Media protection held up by energy bill

Proponents of the media shield law will have to wait a little longer to realize national protection against having to divulge their sources. While not defeating the bi-partisan measure, they failed to act on it and it therefore might appear during the fall session. Supposedly they failed to act because they wanted to focus on the energy bill. Hmm. We'll see if anything gets done with that either.

The more probable scenario is it will be reintroduced after the election, since the Bush administration has posted numerous letters from congressional personnel objecting to the bill on its Department of Justice Office Of Public Affairs site. Of course, everything is in the interest of national security.

There seems to be some agreement on a substitute version to make it easier for intelligence officers to prosecute leaks of classified information and narrow the definition of journalist.

The version that people are agreeing on, but not voting on, would define journalist to cover only those who gather information with the intention of publishing it-supposedly distinguishing bloggers and freelance journalists who are legitimate from those who aren't. But I'm not sure it wouldn't cover bloggers and freelance journalists. Here are some definitions in the bill:

(2) COVERED PERSON- The term `covered person'--

(A) means a person who is engaged in journalism;

(B) includes a supervisor, employer, parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate of a person described in subparagraph (A); and ...to complete the whole section would be too long, so I'll just shorten it to say it does not cover terrorists or foreign agents,etc.)


(5) JOURNALISM- The term `journalism' means the regular gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.

Bloggers and freelancers can most certainly qualify under these definitions.

Regardless, federal action should be taken to provide uniform protections and constraints against the press through such a law. Right now, it's up to each state and each judge in each courtroom. That's hard to manage without a Supreme Court ruling. There are too many interpretations, journalists aren't sure which state or local law they could be held under.

Well, here's a clash of old and new media rules. Product placement on the news. We've seen bits and pieces of product placement in the past on entertainment shows such as American Idol showing coke and Numbers depicting Dannon yogurt (I think that's what it was). But we haven't before seen product placement on the news. What's next? TV news desk people wearing clothes with big logos on them? Will television sets begin to look like race cars with a gazillion ads on them? Are newscasters now walking advertisers? Are the backdrops on the sets going to be electronic advertising boards?

This blurs that line between objectivity and sponsorship. Granted, McDonald's has to advertise (well, maybe not) and the only way news media can make money is to sell advertising space because they can't produce the news for free.

But what happens when the news has to report a discrimination case against McDonald's or a hot coffee lawsuit or a you served me trans fat products and now I'm fat lawsuit? Credibility will be at stake. What's to keep a regular viewer from saying, they're not telling us everything because the advertising revenue would suffer if they told a story damaging to an advertiser. The news media might say they would still broadcast the story regardless, but the perception, and it's all about perception isn't it, will be otherwise.

Will journalism go the way of the newspaper?

Three media conglomerates reported huge drops in net revenue for the first quarter of 2008, with Lee Enterprises, Inc. as the loss leader with an 84-percent drop in net income. Lee, McClatchy and E.W. Scripps are all reporting cost-cutting strategies: staff cuts, cutting newsprint consumption and reducing other expenses. They all blame declining ad revenue and the economy and predict no improvements to their bottom lines until the overall economy improves.

Leading the way in cost reductions, as usual, is staff cuts. Most notably cuts will probably be made in newsrooms, resulting in less original content. A new survey showed almost 70 percent of small newspapers cut staff by between 1 and 20 percent, with 49 percent of the papers cutting between 10-19 percent of staff. Staff cuts at 76 percent of big papers were between 1-20 percent with most (54 percent) of papers cutting 10-19 percent of staff.

Despite the cuts, editors continue to say strong journalism and a good business model are the keys to survival: “Excellent journalism, strong investment to stay on the cutting edge of technology and aggressive marketing of the product,” said Gage, special projects editor at Journal-World.

Reporters will be expected now to take up the slack. They are expected to write content for print, web, special web sites, television stations the paper might own or be affiliated with, web television and instant news services, packages of brief news stories for Internet subscribers through the day. This in addition to taking her own pictures or video and recording sound, editing pictures and content, posting and uploading for dissemination, fact checking and maybe even page layout.

Editors surveyed said they were already paying the price for the new way of producing news. “I read the stories (in my own paper) today and I see more holes, questions I want answered that are not,” lamented one editor. “I see more stories…that aren’t as well sourced as I prefer.”

So, is this the journalism we prefer? Is this acceptable? Will strong journalism be sacrificed to immediate 24/7 news that might not be true and/or probably doesn’t probe into the nuances that would make the story more clear? I’m afraid so. I’m hoping someone can provide glimmers of hope for the lowly journalist.

Something stinks in bloggerland

I didn't get invited to the Netroots Nation conference. I guess I'm not influential enough: I haven't raised any money for any politician on my blogging site. Nor have I endorsed any particular candidate for any office. It seems to me there is something rather incestuous about political campaigners wooing bloggers and bloggers making themselves available to be wooed by them. Obviously, bloggers have proven they can accomplish serious online fundraising and that makes them a target, which is why campaigners (Democrat and Republican and any other party for that matter) are seeking them out.

However, if political bloggers claim they should be given the same status as mainstream press and allowed access to meetings and other events just like the mainstream press and they want to have the same legal protections in the courts of law, then partisan politics and fundraising doesn't help their cause, it doesn't make them look like impartial media. They claim they are just giving another side of the news, political or other news, than the mainstream press that otherwise would not get out there. That's all well and good, and probably true. However, if the blogging nation wants to be seen as rising above politics and being known, like the press, as watchdogs over the government realm, then this kind of elbow rubbing is the wrong way to do it. Bloggers are seeking both to be considered as the press but not be tied by the same restrictions as the press. They can't have it both ways.

A true press is not affiliated with a party or politician and doesn't purport to take a position on any issue. Mainstream press plays a mediator of or funnel through which information flows for the public. If bloggers think they can do a better job, then hobnobbing with politicians certainly gives an opposite perception. Raising funds for politicians seems to not be what a press is all about, not even an alternative press.

At the Netroots Nation conference, a democratic contender for the Kentucky Senate provided a "Something Stinks in Washington" air freshener for conference goodie bags. It seems something stinks in bloggerland as well.

Microsoft doth protest too much

It seems to be so easy to talk out of two sides of your mouth when you're making billions of dollars. There is something just slightly disengenous about Microsoft's complaints at the hearings on a proposed advertising hook up between Yahoo and Google. For Microsoft to say on Tuesday that the Yahoo/Google combo as "anti-competitive" when they have done so much to crush competition and create as much of a monopoly as they can is outrageous. Then on Wednesday they are meeting with AOL/Time Warner in an effort to ward off Carl Icahn by making another big monopoly. And they have the nerve to call Carl Icahn (whom I totally hate for what he did to the airline industry) an agitator. This is all such maneuvering, it's impossible to fathom.

Who does Microsft think it is fooling? Just be honest and quit crying anti competitive when you practically wrote the book on it.

Opt in or out for web tracking organizations

Well, I am relieved someone is looking out for those of us on the web. According to WSJ, Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.) is saying we need to allow customers to consent to have our online activities on the tracked. I agree with him. I'd like some say in whether or not I want to be a part of someone's data collection. We already have the mechanisms in place for opting in for telephone and cable hook ups. It's time we stop giving away all our information and stop having Big Brother advertisers watching us all the time.

Fighting fire with information

What's happening with the California fires is horrible, but there is a wonderful story out of Big Sur. Here's a good way the digital world is having an immediate impact to make lives better. It's prophetic, I think of the way we will communicate on a community level when some major disaster occurs.
While what this site is doing is very altruistic and community minded, what the web site's very existence raises, however, is a question of the digital divide. What about those who can't afford to have access to a computer, Blackberry, telephone or other digital device? Does this kind of communicating still give power to the few who have the tools?
What do we do about making today's technology available to everyone? Should access to the Internet be a right?