sports journalism? I turned to sports especially this week to escape reality and instead I was driven crazy. When the news gets stale and repetitive, we don't seem to cry foul. Is it because we consider sports journalism "easier" or "softer"? Are we just looking for our favorite team to get some love? I may be making the accusation but I'm guilty of not changing the channel.

It's not journalism if you just show it

2007-04-20T13:43:00.000-07:00

The Virginia Tech massacre was also a lesson in journalism, from the way the shootings were covered to what was covered.

I have to admit that I’m still conflicted about how and what the media should have covered, especially after seeing gunman Cho Seung-Hui’s home-made video that was aired on NBC and then picked up everywhere else.

I have to ask myself over and over again, how I would have handled this assignment. I have read some stories about Cho with interest, I would even call it a dark curiosity for morbid details, like what the writing on his arm could mean, how his roommate met him on the way to the bathroom, his speaking manners. But after having read the stories, I would often ask myself, was that necessary? Did I take anything valuable away from this or did I just satisfy my own desire for drama. In other words, was it news or was it entertainment?

As I struggle to find the answer, I’ve come to think that at least for me, and for now, there is one yardstick to measure newsworthiness: whether or not we learned something from that story. Now I know not everything on the news is pure information: There is a need for kickers, some fun stories every once in a while. But clearly, the Virginia Tech shooting is not one such instance.

In the case of Cho’s video, executives at NBC and other stations tried to justify their decision to air the video, while at the same time giving the mic to experts or man-on-the-streets who generally found it “disgusting” and “sick.” I would have to say I sided with those who find the video aweful and I fear that it glorifies Cho, at least to some disturbed or impressionable minds out there.

What, if anything, did we learn from watching that video? What was the message producers were trying to send? Now it wouldn’t be so bad if news outlets used only clips of the video to discuss larger issues, like mental health or depression. But on CNN.com, the video, listed at the top of its Most Popular section, was pretty lenghty (2:07 minutes) and published without any type of expert comment or digestion, except for this short title and caption: “Chilling video of a killer - Photos and videos sent to NBC by Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui give a glimpse of his psyche.”

I just don’t see any journalistic value or process in that. Yeah, I’m sure they “edited” it… to make it short enough for the Web. But what was the message the producers wanted to send to viewers - or did they simply want to be an outlet for Cho’s message?

If they didn’t, they should have digested it for the viewer. And it’s not enough that they have done so in other parts of CNN.com or on the television broadcast. The video itself should have contained some analysis or background. Granted, viewers drawn to Cho’s destructive message can just skip all the journalism and analysis, and get straight to what they want, especially on the Internet.

CNN.com just made it really easy for them.

Telling Tragedy

2007-04-20T10:30:00.000-07:00

Throughout this week, I've found The New York Times' coverage of the Virginia Tech tragedy to be particularly compelling. But one of the most interesting articles was not on the front page, it was on the cover of the arts section--and it was about the role nightly news anchors have played in this week's television coverage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/arts/television/19watc.html

The article started with a referrence to Charlie Rose's interview with Brian Williams, when Williams said this:

Broadcast has changed. But a few things have not changed: that is, sometimes when there's tragedy, people come back to the so-called mainstream, they come back to the television networks and the newcasts--like the one I anchor. We believe that still to be a societal trend.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8296210094950493429&q=charlie+rose+brian+williams&hl=en

After I read the article and watched the Charlie Rose interview, I started think more and more about Williams' comment. I think back to September 11th and how glued I was to my television screen, despite the fact that the tragedy was unfolding practically outside my Manhattan apartment window.

There's something inexplicably reassuring about the connection you can have with a television anchor. Of the many memories I have of September 11th, one of the strongest is of watching Peter Jennings for what felt like 76 hours straight. There was a comfort in seeing his mix of steadfast composure and insupressable grief.

I agree with Williams that the role of newcasters as protectors and informers is never more apparent than during a tragedy. But I also, like The New York Times reporter, found the nightly news coverage this week a little too effusive. Perhaps the difference was my own proximity to the tragedy. Perhaps the difference was the danger I felt during one and the pure grief I felt in the other.

But perhaps the difference was simply the reality that, with each new tragedy, the media is more and more prepared. On September 11th, it seemed that newcasters were trying to remain composed and neutral but physically couldn't because of their own overwhelming grief. This week, it seemed the newcasters made a choice to show their grief and to make their own presence particularly emotionally driven. It's a subtle difference, but one that I think translates dramatically.

The Times writer, Alessandra Stanley, pointed out Katie Couric's quick arrival in Virginia--only to set up shop inside the Alumni Club, from where she conducted interviews that felt particularly like a psychologist's session. The notable exception, Stanley said, was Charles Gibson. Not only did he wait a day before traveling to Virginia, but he also remained significantly more composed throughout his coverage.

When tragedy strikes, all eyes may turn back to traditional television news. But there's a delicate balance to walk as a newscaster when those eyes are turned.

Newsgathering during a tragedy

2007-04-20T10:18:00.000-07:00

Like everyone else, I cannot let this week go by without mentioning the horrific disaster at Virginia Tech. I too was glued to the television and Internet for days following the tragedy.

As a journalist, as I followed the story, I was captivated by the role of the Internet in the newsgathering process. It seemed like so much of the information was coming from online sources. Reporters were able to find out what was going on inside the school by getting access to instant message chats that had taken place between students and their parents and friends while they were on lockdown in their classrooms.

The online version of the college paper at Virginia Tech school newspaper, The Collegiate, became one of the major sources of news for the story as the website was repeatedly updated by student reporters. The site provided firsthand accounts, articles and information for parents. At one point during the afternoon, the site went down because there was so much traffic and the site’s parent company had to host the site. The editor-in-chief of the paper also appeared on shows all week.

As the victims names were revealed, news organizations instantly had lots of information about them from MySpace and Facebook. News outlets were quoting posts and using pictures from these social networking sites, and they found sources from their stories as well.

The centerpiece of the coverage the first day was video footage from a cell phone that recorded the gunman’s shots as police approached the building. The footage had been submitted to CNN through the I-Report function, where viewers can send in pictures and footage to the network.

As a 21st century journalist, I’m realizing how imperative it is to not only understand the ins-and-outs of the Internet, but I need to know how to be an active participant in the World Wide Web.

Imagine the advantage reporters had who understood how Facebook and Myspace work. They were invaluable sources when tracking down sources and finding information about victims.

Also, in times of breaking news, every media outlet, regardless if their specialty is print or broadcast, update their Web sites every few minutes with more information. Even if I am going into broadcast, I better know how to write for the web. I can’t simply transcribe my packages for air—those stories don’t often translate well to the Internet.

Tech and Tragedy

2007-04-19T18:30:00.000-07:00

The Virginia Tech shooting is the deadliest in U.S. history. The news coverage of the tragedy, especially as it was breaking, was unprecedented as well.

While I was glued to the TV, horrified, I was equally absorbed in how the events were being reported. Since the massacre on Monday, almost all the broadcast news outlets have been playing the same horrifying images and sounds of the consecutive gunshots that was caught on Jamal Alburghouti's cell phone.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/04/16/story.albarghouti.ireport.jpg

According to CNN, Albarghouti was on his way to see an adviser when police officers ran past him. When Albarghouti was told by the police to take cover, he did. But he didn't forget to take out his cell phone and capture the critical moments of the shooting. "When I saw the policemen taking their guns out, then I knew that this was serious,” Albarghouti told CNN. Albarghouti quickly downloaded his video to his computer and sent it to CNN I-Report. Within minutes, his video was aired on CNN as well as other media outlets. For some reason it was the rawness of his video that really hit me and made the event even more horrifying and real.

Thinking back to 9-11, the first images that the public saw were from home videos that were shot on camcorders that people happened to have with them. But now, everyone pretty much has a cell phone with camera and video functions, which makes accessibility to breaking news so much more convenient.

Web sites like Myspace and Facebook also played a huge part in letting media report its stories. CNN's Bob Franken read a couple Facebook entries on the walls of the some Virginia Tech students on the air. Evidently this was where reporters were going to find their sources. One student actually directed a comment to the media, asking media not to contact him.

It was interesting to see how integral the students were in the timely reporting of what went on. (On a tangent, it's ironic that on such a wired campus, the students who were in imminent danger weren't notified of the first shooting incident in the dorm. While capturing the video and images is great, the technology should've been used to warn people as well. One student who was interviewed even said that the University could've sent out text messages to everyone telling them to get to a safe place.)

But moving on,

Monday was the first time that "citizen journalism" was able to hold its own. In fact, the students of Virginia tech essentially became correspondents. Starting around 8 a.m., I watched CNN cover the shooting. It was the first time I saw students actually holding the CNN mic and acting as reporters-- usually it's the student being interviewed by the journalist. I was definately surprised at this role reversal.

The students themselves as eyewitnesses were obviously integral to news coverage. But the downside of this cell phone reporting is that the images can't be verified. How can you tell whether or not images have been altered or the sounds enhanced? Because everyone that has the gadgets can become a so-called reporter, where does the editorial aspect of journalism come in?

An article by Poynter columnist Amy Gahran, raises the question of the part that citizen journalism plays in breaking news. She writes:

Citizen journalism and other first-person accounts are getting more attention and respect, especially during disasters -- deservedly so, I think. But I can't help but wish that this burgeoning aspect of the media landscape could get known for on-the-spot coverage of something unexpectedly positive and beautiful.

I agree with Gahran and I think that because quantity is more important than quality in terms of knowing what's going on and the images that come with such a breaking event, it takes a huge tragedy for citizen jouranlists to play such a big role.

When an elephant wants to be noticed

2007-04-19T18:04:00.000-07:00

Today is different
Today is not the same
Today I make the action
Take snapshot into the light, snapshot into the light
I'm shooting into the light…

All you people in TV land
I will wake up your empty shells
Peak-time viewing blown in a flash
As I burn into your memory cells
- Peter Gabriel, “Family Snapshot” (1980)

After inundating the airwaves with pictures and videos sent to NBC by Cho Seung-Hui, the media has switched course, promising to scale back on the coverage.

I guess anyone would want to see Cho's footage out of morbid curiosity, but ultimately, you're dealing with the rants of a lunatic, and the networks jumped on this the same way they jumped on similar material in the past.

Jon Klein, president of CNN, said airing the material was a tough decision; he felt it deserved some coverage because “as breaking news, it’s pertinent to our understanding of why this was done.”

I understand his intentions, but the material itself is no more enlightening than anything anyone's ever heard from Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold or Mark David Chapman.

Having only read the print coverage (and for a story like this, print can be far more merciful, even graceful), there doesn't appear to be any surprises - Cho lashes out at nearly everyone around him, passes the responsibility on to the rest of the world, and claims innocence for his own malicious actions. Outside of that, he indulges in ridiculous, juvenile gun fantasies.

Just as Harris and Klebold knew they’d be remembered by millions they’d never meet, and just as Chapman knew his name would be linked to John Lennon’s, Cho sent his record of twisted narcissism knowing he’d get full command of NBC’s airwaves, that his rants and posing would be witnessed across the country.

Inevitably, others will emerge violently from anonymity to make themselves known to the world. We’ll see a repeat of the press scrambling to get the profile first, publishing and broadcasting any word that was planted for them, and again, you’ll have to wonder if passing any of that on will help the survivors and those left behind, or if they’ll struggle harder for any answer that can bring them some semblance of closure.

What else but VT?

2007-04-19T14:16:00.000-07:00

I actually tried to find something else to write about this week since so many people covered this one, but really, there was nothing. So I'll give my two cents about what I thought was, by and large, a banner week for the news media.

Unlike Anna Nicole Smith or Imus, I thought this week's reporting wasn't over the top. I tend to be on the short-attention-span side of the news, which is to say that I hate when news agencies overcover stories, and I usually like them to move on pretty quickly. But unlike some other posters on here, I haven't grown tired of this story yet.

I think there are two key reasons I've been riveted by the coverage. One is that, unlike most stories that cable news covers, there have actually been some new developments. Despite a few lapses -- there were a few of times where the witnesses they found weren't very good or had nothing to add, or the stations were going to their correspondents simply because they could but they had little of substance to contribute-- I think we've been given a lot of news.

Indeed, from the initial coverage of the shooting and the events of the morning, to details about the carnage, to reporting the stories and names of the dead, to coverage of the vigil, to revealing to the name of the killer, to reporting the story of how the killer bought the guns, TV news packed a lot into a couple days. (By contrast, on the day Smith passed away, Jack Cafferty on CNN asked Wolf Blitzer "Is Anna Nicole still dead, Wolf?," displaying his feelings that the network had spent way too much time talking about a whole bunch of nothing.)

The consistent news value of this story has only been further heightened over the last 24 or so hours, with the delivery of the package to NBC and our subsequent view into the killer's mind. (And by the way, I am unequivocal in my belief they were correct to air his rants, and am disappointed that they now say they will pull back.) The fact that there have been so many new developments has definitely made this coverage worth the airtime it has received. (On a related note, Alberto Gonzalez seems to have gotten really lucky that almost everybody has stopped paying attention to him; meanwhile, Don Imus happened to get terribly unlucky that his comments had played themselves out before this story broke.)

The other reason I haven't been annoyed by this coverage is that, unlike the two recent media frenzies surrounding Anna Nicole and Imus, there has actually been discussion of a substantive nature. It hasn't just been all surface content, with no meat on the bones of the story. The anchors and reporters have talked about gun control, mental health issues, how the shooting might affect the presidential race in 2008, the VT officials' response to the initial shooting, and tons of other topics that go beyond the simple act. Sure, they have emphasized the fact that this was the "deadliest shooting in American history" about 1,000 times, but other than that, I think the discussion has branched off into interesting and significant issues that lie underneath the story. Broadcast journalists should be commended for that, and for not taking the easy way out in a medium where style-only and skimming the surface reporting are all too common.

One quick thing I didn't like about the coverage was how the networks sent their anchors there right away. Did Brian Williams and Katie Couric really need to be in Virgina to report on this story? I know anchors like to feel like real journalists and get out there and report, but their presence seems unnecessary and some of their reporting has been quite clunky. Also, it seems very opportunistic, as though the first thought of the producers after the tragedy was "How quickly can we get our anchors on a plane and get them down there?"

I think we would have been better served by having our anchors in New York talking to correspondents on the scene. That also would have perhaps helped the nightly news cover the other stories floating around (for instance, did you know that 183 people were killed in Iraq on Wednesday? It seems as if journalists still use that old chart where it takes 10 foreign deaths to equal one over here.) I applaud ABC and Charles Gibson for sticking in New York, although I'm disappointed they felt the need to give in to the tide and head down to Blacksburg on Tuesday. But still, maybe the fact ABC showed just one day of restraint is indicative of why the network is gaining in the news ratings.

Lack of enterprise

2007-04-18T21:28:00.000-07:00

I won't belabor the Virginia Tech media coverage but I don't know if I want to blog about anything else. Up until today I was pretty impressed with the coverage of the event by pretty much every news organization. The stories were fresh and smart and looked at many different angles. There was breaking news and localized coverage. There were 2-hour specials and moving photo montages. I was proud to be a journalist.

Then I woke up on Wednesday morning and turned on Headline News then The Today Show. I felt like I had never gone to sleep. Was The Today Show a repeat? The stories were identical to everything I had seen before. An interview with a victim's parent wasn't so exclusive since he had spent almost half an hour with Wolf Blizter on The Situation Room just 12 hours earlier. I don't want to watch the English teacher answer the same questions over and over either. There was nothing original about any of the stories or the reporting. I was not impressed.

I don't feel like we need to rehash the exact same material just to do it. Think of something original, moving and intelligent. That's what we need in the wake of a tragedy like this. Times like this really define journalists and if you can really enterprise an angle on this kind of story, you probably have a very bright future.

Overall the coverage has been pretty good and I'm happy about that. I think we in the media needed that after the terrible Anna Nicole Smith and Don Imus overkill. But I think things were getting a little stale. Until the video given to NBC turned up....

Okay, this was big news. If you're NBC, you're loving this right now. Not in a sadistic way but in a "this is huge" way. But I think the proliferation of this material is unneccesary. It's scary, it's freaky and it gives this psycho exactly what he wanted. I feel the worst for the victims who sign online and see their friends' killer pointing a gun at their face on their CNN.com homepage. This is indecent and inconsiderate. But in a way, I don't envy news directors in this situation.

Everyone hopes nothing like this will ever happen again. But if God forbid it does, I will probably be a working journalist at the time. I feel it would be a unique responsibility and it would be something that would define my career. I hope I rise to the occasion; I know I will.

2007-04-18T14:23:00.000-07:00

The global shock has still not worn off from this week's Virginia Tech. tragedy. Reporters, bloggers, and writers across all mediums have named the shootings as "the greatest campus crime tragedy of our time." Paul J. Gough from Reuters/Hollywood Reporter described the networks' coverage of the tragedy as "heavy," not because the extensive amount of coverage was undeserved, but because all three broadcast networks flew the major anchors to Blackburg, Va. for the convocation ceremony and memorial, during which the President and First lady were both interviewed by all three networks. Unfortunately, a major part of the story is the killer himself, Cho Seung hui, who we found out was a senior and a Korean immigrant.
His close-up, which I can only look at as a mug shot though I am not certain if it is a mug shot or not, is inescapable in this week's papers. The cover of Wednesday's Tribune's reads "As campus grieves, 'monster revealed," followed directly by a passport size photo of Cho. Why allow a 'monster' to attain such celebrity status as to splash his name and photo across every front page imagineable? As important as the identity of the killer is, I think it is sufficient for the media to say his name, call him whatever they please, and be done with it. I imagine that Cho will now become a household name, depsite the fact that he is known for murdering more than 30 people in one morning. By stamping his name and face on newspapers and television across the nation, we are allowing the killer to enter into our homes and allowing ourselves to become familiar with him as days go by.
One of my friends told me that if he was a parent, he would want the killer to be showcased on every paper and every TV possible to show what he's done. But I fully disagree, because I think focusing on the killer is wasted ink and space. Why would I, as a consumer of news, be interested in the face that committed 33 murders? I am perfectly fine knowing his name and seeing his face once, and now focusing on what is being done on campus crime and any new developments in the story. I can't imagine that families and friends of the lives lost are happy seeing the murderer every day when they open the paper or turn on the tv.
I am not critical of network coverage of the tragedy, but am suggesting that networks are excessively showcasing Cho's crime.
I understand the argument that people want to know "Why?" and "What brings someone to the killing point?" Even if Cho were alive, I don't think we, the questioning public, would not get to the bottom of his crime or thought process.
So if I were editing or producing a show, I would get rid of his face, get rid of his name, get rid of anything that further allows him to enter into people's homes, and focus on how this story will progress from here on out.

Why make a celebrity out of Cho?

2007-04-18T13:59:00.000-07:00

Oprah today - contrasting views regarding VT tragedy

2007-04-18T09:49:00.000-07:00

Today Oprah covered the Virginia Tech tragedy with Lisa Ling as her Blacksburg, VA correspondent. Via satellite, Oprah interviewed a psychologist who criticized the English teacher who reported problems about the shooter but did not persist on a personal level to get him help or into the hands of authorities. The psychologist said that the English teacher had followed the "letter of the law" but not the "essence of the law", which would have compelled her to not stop acting on her fears about the disturbed student. I thought this was interesting because the English teacher has been getting a lot of press about how she tried and tried to get someone else to do something about the student. She was on CNN, WGN radio and Oprah, at least. The psychologist kind of scolded the teacher's inaction and simultaneously empowered viewers to act on their feelings. This was pretty refreshing amidst all the helplessness we are feeling about possible future incidents as gun control and campus security remain abyssmal.

Another thing the psychologist said was that Oprah and the media can do their part by not letting the issue rest - by revisiting the fact that we are empowered to act to stop individuals who we know are dangerous. She said that the media should not stop coming back to this issue. I'd say the media is doing a pretty good job of this so far.

The counterpoint to the psychologist was a Columbine survivor whose sister was killed and who lectures around the country about school violence and the need to assimilate isolated students. He said there are kids out there who idolized the Columbine killers. He brought up the fact that their pictures were on the cover of Time. I just saw this cover while I was doing my case study last weekend: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19990503,00.html. It is wrong that their pictures are so much larger than those of the people who died.

This kid said that the media is making such a huge deal about this being the largest massacre ever, and he said, "Records are made to be broken." I think surely there are sick kids out there who might think, "I could kill more than 32; that's my goal."

How can we cover this issue as much as we need to while not heaping mystique or glamour upon a massacre?

Sportcasters: Women and Minorities Encouraged to Apply

2007-04-17T22:18:00.000-07:00

This week at sportscastingjobs.com, published by veteran sports anchor Dave Benz--he expressed his anger that television stations state under sportscasting job opportunities: "Women and minorities are encouraged to apply for sportcasting positions." While he was shocked at this statement, I was shocked at his upset at it. As an aspiring sports female sports journalist, I know I am entering a very white male dominated sector of television. Also, not only are women viewed as less credible as sportscasters (thanks to findings by a Princeton media study), but they also have no margin for error. As Megan Mawicke (Medill Alum and Chicago Sportscaster at CBS 2) told me, "Women in this business have to work extra hard. Read the stats, know there stuff. If I mess up one time I will just be known as the pretty talking face. If my male colleague messes up...well, he just had a temporary brain cramp." So, sorry Benz, but women are coming into this industry whether you like it or not. (Note: Not one person wrote in or called Benz' show to complain about the criteria....I wonder why?...no one wants to take on this feminist fight.)
However, Benz does acknowledge that without EEO qoutas, many sectors of society would not hire females or minorities for sports reporting jobs. Image my own double burden, not only am I the wrong gender (female) for my dream job, but dear god I am South American. Two strikes...I am almost out (pun intended). Consequently, on the other side of the fence, this probably equates to alot of sportscasting job opportunities for me and other aspiring female minority sports reporters. Currently on record, according to data I have found, in the United States, there are only 50 women sportscasters among the 630 affiliates. Not to mention, I could only find 2 Latin American female sportscasters (Lisa Guerrero...who was a former Playboy model but I will address this later) and 2 Asian female sportscasters. This is shocking considering that in both baseball, football and basketball, caucasian players are becoming the minority?

Now, what I do agree on is that a company should hire an individual based on talent---not race, age, gender, etc. But, in the sports business, what constantly irks me and apparently Megan Mawicke is the Playboy Bunny/Former Miss USA (i.e. Lisa Dergan)turned sideline reporter. Not only do they undermine the female pioneers in this business who fought to overcome the female stereotyping, but they detract from the credibility of females who aspire to become sportscasters that are actually sports savvy and not just a pretty face with long wavy hair, thick lips and big boobs. Having a brother who played professional baseball, I know baseball like the back of my own hand. I have traveled to all the ballparks and could do play-by-play with the best of them. Not to mention, growing up with brothers, I was always the goalie, the punching bag holder, outfielder, etc...because all we did was play sports. Now, the part that bothers me...all these women had to do was strip for Playboy and get breast implants (some have no college degree or journalism training) and they are getting picked for these lucrative jobs. In other words, they are hired as "Eye Candy" for male viewers--which obviously boosts ratings. So, what does this mean for journalists like me who study the craft who want these jobs?...should I ring Hugh Hefner and find a plastic surgeon stat?

The fact of the matter, there are female sportscasters out there that are good like Melissa Stark, Megan Mawicke, Suzy Kolber, Linda Cohn, Suzyn Waldman and Hannah Storm. However, these women will continously be degraded because of their gender. Just look at the online website: www.misterpoll.com/4192855962.html where individuals can vote for female sportscaster with the nicest a**, prettiest face, nicest legs, best chest, etc. Oh and lets not forget the top ten hottest sportcaster list put out by Sports Illustrated. Why can't there be a category of most knowledgeable female sportscaster? Or, who is the better sideline female reporter? Why does everything for women in this professsion come back down to looks? Or is it just that those Playboy models are giving the profession a bad name?
While I know that the road ahead is long, I just want to say, women have just as much right to be on a football field talking about a game as men do (despite Andy Rooney's thoughts). This world is changing and so is the industry. Oh and please, let's start looking at female sportscasters as knowledgeable human beings rather than sex objects. Some of us do know what we are doing when it come to playing sports and talking about sports. Oh and a special thanks to ESPN who was the first network to welcome female sportscasters with open arms.

Virginia's tragedy brings a host of questions

2007-04-17T21:23:00.000-07:00

The past 36 hours have been tough. It's been tough for our nation. It's been tough for humanity. It's been tough for each of us during our quiet moments alone. And, of course, it's been more than tough for the wounded and friends and family of the slain. The collective grief since the Virginia Tech massacre has been almost palpable.

I agree with LL. This story makes all of us think: What would we do if we were assigned to that story? Where are our own ethical boundaries -- as people and as journalists? Could we even report this tragedy without breaking down?

I've been glued to the television 24-7 (I left CNN on while I slept last night and stared at the TV monitors unwaveringly while I worked out at the gym). I literally could not look away. My remote is broken, so I've been manually flipping through continually to find out what each channel is reporting. From CNN on channel 36 to CBS on channel two, every news source has been locked into Virginia's grief. The graphics, headlines and interviewees change -- but the message is the same: How could this happen and why?

I found of the best approaches to this story on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. John King stepped in for Cooper, who is in Afghanistan, I think. King introduced all of the victims and provided snapshots of their lives, including their ages and majors. Sometimes he offered a slice of who they were, a sliver so small that it whetted the audience's insatiable appetite. For instance, King described one of the victims by saying that the young man had recently called his mother to announce he wanted to major in English. Those few words transformed the shocking, but impersonal, fatality count into something more real. Thirty-two murders became 32 dreams, 32 mourning families, 32 attractive faces glistening with youth and hope.

The raw emotion has the country riveted to its computer screens and TV sets. It's times like these that brings people into the fold of the news. We're all looking for some kind of explanation, a way to find sense amid the senselessness. Every pang of grief felt in Virginia stings the nation, and sometimes our reporters help to ease the pain. That's why I appreciated the anchors who took the helm, especially Brian Williams on "NBC Nightly News." He seemed charmingly authentic on a grassy knoll at Virginia Tech, with the black backdrop of night behind him and a strong wind mussing his hair. The only other "set" he used was his limo, which nearly shattered the romantic scene he set on the campus lawn.

Such a heart-wrenching horror calls for commensurate images. Most of the major newspapers and news stations featured similar front-page photographs. They were bloody and, in the case of CNN's graphic iReport video, captured the panicked moment. But how much is too much? Parents could have easily seen the bloodied, crumpled bodies of their children being towed out by law enforcement before they were informed. Whose responsiblity is it to make sure the victims' families are notified? Should that even be a factor when choosing which video is fit to air?

Another Thought on VT

2007-04-17T09:27:00.000-07:00

I realize that LL has already talked about the mass shooting at VT, but as a fellow journalist how can you ignore this situation and talk about something else. I just can’t. Like LL I sat in front of my television this morning watching the TODAY show and had tears listening to the older brother of one of the victims. I could only imagine what I would be thinking about if I was in a similar situation with my little brother. My stomach sank.

But, as a journalist, rather than talk about how I feel, I want to raise many questions. What was the university thinking? Saying this could have been prevented may be a little too harsh, yet I, myself, think it could have. I always go by the saying, “It’s better to be safe than sorry.” The Virginia Tech president is currently saying he did not want to scare people coming on to campus at the time and did not want to shut down campus. First of all, I think it’s safe to say that campuses across the United States from here on out will be shut down if there is a shooting. But, the campus probably should have been shut down. Classes probably should have been cancelled right when the first shooting happened.

University officials are saying they were trying to figure everything out and investigating the situation. Why would they be sitting in a meeting and not informing students? I realize that I am just asking a lot of questions right now, but so many questions are unanswered.

If I were a student, or even my little brother was a student, at the university and the option was not even offered, I would be mad. That would be my immediate reaction to a situation. I believe students should have been informed immediately and then had the choice to make a decision of whether or not to go on to campus. In addition, sending out an e-mail two hours later and not making any calls was probably a mistake on the university’s part.

I was happy, however, with Matt Lauer’s interview this morning with Virginia Tech’s president. He did raise questions similar to this. I am with LL though. I am not sure I could have kept it together in something this tragic.

Another point I would quickly like to make… I think that websites have done a terrific job of updating their sites with new information. On many news sites, new information has been highlighted. I want to be glued to my TV right now, but I cannot be. This tactic is one I have never seen before, but it is easy for readers and people following the developing story to find the new facts. I do not know if this tactic will continue, but it seems like a good idea.

I would like to say finally, and the most important thing, that my thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of the victims.

Covering Atrocity

2007-04-17T07:19:00.000-07:00

I couldn't help but find it ironic that the day BB lectured to us on reporting war and conflict, the largest, most devastating school shooting occurred just hours before. Right now, I am sitting glued to my television watching Matt and Meredith report the tragedy for the TODAY Show. I wonder, what if I was sent to cover this story? Who would I want to interview? What questions would I ask? Could I hold back tears? Could I refrain from showing emotion?

While watching friends and family members of innocent victims that were shot and killed yesterday my eyes start to water, my stomach drops and my heart beats faster. I can't help but feel pain, anger, and sadness for the thousands of kids, who are just like me, deal with such a horrific tragedy. I applaud those who are speaking with reporters and agree to be on television to share loving memories of their sisters, brothers, teachers and friends that they lost. I really don't think I could.

As a reporter I know it is important to put emotions aside when reporting, but that doesn't mean it is easy. Whether reporting in Iraq or at Virginia Tech, I think the most difficult story to cover is one of tragedy. As a war correspondent, I think you have to go expecting to see blood, death and horror. But, when something so terrible happens to innocent people who were simply doing what they normally do...I think the story becomes much more difficult to cover.

I do hope the media switches directions in its coverage. I have heard a lot of programs involving psychologists to get a psycho-analysis on 'what makes people snap?', 'why do people go on shooting rampages?'. In my mind, this is good knowledge, but not nearly as important as 'what needs to be done now?', 'How can other colleges and universities prepare their campuses for an event like this?' I remember in the wake of the Columbine High School shooting, my high school had numerous lock-down drills. We were prepared because the same thing could happen there and the school had the responsibility to protect the 2,000 students that attended my high school. The same needs to be done at colleges. Whether a small private college, or a well-known state school or university, the media needs to alert school officials the importance of being prepared.

My heart goes out to all those at Virginia Tech--all those who must return to go on with their daily lives knowing the tragedy that occurred. My prayers are with the families of the victims and those wounded who lie in hospital beds hanging onto their lives. It is difficult for me to distance myself from this tragedy as I was attending the UofA not too long ago. These kids are just like me and my friends.

I sincerely hope I never have to cover an event like this one because I hope that something like this never happens again. But if I do, how do I prepare myself? How do I put on a strong face and report a horrific tragedy like this one?

Crossing the Media Bridge

2007-04-14T16:47:00.000-07:00

With all the major "news in the news" stories this week, there was smaller story that I found interesting. It was featured at the top of the Media Bistro / TV Newser website early this week before the Imus scandal broke. The short blog essay was on CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. He is releasing a book, timed to coordinate with a documentary on CNN--both called "Chasing Life."

TV Newser hailed this as innovative--both for CNN, which for the first time will pair a book release and a television project, and for television news in general. I found myself wondering: Is this really so groundbreaking? It makes so much sense to me that an in-depth journalistic investigation would launch itself into multiple media.

TV Newser quoted Gupta on the development of these parallel projects. "When I started traveling around, it was clear that some things are better for the written format and some things are much more visual," he said. "You go somewhere and think 'that's such a great story, but it's not going to work for TV, it's not going to work for the magazine.'"

This is precisely why I'm so surprised that a million journalists haven't already crossed the media bridge to report the same story at the same time through different media. I started thinking about why that might be the case, and the only reasoning I came up with is that so few television journalists seem to take the time to really immerse themselves in a story. Television seems to revolve so intensely around quickly capturing images and then writing to those images--the visuals almost precede the story. Naturally that means you're left with very little reason to tell a companion story outside the images.

For Gupta, the curiosity and the story had time to develop and take on multiple forms. As he said, in the process of uncovering the story he was able to recognize the parts of it that worked for one medium or another. That takes a particular attentiveness to the story, a particular patience to allow the story to proceed organically and into the forms that suit it best. Unfortunately, it seems that too often these days television doesn't afford journalists the time to really examine a story from inside out. So, it's nice to see that--on the rare occasion it does happen--people, if only at TV Newser, take notice.

"Lifecasting"

2007-04-13T22:51:00.000-07:00

23-year-old Yale grad and "web entreprenuer" Justin Kan is going live online 24 hours a day. Yes, he's wearing a camera on his hat and doing what he calls "lifecasting," which consists of streaming his often boring life in San Fransisco on http://www.justin.tv all day long for the last 26 days.

It's not the same as the webcam-type casts you've seen in the past where people tape themselves in their room. This time you don't really see the "lifecaster" very often since he's wearing the camera. You acutally see the guy's life from his perspective, which is somewhat of an interesting concept but not always interesting material.

I've been on the website and it's kind of fun to watch him hang out with his friends for a few minutes. I can't explain it but it's just one of those things where you don't want to watch but you can't look away. But of course it gets boring after awhile and I get tired of watching this Justin guy talk about what beer his friends should bring to a party that night.

The tens of thousands of fans Justin says he has may be addicted to the site because it's interactive. He responds to hundreds of emails a day and hosts 21 chatrooms on the website. He even used to take calls on his cell phone. How long can this guy keep this up?

The most interesting thing about Justin.tv is the technology he uses that allows him to stream live, mobile video from any location 24 hours a day. His hat camera is wired to a backpack full of gadgets that allows this constant transmission to occur. This should have media companies champing at the bit to get on board with this type of technology. And according to Justin, they are.

He already has two corporate sponsors- Zipcar rentals and Bawls energy drink- which he gives airtime to by displaying their posters in his apartment. He most recently agreed to advertise for the DreamWorks movie Disturbia (which, by the way, he's going to see tonight according to his daily schedule on the site). The website is currently playing the trailer for the movie; if I was a Justin fan I'd be disappointed.

He claims emails from other major companies are pouring in.

Justin better hope the sponsorship offers keep coming because he and three of his friends have started a company that is striving to make posting live video on the web easy. His ultimate goal is to build the Justin.tv site into a network with hundreds of lifecasters, each with their own channel.

Just like reality, only 'better'

2007-04-13T16:58:00.000-07:00

Late last week, a Toledo, Ohio newspaper called The Blade suspended one of its staff photographers after they discovered that he had digitally altered a photograph printed in their paper.

A Pulitzer Prize finalist in 1998 (for a photo series on children who escaped abusive parents), Detrich didn't wait around to serve his suspension. The day after it began, he quit.

Detrich didn't sound too shaken by the whole incident. According to an Associated Press report, he already had plans for his own business and was going to quit anyway. Detrich added, "'I'm going to enjoy my life with my family...I'll be glad I'm out of the news business.'"

On the surface, the circumstances surrounding the incident and the immediate fall-out seem fairly minor. For one thing, Detrich told The Blade's editors that he altered a photograph of a college baseball team for his own personal files. He then sent it to The Blade by accident.

According to the AP, "the photo showed Bluffton University players kneeling March 30 at their first game after a bus crash killed five players in Atlanta. Photos of the team in other Ohio newspapers showed the legs of someone standing in the background, but the legs did not appear in The Blade photo even though it was taken from a similar angle."

The Blade has a clear policy never to alter photographs, and after discovering what Detrich had done, The Blade began reviewing other photos taken by Detrich and published in their paper. So with one little mistake, even one without a trace of malice, everything Detrich's ever done is now tainted, if not in the eyes of his audience, then certainly in the eyes of those who care about his reputation and those who closely scrutinize his work. The Associated Press dramatically displayed this when they took away access to 50 of Detrich's photographs kept in their own archives.

What's a bit disconcerting is how mundane the alteration really was. Without seeing the photograph and talking with Detrich, I can't honestly judge the aesthetic reasoning behind Detrich's actions. On paper at least, it sounds minimal, so much that 15 years ago, you wonder if Detrich would've gone through the time and trouble to painstakingly airbrush and print the same photo all over again just to achieve the same result. Digital technology has made alterations so easy, it's made any alteration a lot more tempting.

Such practices are already accepted in Hollywood. Pop in a 'making of' DVD from "The Lord of the Rings," and you'll see Peter Jackson go through every frame of these films, altering individual elements like the light around someone's eyes or the hue of a tree branch. Ten years ago, micromanaging each frame of a motion picture would've been quixotic and excessive, but once the tools became available, it didn't take long for filmmakers to exploit them in this manner. Granted, these are works of art and entertainment, not journalism, but they show how easy and limitless digital alterations can be, so much that it may create enough temptation to challenge anyone's sense of journalistic ethics.

Last August, Reuters severed all ties with a photographer who manipulated a photograph of burning buildings in Lebanon. He probably would've gotten away with it had he done a decent job; anyone well-versed in Photoshop can easily tell what tools he used and how he applied them. In fact, you don't need any multimedia skills, you just need a decent eye: the photographer basically duplicated (or 'cloned') certain details within the smoke over and over again.

Question is, how many photographers do get away with it?

Stand up for the local rights

2007-04-13T16:08:00.000-07:00

This week I learned a lot about video franchise laws in Illinois. I will be honest, before doing some research and reporting I knew very little about what these laws entailed and their importance to the media, the public and preserving democracy in the press. Wednesday the Illinois House will meat in Springfield for a Telecommunications Committee Hearing regarding House bill 1500, which was proposed by AT&T.

Basically the bill entails the following: Phone companies want to enter the video cable market to boost their revenues, however they do not want to negotiate individually with each community in each state. The phone companies fought for a federal video franchise bill, allowing them to enter the market without paying the negotiation fees that are required under the current law, but lost. The phone companies don't want to have to go through local negotiations because these negotiation fees cost companies money. However, they allow for funding for public access, education and governmental cable channels (PEG), community resources, build-out rules (so cable companies don't just service upper-class neighborhoods) and provide for other community media infrastructure.

The Argument: On one hand, allowing phone companies to enter the cable market would increase competition, thus driving down cable prices for consumers. A study was released last week from the Heartland Institute showing that this savings could be as much as $115 annually for the average Illinois consumer customer. Read the full report here. Opponents are concerned that the legislation will pull funds from pubic access channels; channels who give people a voice or the opportunity to learn. They are also fearful that the law discriminates against neighborhoods by allowing the phone companies to only serve who they choose and it weakens consumer protections. There are numerous coalitions and activist groups who are against video franchise reform. See keepusconnected.org and chicagomediaaction.org.

What do you think?? Will moving video franchising to the state level benefit the media, or will it pull away from the local communities, further monopolizing the industry? I think the law needs to remain as is. There is no need for the state to be given all the power. As a journalist, I think it is crucial to keep PEG channels available, after all they give people a place to express themselves and voice their opinions. The savings that is estimated in the study from increased competition isn't large enough to sway me in the other direction (savings would be roughly $8 a month, you could save that much by skipping your daily Starbucks run twice!) People need to have a say. Local communities need to have a say in how they receive their media and deserve a choice.

Just think...without PBS there wouldn't be the opportunity for the Northwestern News Report to air and spread its excellence to all of Chicago!

Journalists being left out?

2007-04-13T15:32:00.000-07:00

Starting this week, presidential candidates will have the chance to tell their story on YouTube. With so many Web sites and ways now for politicians to get their voice heard without any editorial obstacles, where the does the news media come in?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h09jJONoAbk

Now that anyone can get face time on their own on Web sites such as YouTube, the role of journalists are continuing to change (and diminish?). An AP article reported that starting Wednesday, candidates from both parties will take turns posting videos on YouTube's News and Politics site.

Previously, despite candidates' "hatred" for the press, they needed the media. Getting a sound bite on the evening news was a chance to get people to listen to them and an opportunity to promote their new campagin. Now they need no help from the media. They can shoot video whenever and wherever and simply upload their video. This new way of reaching voters in a personal and, literally, "in your face" way makes it even more necessary for journalists to do their job as watchdogs.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will be the first one to post a video. This new segment is branch of YouTube's "You Choose '08" initiative. Journalists used to be the one presenting both sides of a political race and letting the viewer to decide on their own-- now the politicians themselves are directly asking people to choose his or her favorite candidate.

"Interactivity is what really fuels the engine on YouTube and candidates and users were striving for ways to communicate with each other," said Steve Grove, head of news and politics for YouTube, to AP.

I agree with what Grove is saying because this would get more young people to care about politics and about the issues. This YouTube site also lets citizens to send in their own videos in response to the candidates'. The article even quotes Romney saying, "I'll do my best to watch as many as I can and respond to them." This new interactivity however seems to be happening more and more without reporters. To those in jouranalism, it feels like our roles are being stepped on.

On the other hand, will this actually educate Americans about their politicians?

Media has been criticized for covering the politics as a horse race and concentrating on the numbers more than the issues. But in typical news segment, there's only so much time to cover all the platforms. So Americans could actually getting more substance if they take the time to listen to what all the candidates have to say.

Interestingly each year, the race to the White House seems to always be affected by technology and the use of media. " Many view these types of videos produced by non-journalists (including politicians) as "citizen journalism", but I think it's unfair to call this journalism. I would like to think that it takes more to being a reporter than a click of a cell-phone or spouting off in a blog.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter what buzz word you use to explain this YouTube behavior-- it'll still be interesting to see how technology and uploading video onto media sites play into the upcoming election.

More on Imus story

2007-04-13T14:59:00.000-07:00

I don't want to flood the swamp that's stewing Don Imus and his rolling head, but I think I need to spout off for a moment. Has the media gone overboard with this story? Yes, if you consider other stories that went largely unnoticed this week.

Still, some news stations have driven this story forward. After running Imus off the air (with the cannibilistic fervor we often see when the media players descend on their peers), some news programs have taken a close look at racism and sexism in the United States.

Reporters could cover the story as such: An old Caucasian shock jock is axed after he reveals his racism. Standing alone, that report would scapegoat Imus, driving a sword through his heart gladiator-style to entertain a bloodthirsty, modern-day Collosseum audience. But some news sources, such as CNN, have used Imus's personal misstep as a launch pad to broach meatier issues.

Some argue that news gatekeepers played into the hands of special interests by turning the Imus story into a race story. Yes, the debacle only became a hot-button racial debate when the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson scrambled to push it into the limelight. Jackson and Sharpton certainly capitalized -- and, some would say, exploited -- Imus's plight.

But I don't think the media were pawns in their game. Jackson and Sharpton tried to set the news agenda, but producers didn't take notes passively. Some media pushed the Jackson and Sharpton PR spin to a higher level by asking some long overdue questions: Are rap artists just as responsible to eliminate racist and sexist words from the vernacular? Is the fury over Imus's three-word insult hypocritical?

These questions need to be asked. They are too often sweep race under the rug. If no one paid attention to Imus's repulsive comments,we might be considered complicitous to the power structure that brews beneath a few casual insults. For a moment, let's argue that Imus was not worth a discussion about race. Then, what kind of issues DO merit that kind of discussion? Racism would appear to be a can that can be kicked down the road for another day, another producer's rundown and another news station. Economic and social inequalities are everywhere, and race is an integral part of discussing that hegemonic dynamic.

If for nothing else, I appreciated the attention paid to the Imus story because some African-Americans were able to make their views known during TV appearances. Blacks rarely appear on TV as experts. Why is that? Some might argue that the pool of qualified Black "official sources" is much smaller. Others might say that the news gatekeepers are racists who don't recruit minority talent as aggressively as they should. I'm not here to nail down that answer with any degree of certainty. However, I believe the disproportionate number of African-Americans is a result of this country's less-than-perfect reality.

More gripes on Couric's Notebook

2007-04-13T14:19:00.000-07:00

Continuing on EJW’s entry on Katie Couric’s Notebook… I have my problems with it, too. First, I have never been a fan of her, despite her credentials as a trailblazer in the broadcast journalism world. Her video podcasts “Eye to Eye with Katie Couric” are just plain boring. Who wants to look at five minutes of a talking head anyway, especially when it’s on a tiny screen the size of your palm?

But the latest page from her April 12 Notebook was a misstep. (View video here.)

Here is a transcript of that page, as printed on Media Matters:

COURIC: "Hi, everyone. Is America ready to elect a president who grew up praying in a mosque?

Barack Obama has arguably the most diverse religious background of any candidate ever. He was raised in Indonesia by a Christian mother and Muslim stepfather and attended a Catholic school -- but while growing up, also studied Islam. That background sparked rumors that he had studied in a radical madrassa, or Quranic school -- rumors his campaign denied, declaring that Obama is now a practicing Christian. Last month, the Los Angeles Times interviewed people who grew up with Obama. "We prayed in the mosque," one of them said, "but not seriously," noting that Obama also prayed with his Catholic schoolmates.

It's too soon to know what America will decide about Barack Obama or his background, but it's not too soon to wonder if America will see that as an asset or a liability.

That's a page from my notebook. I'm Katie Couric, CBS News."

According to the article in Media Matters, Couric “rehashed” myths about Obama that had not only been denied by his office, but had already been thoroughly debunked. The source for the L.A. Times interview seemed to have only fleeting connections with Obama.

Besides the less than full story presented by Couric, what bothers me about this particular page is that it is full of arrogance.

Granted, many many Americans probably are not ready to elect a president who has Muslim ties. And to think that we are tolerant enough to do so would be idealistic, if not outright naïve. But for a journalist to play right into such narrow-minded views, no matter how commonplace they are, is just reckless and undermines a journalist’s role toward greater understanding and democracy in our society.

But maybe I’m just an idealist.

Couric asks the question “Is America ready to elect a president who grew up praying in a mosque?” as if “praying in a mosque” was a deplorable habit, not fit for a president, nor an American.

Can you imagine any other journalist asking viewers “Is Westminster or Garden Grove ready for a council member who grew up praying to Buddha?” How about “Is California ready to elect a governor who grew up eating sausage?”

The great thing about Americ is that people can have as diverse backgrounds as day and night and still successfully run for office - regardless if you were a former actor, even a body-builder, have a thick accent, pray on the Quoran or believe in Mormonism.

Let’s remind ourselves that this is not so in most other countries in the world.

While America may not be perfect, journalists of Couric’s stature and influence should add to, not undermine, what other journalists are doing every day to strive for a better America.

Latinos Attack PBS for WWII Series

2007-04-12T20:06:00.000-07:00

Emmy-award winning documentarian Ken Burns and PBS television are underfire from the Latino community this week over the 14-hour film "War." This film, created by Burns,(slated to air on PBS in September) focuses on 40 American WWII Veterans in 4 U.S. cities. However, not one of the 40 individuals featured in the documentary is Latino...leaving Hispanic veteran's groups and politicians in an uproar. Clearly, Hispanics fought for America in WWII--the above posted picture even shows seven Latino American soldiers grouped together after landing on Cebu Island,Philippines, during WWII. Even estimates by the D-Day World War Two Museum project that out of the 16 million Americans that served--which has come to be called the Greatest Generation--between 250,000 and 500,000 Latinos were a part of America's Greatest Generation.

Ken Burns seemingly had trouble answering this question. In fact, he completely dodged the question and further got himself and PBS into hotter water with the Latino community when during a recent NPR interview, Burns said his film included the stories of Japanese-Americans and African Americans because their "experiences had been an amazingly different American experiences." Clearly, Burns did not think before he spoke because had he had done so, he would have realized he was adding fuel to an already burning fire. His comments drew the attention of Antonio Morales of the American GI Forum, Latino politicians and Latino veterans who are now calling for changes in the film or for the film to not be aired at all. Thus, creating quite a dilemma for PBS chief executive Paula Kerger because Latino veterans feel they had unique experiences too.

But, since the film has not been aired yet, just how was it figured out that no Latinos were interviewed or involved in the project? Well, Latinos can thank former newspaper reporter Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, who now runs an oral history project regarding Latino WWII veterans at the University of Texas. In TIME magazine, Rivas-Rodriguez states, "The Latino (WWII) experience is really rich and very unique. We (all Latinos) are very disappointed. This is the story not only of our parents, our grandparents, but our tios and tias. This is not a Puerto Rican issue, not a Mexican issue, not a Cuban issue, but all Latinos and Latinas. This is one of the few times we can all agree on something." According to Rivas-Rodriguez, had Burns done his research, he would have found a plethora of material pertaining to Hispanic involvement in WWII, starting with the University of Texas' website compiled by Rivas-Rodriguez herself on the subject matter.

http://utopia.utexas.edu/explore/latino/

This site provides an in-depth look at the role of both Latino men and women in WWII. Not to mention, there are links to books, movies and conferences--that are ample proof of the high involvement of Hispanics in the war. On the site, there is also a section titled "Narrative," where Latinas who worked in military installations tell their stories and Latino Medal of Honor winners personally tell their war stories--which if you take time to read them prove to be very unique Latin American experiences. Therefore, for Burns to not include Latinos in his "I wanted to tell unique stories in my war film," statemen...was in my opinion simply ignorant. Apparently, The National Hispanic Media Coalition and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus agree on this point as well--calling for Burns to change his film to include Hispanics. Not to mention, this has put PBS on the hot seat because the Latino community feels discriminated against.

But again this week, Burns made another comment that hurt his campaign. He purported in an interview that he tried to tell the stories of the overlooked WWII populations. However, following that interview, it was reported by the Associated Press that throughout history, the story of Latinos in WWII has almost never been documented--thus, making it the most prominent overlooked WWII population (that Burns himself happened to overlook--and I am betting he know wishes he could retract that statement). While Burns asserts that he did not set out to exclude Latinos from his story, Latinos feel they were intentionally ommitted. I cannot help but side with the Latino community on this one because had Burns efficiently conducted his research, he would have found the story pertaining to the role of Latinos in WWII to be very intriguing. And, I also cannot give Burns leeway (as I would a broadcast reporter who has a minute and thirty seconds to tell a story who at times cannot include all angles--but tends to mention all parties) because Burns had 14 hours to tell this story.

So, should Burns change his film? While he offers his apologies to the Latino community, his answer is no. Having taken 6 years to make the film, Burns is already traveling to promote it and says this project is finished. If Burns were forced to change his film--which has not yet occurred--he claims he would have to find Latinos to tell stories and footage from these events and that that notion would be an almost impossible task to accomplish. But I ask, why wasn't this research/work done in the preliminary stages when information was being gathered for Japanese-Americans and African Americans? And with all the uproar, Latino veterans have already come forward who are ready to tell their story. So, what is Burns' problem? Or, is it that he just does not want Latinos in his story?

Overall, what this boils down to is PBS' predicament--impose on Burns''s creative vision or cater to an enraged group of minorities with legitimate cause. And, this raises the question, if PBS changes a film because of minority complaints, will it continue this practice in the future? First and foremost, the problem most likely stems from the fact that PBS has few Latino employees. Perhaps if they hired more Latinos, when this film was in its preliminary stages, the question would have been asked, what about Latino WWII veterans? Still, I see documentaries as long form journalism. Therefore, I believe that if you are going to tell a story accurately, all sides of the story must be presented or included in some way. Just ask yourself as a journalist, in a political piece, if 4 presidential candidates spoke at a conference, would you only include 3 names of the candidates in your peice or make sure all four were included? My guess...all four would have their names in your piece or a call from your boss would quickly ensue followed by the unnamed politician.

In conclusion, while this matter will take months to resolve, it will be intereting to see how PBS hashes this sticky situation out. And, it also leads to the question, are Latinos under represented and overlooked in other media spectrums? In journalism, especially in broadcast, this is true. While television stations have their token Latino news team member--Latinosare still hold the fewest jobs in broadcast journalism. In any event, as of now, PBS has offered to create and run a separate film regarding Latino veterans that will play alongside this documentary, but I feel that the station should just drop this film from its airways. How can you air something that is unfair, unbalanced and that does not tell the whole story of WWII? Two thumbs down to PBS. And, on a further note, who decided the Latino experience was not unique enough or even worthwhile to mention in a 14 hour film?

A sad and sorry situation

2007-04-12T17:27:00.000-07:00

What a busy week in the journalism world. And what a sad and sorry situation that happened down in Durham, North Carolina. The Duke Lacrosse case will have a long lasting impact, and a lot of the problems with this case can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the media.

First, the initial condemnation and overreaction of the players was horrible. The media jumped to conclusions, forgot the presumption of innocence and for that matter so did the faculty of Duke.

But that's not what I want to focus on.

The first mistakes made by the media in this case have been seriously compounded by the way two particular media outlets have acted since the North Carolina Attorney General dropped the charges.

As it so happens both are owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. The New York Post, of which I am a subscriber and regular reader, ran a huge picture of the accuser/stripper in the Duke case. The picture was on the cover. The stories ran on pages 4,5 and the Op/Ed pages.

What a horrible message to send to women who are wary about reporting a rape. If it so happens that your accusations aren't upheld, you will be publicly scorned by a major newspaper. This was DISGUSTING. I have never held the Post to the same journalistic standards of other newspapers, it is basically a rag. This was a new low.

Throughout each and every story, the young men are championed as innocent souls whose lives have been ruined by this woman. That is flat out false. In fact, Colin Finnerty was charged for simple assault in Washington D.C. There is no mention of this anywhere in the Post.

Nobody knows what really happened that night in Durham. And I don't really believe these guys raped that woman. But something awful surely happened. Let us not glorify anybody in this situation. And whatever this woman is going through, she will have to live with it for the rest of her life.

Fox News Channel also ran pictures of the accuser during its episode of the O'Reilly Factor. Substituting for the King of the cheap political point was Michelle Malkin. Now there is no way anybody could consider Malkin a "journalist". She writes an incindiary, right wing column, and she's said some things that could fall into the Imus category.

So her guest on the program was a man named Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party (whatever that is). They proceed to get in a screaming match where they call each other prostitutes. While this is all going on the picture of the Duke accuser is being flashed across the screen.

What a horrible visual. Malkin thought she was vindicating the lacrosse players by conducting herself like this? Unbelievable.

There are so many tragedies associated with this case. The media has been wrong at almost every turn. And this final chapter might have the worst affect of all.

The chilling affect of publishing this woman's name and splashing her picture across the front pages of a New York tabloid could be devastating. Did the big-wigs at News Corp. even think about their responsibility to the public? I can't imagine how hard it is for someone to report a sexual assault, but I know the fear of public ridiucle is real and devastating. The New York Post and Fox News and ANY publication that runs this woman's picture should be ashamed.

As I said before, these charges may have been false, and the accuser will have to live with that. But why make life so much harder for the women who have to report real crimes?

CBS Copycat!

2007-04-12T07:11:00.000-07:00

I love writing for broadcast news. I like being clever and fitting a lot of information succinctly into short segments. With every story, there's millions of ways you can write a script. Which is why I have absolutely no idea why a CBS producer felt the need to plagiarize a Wall Street Journal article this week for a video essay that featured Katie Couric and appeared on her blog, Couric & Co. The essay was part of an ongoing segment called "Katie Couric's Notebook."

The essay was about libraries and was copied almost verbatim from a column by Jeffrey Zaslow in the Wall Street Journal.

Check out some of the similarities:

COURIC: "For kids today, the library is more removed from their lives. It's a last-ditch place to go if they need to find something out."

WSJ: "The library is more removed from their lives," says Sabra Steinsiek, a retired librarian in Albuquerque, N.M. "It's a last-ditch place to go if they need to find something out."

COURIC: Sure, children still like libraries, but books aren't the draw.

WSJ: Sure, there are still library-loving children, but books aren't necessarily the draw.

COURIC: ...but many tech-savvy kids never experience the joy of using the library's shelves as a place to discover new worlds.

WSJ: But many tech-savvy kids never experience the library as a place for serendipitous discovery.

***

How a producer could think this was okay is beyond me. I would give almost anything to be a network news producer. And now here is somebody that has (well now I guess I should say had, since she has been fired) my dream job and disrespects the position and her place of employment.

How hard would it have been to come up with a unique idea for the segment known as "Katie's Notebook," which features commentaries by Couric. (As a sidebar--I think its kind of ridiculous that Katie Couric does not write these commentaries herself--they're usually in the first person and often she is reflecting on her own life.) But--since she did not write it--I don't think she should accept any of the blame. Producers and anchors should work as a team and anchors should be able to trust that their copy is not plagiarized. Can you imagine how laborious the process would be if anchors had top make sure all their copy was not plagiarized?

Why has there been such an increase in plagiarism lately? Are networks pressed to churn out so much content that its leading people to cut corners? I think it may have to do with the fact that information is so easily accessible from the Internet. It's so easy to google information--I guess some people take it a step further and pluck a few words and phrases here and put them in their stories. This is unacceptable!

Some questions about the I-mess

2007-04-12T06:57:00.000-07:00

First off, let me say that I don't agree with what Don Imus said. The statements were undoubtedly racist and sexist.

I'm also not a big Imus fan, and I don't regularly listen to or watch his program. So I don't have a vested stake in his being on the air or having a job.

I feel the need to say those things because it seems anyone who defends Imus, including fellow journalists who went on his show, is accused of agreeing with him. But I feel the need to defend the guy, or at least ask some questions that no one seems to have asked. I'm not sold on everything that has happened in the wake of this incident, including his firing this afternoon from CBS, and it's starting to feel a bit like a witch hunt.

On to the questions:

1. Why did this story take off the way it did?

Imus first made his comments on April 4, and the first I heard of them was a passing mention on Sportscenter. The anchors repeated what he said, and it seemed like another one of those "look who put his foot in his mouth today as it relates to sports" stories. The next day on American Morning, it again received a few seconds of airtime, and the guys on "Pardon the Interruption" talked about it for a bit. I basically thought it would just go away after an apology. But the story just kept growing, the chorus calling for Imus' head getting louder every day. It's at the point where Anderson Cooper has been taking phone calls about it, entire episodes of "Hardball" have been dedicated to it and it seems like the news nets have gone all Imus, all the time (indeed, it seems like MSNBC is spending more time talking about Imus even after cancelling his show than Imus actually had on the air).

This seems to be completely different than a number of recent incidents. When Michael Richards and Mel Gibson made racist and/or sexist comments, the media was on those from minute one. They decided it was a story and they followed it.

Meanwhile, when former Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Michael Irvin said current Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo's athleticism might be owed to the fact that his "great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandma pulled one of them studs up out of the barn," the mainstream media basically let that one go. Likewise when CBS basketball analyst Billy Packer said Charlie Rose would "fag out" on him. Those were apparently people saying stupid things, but they weren't stories.

Personally, I think the Imus comments fall into the second camp. But even if you think they belong with Richards and Gibson, the question remains as to why it took so long for this to blow up. Imus appeared on the Today show on April 10 -- nearly a full week after he made the comments.

To me, this smacks of a story driven by particular interests more than anything else. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others with their own agendas didn't want to let the story die, and they made it an issue. Then the media bought right in and made the story explode.

2. Why is Imus in trouble now?

The reason I take issue with the media firestorm that has erupted is that, in the scheme of things, what Imus said isn't so bad. When compared to what Imus has said about blacks, gays, women, Jews and other groups in the past, this is nothing. It's hardly the type of thing that deserves to get someone with that track record fired. I know there's a such thing as "the straw that broke the camel's back," but I don't think this reaches that level. Has the world really become that much more sensitive over the past few months? Maybe Richards and Gibson drove us to it, but even so, calling the Rutgers female basketball players "nappy-headed hos" hardly deserves firing.

Jason Whitlock, a black columnist at the Kansas City Star, thinks Imus is a "hack." But he thinks the brouhaha from his comments is ridiculous. Whitlock writes that the reason (black) people have latched on to Imus this time is that it allows them to ignore real problems in the community:

In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?
I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?
When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.
No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and
lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

3. Who are these people to be protesting him?

A big reason Imus has been in such heat are people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They've protested outside NBC studios, planned to protest outside CBS studios, met with CBS president Les Moonves to advocate for him firing Imus, and basically did everything they could to get him off the air. But maybe they should look inward first.

Jesse Jackson once referred to New York City as Hymietown, a derogatory reference toward Jews. Jackson also claimed he was "sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust."

Sharpton, for his part, defended Tawana Brawley, who fictitiously accused six white men of raping her. Sharpton gained notorietry during the case for his unfounded accusations, which included saying that the prosecutor in the case was one of the rapists. Sharpton also claimed Jewish "diamond merchants" shed "the blood of innocent babies," and protested a new business in Harlem as being owned by a "white interloper."

The point of this is not to villify Jackson and Sharpton. It's only to say that these men have made racist statements, and yet are still respected members of their community and command respect in the nation at large. But apparently, according to them, Don Imus doesn't qualify for similar treatment.

4. What about second chances?

That brings me to my next question, which is why Imus' apology isn't being accepted. Sure, there is the argument that the guy has had so many chance he doesn't deserve another one. But if Sharpton and Jackson can have them, not to mention broadcasters like Marv Albert, Howard Stern and Opie & Anthony, why can't Imus?

So why doesn't Imus get to apologize and have this be over with? Why don't people take him at his word that he's going to change the character of his show and give him the chance to do so?

Imus has raised millions of dollars for good causes during his years on the air; he even raised $1.3 million this year before his show was cancelled.

From the AP:

The news came down in the middle of Imus' Radiothon, which has raised more than $400 million since 1990. The Radiothon had raised more than $1.3 million Thursday before Imus learned that he lost his job.
"This may be our last Radiothon, so we need to raise about $100 million," Imus cracked at the start of the event.
Volunteers were getting about 200 more pledges per hour than they did last year, with most callers expressing support for Imus, said Tony Gonzalez, supervisor of the Radiothon phone bank. The event benefited Tomorrows Children's Fund, the CJ Foundation for SIDS and the Imus Ranch.

He's clearly not a bad person; he's just a shock jock trying to get cheap laughs. This joke didn't work, and was offensive. So be it. But it doesn't mean the guy doesn't deserve a better fate than this.

Whitlock again:

[I]n my view, [Imus] didn’t do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should’ve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it’s only the beginning.

5. What's all this about Imus "ruining" Rutgers' season?

Numerous commentators have said Imus took a shot at the vulnerable women on the Rutgers women's basketball team. They're college students, pundits have said, and they don't deserve to be made fun of. They say, as did the St. Cloud (Minn.) Times that a "stellar season" has gone down the toilet thanks to Imus:

Perhaps top on the list of fallout from these racial/gender insults is that Imus has forever tarnished what Rutgers accomplished. The team, which started the season 2-4, rallied to finish 27-9 and lost to Tennessee in the NCAA championship game. It will be long time, though, before that's the first thing people remember about this team.

That's patently absurd. I don't even know how to go about debunking that, so I'll turn to Whitlock one more time:

Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.
But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.

6. If it's so bad, why is everyone repeating it?

Far as I've seen, every news and sports show (with the exception of the local NBC affiliate) has played and/or said and/or written up Imus' comments in their entirety, without bleeping any of the words. If this is such a slur, such a firing offense, such a reason for Imus to be blacklisted, why do mainstream broadcasters feel comfortable repeating it? When Richards went on his rant, you didn't hear Miles O'Brien repeating what he said the next morning.

That's because there are different levels of offensiveness. This was offensive, but not "into-the-stratosphere" offensive. And it certainly wasn't offensive enough to get everyone quite so riled up. This should have been over after the apology (assuming it was sincere, and as I mentioned above, we have no choice but to take Imus at his word on that).

So given all of the above, given all of the questions that have gone unasked and unanswered, Imus deserves better than he's gotten. He deserves better from the media, from Sharpton and Jackson, from MSNBC and CBS, and from all those who have sought his head because he went five seconds without using it.

Guilty until proven innocent?

2007-04-11T19:43:00.000-07:00

“Roy Cooper said a word today; the word is INNOCENT. I wanted to make sure everybody got that,” said David Evans’ attorney, Joe Cheshire.

I do not want to be the only one to say this… but FINALLY. Those poor boys… well, not really, I guess they are pretty much our age. I’m talking about the Duke Lacrosse players who were falsely accused of committing a sexual offense and kidnapping. Today, watching the press conference live, my heart went out to each and every one of the players and their families.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/11/cooper.transcript/index.html

While this story lends itself more to a discussion in law class, the media played an enormous role in this case covering and uncovering important facts that played a major role in the decision to exonerate these three men.

It started with intense media coverage following the person making possibly the most mistakes in the case, District Attorney Mike Nifong. In public, he called the boys “a bunch of hooligans” and stated on national television, “I am convinced there was a rape,” after the accuser changed her story.

Interestingly enough today, in the news conference, Reade Seligman’s attorney got up and said he wanted to talk about “heroes” and “cowards.” He first named all of the heroes of the case, no real shockers there. Then… came the shocking statement… at least for me. He named the Durham newspaper. He said their coverage was biased and they followed suit with the district attorney. In a way, I felt like he was saying their biased coverage also had an influence on the people of the community.

If I remember correctly, there was a definite backlash against these boys. I think these men had to prove their innocence from the beginning, rather than the traditional, “innocent until proven guilty” stated in our constitution.

This story ultimately makes me sit back and think about the importance of journalism and how people everywhere are truly influenced by the information we give them. Whether we wanted it or not, I do believe in the beginning of the coverage, we were only getting one side of the story. After seeing the damage done to these players and their families, I, as a journalist, want to be that much more sure all the stories I tell are unbiased and fair.

Ultimately, as seen in this case, someone’s life could depend on the stories we tell.

Local news on the Web to cover your own backyard

2007-04-11T16:23:00.000-07:00

The Media and Marketing section of Wednesday's Wall Street Journal included an article titled, "Lagging Online, TV Stations get Moving." It seems, without argument, that all media is headed toward the Internet in one way or another.

At Medill, we are constantly bombarded with 20/20 and moving toward technology in the future, taking the form of Web casts and online interactive tools to reach our designated audiences. And now it might just be that newspapers, like the Journal, are proclaiming their faith in the future of Web for journalists.

The Journal's article suggested that today's media needs to move with quick feet to the Web in order to succeed in today's interactive world. In particular, the Journal said local stations need to realize their capabilities to extend their information online. What I noticed from the article is also its emphasis on localization in news coverage.

Additionally, I listened to a guest speaker from the Sun-Times in my Arts and Entertainment seminar Wednesday who focused on local news' necessary movement toward hyper-local news. Local news depends on covering your own backyard to gain the greatest interest. He said he grapples with the challenge to balance local news and unique news. Each locale has their unique elements, he said. Hyper local news allows the media to report on those unique elements.

In this sense, local TV is headed to a more wide-spread medium, the Web, but is focusing in on subjects specific to a particular area. On a side note, this concept of gaining a broader venue to find a focus reminds me of an outlook on life that I was taught growing up: The importance of traveling throughout the world in order to focus on finding yourself and developing a sense of self.

Perhaps in an abstract way, journalists, encompassing local TV and broadcast and radio and print, need to experiment on venues that reach wider audiences in order to focus on the real meaning, or unique meaning, of their stories.

I must've missed something

2007-04-10T20:24:00.000-07:00

By now hopefully you are all aware of the remarks made by Don Imus last week on his radio program because they won't be repeated here. That hasn't stopped any other news outlets, but I don't want to fan the flames anymore than they already have been.

Imus' program - self-described as a comedy show - is simulcast on MSNBC and now MSNBC has suspended him for two weeks beginning this upcoming Monday. The latest news is the Proctor and Gamble are pulling their advertising from the Imus show - but who really cares? Now before you get upset, let me finish.

When Imus' comments set off a firestorm of protests, I honestly wondered if people were making much ado about nothing given the fact that he apologized and admitted how stupid it was. Yes, his words were insulting and wholly uncalled for. It was a paltry attempt at humor and probably he didn't give a second's thought before he blurted out those words.

My reaction was based on the feeling that you could hear language far coarser and more offensive words at any given time of the day - on FM radio, on TV, in movies and probably on the playgrounds of a lot of middle schools. But for some reason Imus got caught saying something offensive, racist and sexist - then we all got upset at him.

Maybe it's not Imus' problem - maybe it's our society's problem.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton jumped at the chance to crucify Imus - an older white guy. Rev. Sharpton had Imus on his radio show to supposedly clear the air, but it turned into Sharpton attacking Imus and repeatedly asking him to resign. Certainly not unexpected behavior from Sharpton.

What has been lost in the media's coverage of all this is how powerful words, stereotypes and biases are! Instead we want to discuss Imus' silly cowboy hats or what a racist he is or how awful the Rutgers basketball team must feel. Are we making an uncomfortable situation worse?

The only coverage I've seen in the 5 days since Imus uttered his 3-word phrase that addressed something other than "this happened/how awful" was on CNN's "The Situation Room." They actually discussed how sexist and misogynistic language is pervasive and accepted in our society. Kudos to them - they used Imus as a jumping off point and not just someone to jump all over.

Personally, I don't care what happens to Imus. What I do care about is covering something unpleasant responsibly. Is it news Imus went on Sharpton's show? Sure. Two smart men of opposite races attempting to have an intelligent conversation in the wake of something unpleasant. But the debating was not so much a debate as it was an attack and it ceased to newsworthy unless this was explained. There is so much more to talk about.

What should have been news was how we as a nation and culture speak and interpet offensive words. Intelligent discourse. What is the state of our consciences? What are we offended by? How much will we take and how much should we take? Imus is a jumping off point, not to be jumped on anymore.

The Michael Richards rant last year touched off a discussion of racism in America but we seem to have forgotten that already. Instead of saying "racism is alive and well in America," or "Imus is a bigot and an idiot," we should also be discussing why racism and sexism exist in the ugly reaches of our minds and what can be done about it.

I would have loved to hear Sharpton and Imus discuss some thought-provoking topics instead of "you're a racist"/ "am not." And I would have loved to see the media cover something instead of their bickering.

Jesse Jackson has staged protests outside of NBC in Chicago on consecutive days. Surely that sort of thing has gotten tired and is not newsworthy - especially since it seems like his reaction to everything. We're going to weeks of this sort of coverage while Imus is suspended and while others are calling for his head - but is that the best we can do?

Should we be trying harder to clean up our culture instead of just pointing and screaming when something upsets us? In the news media, events like this give us the opportunity to look at our society and say here is why things like this happen.

In the news media, we have the opportunity to "uplift" society. Let's treat these ugly events by digging deep into the ugliness and exploring it instead of pointing at it and shrieking. That's not newsworthy and it creates needless divisions in our society. Maybe it's not our job to "heal the nation," but we shouldn't be afraid to try.

Before I go, I'd like to point out that Imus appeared on NBC's Today Show and that just seemed like cross-promotion to me. NBC has the "hottest" story out there, so they put Imus on Today and keep him on the air all week. Meanwhile they can drive traffic to their Web site with Imus updates all week long. Is this really news or is it just hot air?

IMUS!

2007-04-10T19:06:00.000-07:00

I had to jump on this Imus thing right away.

Speaking about Imus's apologies, Rev. Al Sharpton said on the Today show: “I think it is not really enough. It’s too little too late. This kind of use of the airwaves must be stopped .... It’s not about Don Imus. This is about the use of public airwaves, the use of advertising dollars.”
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18035749/)

Sharpton's last line presents the quagmire - while the use of public airwaves is something we should concern ourselves with, who cares about the use of advertising dollars? Why should I care how Procter & Gamble spends it multi-million advertising budget? That's its problem, not mine. It's almost like Sharpton thought he was talking about an elected official and at the last moment, he inserted 'advertising dollars' where 'tax dollars' would be.

The public airwaves are a concern - given the limited number of broadcasting licenses awarded, the stations that hold them do have a responsibility to produce edifying, at least redeemable content. Right?

We've only heard about black leaders calling for Imus's removal, and then just tonight the pull-out of advertisers, but there hasn't been word about the FCC's reaction. How grievous were Imus's comments to those that rule the airwaves?

Since Imus is not an elected official who is supported by our tax dollars, is it up to the invisible hand of the market to "correct" Imus? Will advertisers head for the hills? Will those who stick it out be boycotted? Or will they gain greater exposure as this controversy drives listeners to Imus's show?

The million dollar question: Should Imus be fired? And if you're not black, do you have a right to weigh in on this question?

For the first question, I think it would be cool if Imus was not fired and did get a black cohost, as he expressed a desire for on the Today show. His ignorance could be highlighted, and he could be beaten down daily until some change takes place. Or in the presence of a black host, he might totally stick his tail between his legs, become totally boring and kill the show by decimating the entertainment value. I feel like the more talk that goes on the better, and it would be great to have this person involved in the dialogue about why what he said is so awful. My Dad has worked in human resources for a major printing company for over 30 years. He says when a dispute arises between two employees and the word 'racist' is even muttered, all dialogue ceases and attorneys are called in to take over the communication process. This just seems to lead to misunderstanding, hurt, anger and a stunting of natural communication, no matter how ugly and ungraceful it is. Imus's idiocy will be closeted and just end up a cautionary tale if he is fired. If he stays on and begins a daily conversation with a black cohost, I think some real progress might be made - people who identify with Imus's comments may learn something.

On the second question, should non-black people's opinions be weighed on whether Imus should stay or go? I took several American Indian studies courses in college, and we often discussed the mascot issue with my Oneida professors and classmates. One of my professors said that she did not care about the use of Indian mascots personally but that some people she knew were really upset by their use. And for that reason, she was against them. I thought that was a good policy. If you know some people are really upset by something and you don't really care or have an important stake in the issue, you should side with the people who are really affected by the issue. Every black person I've seen on tv (granted, I have not talked with a black person about the Imus issue) has said that Imus should go. Therefore, I think Imus should go. I know that I have no idea what it feels like to be called "nappy-headed". I also know that I don't know what it feels like that my ancestors were enslaved in my own country. Or if my grandfather were lynched (like a pastor I know).

So my personal hope is that Imus is kept on so there can be talk about how awful it is what he said. But that hope falls to my second belief, that whoever was hurt by Imus should have the larger say in what happens to him.

News outlets covering themselves - that's you, CNN and WGN

2007-04-07T18:44:00.000-07:00

This week CNN had a shooting in its own building and Tribune Co. was bought by a Chicago real estate billionaire - leading two news outlets to look back at themselves for stories.

The CNN thing was pretty bad, I thought. I watched a bit of CNN and then clicked through a slideshow on their Web site to learn more. On TV two hosts interviewed one of their own correspondents - a young brunette woman - and she sounded so stupid. She seemed like a teenage girl who dramatizes everything when she gossips with her friends. I understand that she was on the show to tell what it was like for her to be in the building when the gunshots went off, but she gestured with her hands so much, was so annoying and made little or no mention of the real tragedy that I don't think I'll be able to forget this when I see her reporting next time. The slideshow was also melodramatic. It was some non-telling pictures with the somber voices of CNN employees (reporters) talking about what it was like for them - poor, poor, pitiful them. Very little was mentioned about the woman who was killed. It seemed like they tried to make a story about them and their firsthand experiences rather than the real tragedy. I think they should have just covered the shooting and its serious ramifications and left the CNN reporters' firsthand experiences up to my imagination, lest I lose respect for them (as I did).

The Tribune story has been covered most interestingly to me by our own Jon Weinstein. He got some time with a WGN radio host and a Trib business reporter for the Northwestern News Network. He asked what the acquisition by Zell would mean for their reporting. Most of the coverage by WGN and Chicago Tonight that I've seen has been about the employee stock ownership plan and other business/financial stuff. That's pretty sad. I'm not sure a station can accurately cover itself (without looking bad like CNN did to me) or if the story is too tough to cover because what reporter is going to honestly share his/her feelings with the media? But it's worth a shot like Jon took.

I think this crazy time at Medill is a real story. What's going on with our school? Are we going to lose broadcast clients in DC? Are our deans competent? Honest with us? Why is Jon Petrovich leaving? Why is a journalism school being led by a businessman? This is a story I would love to read. But I know I would never comment to a reporter on my dissatisfaction unless my name was not used. I'm sure everyone - students and faculty alike - would be the same way. A news outlet can't really cover itself well, and there's no way people inside would give outside media anything good.

When the news makes the news

2007-04-07T15:53:00.000-07:00

I had to do a double take when I signed online and saw the CNN acronym in the text of the top story on my CNN.com homepage. Rarely does a news organization make news on its own website. I actually surfed to another website before I realized something strange had happened. I clicked back to CNN.com and read the story; it was pretty shocking.

Although this story didn't actually involve a news personality, the shooting happened at CNN Center in Atlanta, which has heavy security throughout the building. I was shocked to think something like this can happen anywhere at anytime. Although it's not exactly the same scenario, it got me thinking about how dangerous the news business can be.

I actually thought about one story in particular. The station in Texas where I interned experienced a tragedy about a year before I was there. http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=1929526&nav=0s3dNqpV

A photograher died istantly while setting up for a live shot.
"The photographer of station KBTX was feeding video from his truck to the station. A reporter and two interns were in the van as Moore lifted the mast, and the truck became charged. "

I was a journalism student with one of the interns that was at the live shot when this happened- needless to say she did not end up going into the business.

While this incident was somewhat of a freak accident, many other injuries and deaths that happen to journalists occur when they are out on stories that they already know are dangerous. Every day thousands of journalists risk their lives to cover the war in Iraq and many other stories in war-torn and otherwise unsafe areas. We, as the viewing public, should appreciate the efforts of these brave individuals who take these risks so that we can have first-hand acocunts of some of the most important stories happening in our world.

When I think about this, I think immediately of Bob Woodruff. What a terrible incident but what an amazing and miraculous recovery. To think of what he has been through, I don't know if I could take the same risk he, and other journalists, have. Although I have such an immense passion for journalism, I'm not sure if I would risk my life for the sake of a story. And I don't blame other journalists who feel the same way. But I am so very thankful for those brave journalists who are willing to put their life on the line so that these important stories can be told.

Nepotism in the News Business

2007-04-07T10:55:00.000-07:00

In the Friday edition of the Chicago Sun-Times an article was written titled "Heirs to the Airways."---a list of Chicago anchors/reporters that are related and working in the same city doing the same job. While I was not shocked to see the names--after having interned at all the stations here--I already knew who would be on this list. Of course, I expected to see the Ponce's (Phil--my former and unforgettable instructor at Loyola and his son and my friend Dan--also a Medill graduate!), the Jigget clan and then Karen Jordan and her father. But what struck me about all of these reporters is the Nepotism involved. And, the question immediately arose, is television news really about talent, or is more who you know? And, exactly, just when do those helping hands start coming into play?--even if you are not a television heir. Or, how do you get these helping hands?

I was always taught that hardwork was the only road to success. The usual, pay your dues type of atmosphere. Start in a small market, work like a dog and hope for the best that dumb luck finds its way to your door step. But in some of these cases, I just do not think some of these HEIRS paid their dues like other on-air hopefuls do and continue to do. Like other fellow students here at Medill, I am the professional intern--having spent grueling days at stations logging tape, printing scripts and being some reporter's gopher--Building up a resume, making contacts, getting my name out there, etc. But reality has to set in at some time---the likelihood that I will make it back to report in my hometown of Chicago (market #3) in 5 years or less is more or less a pipe dream. But, some how, these heirs have done it over and over again. But, in their defense, two of the aboved named are Medill graduates--s0 hats off to them that they survived methods and that they had the talent to be here ( But I also am sure with who their parents are---recommendations came easy!). However, I just cannot imagine how horrible it must be to have talent as a reporter and to see someone get promoted to market #3 because they have the family connection to ensure their tape gets into the right hands.

While it does not anger me--because I know I would help anyone in my family get ahead--it does leave me with a bitter feeling toward television news. But then again, isn't Hollywood the same? After all, Angelina Jolie is the daughter of Jon Voight, the Scheen boys and their dad Martin, Nicholas Cage's uncle is Francis Ford Coppola and Kate Hudson is the daughter of Goldie Hawn--just to name a few. But, as a matter of fact, isn't any profession the same with nepotism?-- But all I keep thinking after reading this article is that the best connections we can make are here at Medill and will Medill alums.

But on a positive note, I would not be here at Medill if it was not for a few of the above mentioned people. Had Phil Ponce, Karen Jordan, Harry Porterfield, Dorothy Tucker and Dan Ponce not taken the time to lend me a helping hand--whether it have been for writing or for a recommendation--I know that my career in this business would have been over before it started. And while all parents want to see their children get ahead, these people, especially the Ponce's and the Jordan's, will always have open arms to people who are striving to get into their business. I only wish that my father or mother was an on-air television personality---because the road that lies ahead will be longer and harder for me that it was for these television heirs.

So, I guess my point is this, while Medill can be competitive, most of us are not heirs. But what we can do and should do is band together to help each other network. Once we graduate and go our own ways, we will always be bound by Medill and that is one family we can always belong to. If we cannot even lend each other helping hands, who else will?

Libby trial put bloggers on the map…

2007-04-07T09:58:00.000-07:00

I first heard about the MBA on NPR prior to the start of the Libby trial. The MBA made history (journalism history?), when for the first time, bloggers were credentialed to cover a federal criminal trial.

Some sources dispute that assertion, saying bloggers have covered other trials before, most notably the Enron trial. I had an opportunity to speak to Robert Cox, president of the MBA, last quarter. He pointed out an important distinction. There were blogs about those trials. “Reporters credentionaled from their paper did blog it,” he said. “[but] they weren’t credentialed as bloggers.”

The question for us aspring journalists then is, whether there is any difference? Has the Libby trial elevated bloggers up to par with traditional journalists? Is the coverage by an independent blogger better than a traditional story or just unique (blog-to-print comparison)? And..how do blogs of traditional reporters as good as those of stand-alone bloggers (blog-to-blog comparison)? Finally, what does it all mean for us aspiring traditional journalists?

I certainly won’t attempt to answer those questions in this blog, in case you were fast-scrolling down.

But my first impression is that independent bloggers tend to be more opinionated, with obvious political leanings. They appeal to people who share their passion and particular perspective. It’s mighty difficult for an average person browsing the Internet to jump in the middle of a blog series and understand the what, when, where, whys of the news story itself. In a regular print or broadcast story, those essential details are repeated in every story following the initial breaking story.

Mark Obbie, a professor of journalism and media law at Syracuse University, said in an interview “If bloggers pretend that they are a replacement of the NYtimes article, they are kidding themselves.”

But he did acknowledge that “When a blog is done well, bloggers can dig much deeper into the facts and the maneuver in the courtroom…You get into the real nitty gritty of the nuances of what this or that witnesses said and how the trial maneuvered, it’s a fascinating inside baseball.”

The audience for blogs, he said, are “junkies.”

And that, I think, is a point worth thinking about. Despite the fact that blogs are sometimes drenched with extreme-left, right or whatever opinion, can we find a way to make the news more like “inside baseball” and “fascinating” for “junkies?”

Because who wouldn’t want a loyal fan base? But then again, does that mean we’re pandering to the audience?

Ah, we’re back to the drawing board. See, I told you I won’t have an answer. But as someone once told me, it’s the question that’s important. We need to keep asking ourselves.

Geraldo: If "Ramos" was "Raminski," would we care?

2007-04-07T01:53:00.000-07:00

A personal tragedy in Virginia Beach ignited a firestorm of conflicting opinions about illegal immigration on Fox News Channel this week. Morning news shows were abuzz Friday over a shocking screaming match between Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly on the "O'Reilly Factor."

The altercation began while the pair discussed an alleged drunk driving accident that involved a suspected illegal immigrant who plowed into and killed a pair of teenage girls. Click here to watch the video.

On one side, O'Reilly claimed the incident was another sign that the United States should tighten its borders. On the other side, Rivera contended that the story was about drunk driving -- not illegal immigration. The two Fox correspondents fingerpointed and volleyed arguments vehemently, making CNN's Crossfire look like high tea.

I first stumbled upon this story on the Chicago Tribune. The article seemed interesting, but the issue only seemed blog-worthy after I watched the video. The pair's fury was almost palpable, even on the tiny three inch by three inch screen. O'Reilly's temples throbbed and his voice almost cracked with unadulterated agression. Rivera shot fire with his eyes and refused to be bullied.

O'Reilly: This guy shouldn't have been here!
Rivera: Cool your jets. I has nothing to do with illegal aliens, it has to do with drunk driving. Don't obscure tragedy to make a cheap political point!
O'Reilly: You want anarchy! You want open-border anarchy.

O'Reilly and Rivera cleary come from different backgrounds. Turns out, the latter has special ties to the issue. He reportedly told the AP that his father came to the United States from Puerto Rico as an immigrant. As reporters, we wield tremendous power. When our unique perspectives help bring a minority voice to the table, I think we have an obligation to our community to speak up. Many news stations appear semi-homogeneous: most of the newsroom comprises people who share the same skin color, the same economic status and the same privileged lifestyle. As the saying goes, we can be the difference we choose to see in the world -- even if we catch heat for it on national TV.

Are pundits using their news shows to promote a xenophobic view? If so, should moderate reporters feel responsible to temper this view point -- without seeming sympathetic to people who aren't following the law? How do you find Aristotle's Golden Mean in this situation (if that's the appropriate principle to follow)?

Global Expansion! Yay?

2007-04-06T18:14:00.000-07:00

So according to today's Chicago Tribune, Northwestern University will now have an outpost in the Middle East. And more specifically the Medill School of Journalism will be setting up a school in Qatar.

Northwestern is not the first University to take money from the Qatari government to set up a school. In fact, an institution I am rather familiar with has a medical school branch in Qatar. Cornell University, my undergraduate alma mater, opened its doors in 2004.

And for Northwestern students, I think there are a couple of potential benefits. Al-Jazeera is headquartered in Qatar, so anybody interested in interning there might be positively affected.

Spring break in Qatar anyone?

But the serious issue about opening up a journalism school in the heart of the mideast is what kind of journalism will be taught? What kind of journalism is even allowed? As far as that area of the world goes, Qatar is a pretty liberal place, but let's not fool ourselves. Woman do not enjoy full rights, and up until recently men would feel uncomfortable wearing shorts.

The country has been ruled by a small group of people, one family, for a long time. And though Al-jazeera is an example of free press, there is no First Amendment in Qatar. There are no guarentees that the government won't step in tomorrow and shut the place down. And there is certainly no guarentee in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria of a free press.

In fact according to the non-partisan group Freedom in the World, Qatar is rated "Not Free" as a country. It scores low for both political rights and civil liberties.

Is the Arab world ready for someone like a Medill student who feels they have a right to complain about and question everything, from politics to curriculum? I don't even know if Medill is ready for this right here in Evanston.

So what's the point? What is the motivation for this?

Well this would be an all expense paid deal for Northwestern University. The Qatari Foundation (i.e. the government) will pay for everything, from buildings to faculty. The school will be located in Qatar's "Education City". Where Cornell, VCU and Georgetown among others house their schools.

Speaking of Cornell, they received a "gift" from Qatar for opening a medical school in the country. The amount is undisclosed.

Is this about money or journalism?

I don't know, but I am exceedingly wary about a journalism school being set up and paid for entirely by a government. Any government.

I don't like posing all these open ended questions, but I don't know the answers to them and I'm not sure anybody would be forthcoming with them. Or at least answers that I totally believed.

And all this is for 50 or 60 students to get a Medill degree while not even attending the actual University.

Look I understand the promise of this opportunity and I think it could be quite beneficial for Medill in a lot of ways.

I'm just not sure now is the time or that Qatar is the place for this kind of expansion.

Speaking the same language through a different screen with different rules

2007-04-06T14:12:00.000-07:00

The Newspaper Association of America reports that newspaper Web sites averaged 57.3 million visits a month during the latter half of 2006. According to Nielsen//Net Ratings, that covers roughly a third of all internet users, representing a 15 percent increase from the year before, when newspaper Web sites were averaging 49.8 million visits a month. Data from Scarborough Research also showed newspaper Web sites responsible for a 13.7 percent increase in total newspaper audience for the age 25-34 demographic and a 9.2 percent increase for the 18-24 bracket.

With media companies scrambling to boost newspaper circulation and television news, these numbers further solidifies the internet's growing presence in the changing news market. However, while the medium is changing, plenty of things have not.

It's worth noting that the eight most popular news sites on the web (according to comScore Media Metrix) were founded or co-founded by major newspaper and broadcast companies predating the internet as we know it. The two main exceptions are AOL News and Yahoo! News, and both cull a majority of their news from other established media outlets, from CNN to the New York Times.

I'm not sure how many producers would prefer to do news stories that most people will see in a window smaller than a wallet, but at this point, resistance may be useless.

But then again, why would you want to resist? During our first Chicago Broadcast lecture, Prof. Bennett talked about the differences between television broadcasts and web broadcasts, and time and time again, she mentioned different expectations. You work in television, there's a formula to follow, there are conventions that few want or at least try to break; it's a very conservative medium.

With web broadcasts, it's much freer, so much that professionals are being outperformed by amateurs and even professional outlets like local television stations allow the web portion of their broadcasts to look casual in comparison. However, this has more to do with the medium's age than anything inherent in it.

I'm not suggesting or even implying we should all drop out of broadcast and join new media, because like I said, most news coverage on the web is essentially broadcast. It may not be seen on a TV, but the tools are the same; even better, one doesn't have to deal with the same, conservative expectations of television broadcasts.

Broadcast companies are definitely exploring the potential; on Monday, Emily Steel reported in the Wall Street Journal that MSNBC is following CNN's lead in developing more original video and reporting for its website.

Power of Picture

2007-04-06T07:24:00.000-07:00

Radio show host Ira Glass has gotten me to think about the power of videography.

This American Life is delving into visuals. This American Life has been a radio show on Chicago Public Radio for a long time and features the lives of everyday people. It’s a time when normal citizens tell their stories, and the listeners are inspired, humored or sometimes disheartened. The new television series recently debuted on Showtime network and follows the same format as the radio show.

Being a faithful NPR listener, my dad received a sneak peek DVD of This American Life's new TV series, which he then gave to me to watch.

The DVD features a man and his love for his pet and business partner-- a bull named Chance. Eventually (to sum up the story) after a cloning and a couple attacks, the man ends up with 80 stiches in his crotch and fractured spine.

“I’m going to walk out of here tomorrow or the next day and get right back out there and give him a bucket of feed. I mean that’s what you have to do. If it was easy, there’d be a bunch of kids out there taking care of bulls.” he says. He’s talking from the heart. His voice is compelling.

But seeing the man’s face adds another dimension. When the man’s quote is played again with video, we see that the man is in a hospital bed. He has gray hair and dark circles around his eyes. His eyes look down every so often and a look on his face betrays to us that he might talk tough, but he’s worn out.

Despite my skepticism at first, I think the show will succeed because of its innovation.

Like the radio show, the anecdotes that are told are true-stories. They're presented in a way that is a mix between films and typical news packages. Ira Glass narrates the stories and the story is driven by the interviews and the visuals. But the stories transcend the norm. The interviews aren’t conducted against a studio backdrop, music and sounds affects are added in at times and the narration is much more casual.

Surprisingly, the cinematographic elements in the story are as impressive as the narrative itself. Another example is a story that was inspired by a Death Cab for Cutie music video. The stories are sometimes shot wide-screen; There are scenes where still graphics are layered on top of each other to add more movement.

It was good-timing in terms of watching this DVD. Working on a Web cast this week, our group had to try and figure out how to get away from an ordinatry newscast and integrate more creativity into a story. I'm so used to watching local news and their typical news packages that are many times just thrown together because of deadline that I was amazed at this other way of visual story-telling. Ironically it's show that originated in radio.

Host Ira Glass says, "I had realized just how dumb I had been," when he talks about using images. I think the same applies to me and my realization that there is power to the different ways of showing pictures.

The Campaign Challenge

2007-04-05T22:46:00.000-07:00

The polls for the 2008 presidential election may not open up for another year-and-a-half but you'd never know that by watching television news. Television stations and cable outlets have already commenced their wall-to-wall campaign coverage.

As presidential hopefuls such as John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, John McCain and Mitt Romney have already started making the rounds in Iowa and New Hampshire, the media has been there every step of the way.

Last week, Elizabeth Edwards' struggle with cancer seemed to be the top of most news broadcasts and just yesterday the media switched its focus to campaign fundraising as Clinton and Barack Obama revealed the enormous amount of money they both have received through contributions already.

The Associated Press recently reported that this year’s campaign stories through Feb. 27 have used 95 minutes of coverage on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts. This is not counting the campaign coverage on 24-hour cable news networks.

Furthermore, according to the AP, the network coverage this year spans more time than in comparable periods for the previous four presidential election cycles combined.

I have to stop and ask...is every campaign stop newsworthy? So what if Clinton was in Michigan kissing babies, shaking hands, and giving the latest version of the same old campaign speech? Candidates are media trained and have a team of professionals crafting their every move.

In what is shaping up to be the longest presidential campaign season ever--how can we as journalists dig beneath the painted on smiles and keep the important issues relevant? Our biggest struggle will be finding the freshest take on the same old campaign news.

I've seen too many stories on the mundane life details of the presidential hopefuls. I can tell you Mitt Romney's favorite food and where John Edwards' likes to vacation, but I know very little about their voting records on a number of issues. I want to see more informative stories about their previous political decisions.

However, conversely, I don't want to see a repeat of the Dan Rather swift boat disaster, where one network's quest for the scoop led to extreme embarrassment, not to mention the demise of a few careers.

Don't rely on the campaign stops in and of themselves to produce news. In every interview and at every speech, you can almost guess what you are going to hear from the candidates, where is the news in that?