Divided they fall

The 2008 Journalist Survey, conducted by the Pew project for excellence in Journalism and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, indicates a growing divide in the news industry. http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/journalist%20report%202008.pdf?cat=2&media-3

It’s not, as in years past, that journalists are resisting the expansion of the Web. It’s not that journalists see bloggers taking over the role of journalism and diminishing the values at the same time. It's not that consumers have more options on how to get their news.

What journalists see as the crisis in the industry is the influence of economics: staffing cuts in the newsrooms; covering fewer things; and what journalists perceive as a broken economic model.

The real problem for the industry is that their executives don’t agree. The survey shows reporters give their leaders a very different ranking than they give themselves. “Just 12 percent of national reporters and six percent of local gave their leaders a rating of excellent. Over half of executives offered this highest mark about themselves.”

“Even greater divides exist over the influence of corporate owners in story selection. Reporters were five to six times as likely to say that corporate owners had a great deal of influence over coverage versus not a single national executive and 2 percent of local executives.”

Divisions between management and its workers is not new. And, it’s long been known that journalists are a skeptic lot and naturally distrust their employers more than normal. But the spate of corporate takeovers and monopolies in the industry has amplified that division. The sacredness of the bottom line is in direct conflict with the sacredness of journalistic values and serving the public.

If the public is going to be served by the efforts of the news media in the way the media purports to want to serve the public, then management and worker bees better find ways not only to bridge these emotional divides but work together to bring innovation to their newsrooms that all can be proud of.

Taking WSJ to task

Today's Wall Street Journal has an editorial about the nuclear disclosure provided by North Korea that complains that North Korea hasn't really told us anything about its nuclear endeavors. I wonder why, if the editors have such angst about the lack of disclosure by N. Korea, why didn't they give the story more play.

The main article was on page A7 (sorry, I can't link to it) while the editorial was on page A12. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121452352574509029.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Why wasn't the story given better play? Say, instead of the Race and crash demolition derby on page 1, put the nuclear story. Surely, the nuclear story has more importance, especially if the editors deem it necessary to devote hard-earned ink to writing editorials. How about newspapers tell us the news instead of editorializing it? I've found this problem in a lot of smaller, less prestigious newspapers, but I would think WSJ would do better.

If editors care enough to write editorials, the subject matter ought to be about some story they've told us about first. Hiding behind the editorial pages smacks of lack of its own investigative reporting. Here the WSJ did cover it, but I would have expected the story to be on the front page instead of the smash derby story.

AP shift to Web: good or bad?

With the Associated Press shifting more emphasis for Web content as opposed to print media, members who subscribe to the services are becoming disgruntled. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121444598979205887.html) AP is beginning to tell them they have bigger fish to fry and they are shifting their reporters to other venues.

I have long been frustrated by the lack of original reporting in newspapers because everyone seems to be taking the easy way out and running AP stories. Having some AP stories is okay, but when almost every story is an AP story, I’m no longer reading my community newspaper. And when we all are reading the same thing we see on television or hearing the exact same story on radio, it distorts our perception of the story because of the lack of fresh approaches and angles.

If newspapers go back to covering stories on their own, we might get back to a diversified content that gives us a more rounded view of issues. I say, let them go to the Web. If papers put reporters back on the beat that can only be good news for the public.

The media squirmed when it should have reported

The Jena 6 case is a modern day example of how the national media failed in its social responsibilities. According to the American Journalism Review, (Feb/Mar 2008) it started in August 2006 with a black student asking if he could sit under a tree frequented by mostly white students. Nooses were then found hanging from the tree. Students were suspended, but black parents felt they should have been expelled. In November a main building of the school was demolished after a fire was set by someone hoping to destroy records of bad grades, but it added to the racial tensions and was reported by various media that it was connected.

In December 2006 black students beat up a while student and were charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Marches and prayer services and rallies were held from December 2006 through May 2007. In June, one of the six black students was convicted of reduced charges. The remaining five also had their charges reduced to battery. In August 2007, Rev. Al Sharpton visited Jena; Martin Luther King III joined him. In September 2008, an estimated 20,000 people from around the nation hold peaceful rallies.

While two local papers covered the story religiously, and the AP first reported the story in early September 2006, the national papers did not pick up the story until May 20, 2007. CNN didn’t report on the story until June 25, 2008. It wasn’t until August when Rev. Al Sharpton visits that the Washington Post finally starts reporting and the other major news outlets don’t start reporting until September 15, 2008, a full year after the story started.

In its critique of how mainstream media botched the story, Raquel Christie illuminates several systemic issues surrounding today’s media. The criticisms start with the reluctance of major news outlets to cover racial issues because they are not easy. They can’t be covered with a quick and easy just the facts, inverted pyramid reporting. They require time and context, something the media isn’t willing to invest in. The lack of racial diversity in the newsroom is another symptom of the problem. “Journalism is still too white,” remarks Alice Bonner, a University of Maryland journalism professor and former Washington Post journalist.

Part of the problem was the silence of public officials; from the school board to the prosecuting attorney, the lack of “official” perspectives limited balanced reporting. Because of this, the media wound up relying on one person’s version of things: Alan Bean, co-founder and executive director of a grassroots organization designed to create scandals surrounding questionable prosecutions. But even he didn’t start trying to get the message out until April 2007.

But the media is accused of taking the easy way out, using other people’s work, not investigating from a clean slate without supposition, opinions and conclusions. The national media when it did hit, reported erroneously, inconsistently and incomplete reporting leaving out contextual facts (such as why there was an all-white jury). They are also accused of treating the story in a stereotypical manner of racial tensions.

Should it have been a national story or was this local? It is national because race relation problems are the source of much of today’s domestic conflicts, are consistently reported by the black press and conveniently ignored by the white press.

It’s no wonder the public doesn’t trust the media anymore. Mainstream media, to remain relevant, has to do a better job. That will require investments in people and time, things the corporate media offices loathe granting. And it requires a commitment to report on even the issues that make us squirm with shame.

Where have all the stories gone?

“We who wish to preserve the social responsibility functions of the press might do well to turn our attention away from the owners and investors and, instead, look to the people on the front lines who do the daily work of the profession. Whatever form the new journalism takes, it will need a plentiful supply of moral and capable journalists.”*

In a Murdoch media world, we might not see the newspaper anymore, but news will still need to be distributed in some form. What the Murdoch’s of the world need to know is they might cut away at the production of the news and its distribution, but if they cut the quality and chip away at the reason they are there in the first place, they have lost the race.

Part of the angst traditional media have against new media is any regular Joe on the street can capture news, take pictures, upload, feed and distribute it anywhere in the world. There is an elitist sense that only journalists can fulfill the watch dog role. I don’t buy that because it demeans every single person who has witnessed a story and tries to convince others there’s something wrong with the picture and effect change. However, we do need thoughtful citizen journalists capable of giving audiences perspective.

Igniting activism through informing the public has been the social responsibility role carried out by traditional media. Social responsibility is one of the key tenets of journalism. However current media seem to be unable to hold the torch up high, which gave rise to the citizen journalist. Nature abhors a vacuum. Traditional media, said citizen journalists, were so busy chasing O.J. Simpson and other stories, so busy cow-towing to the Bush administration to see through the lies and so busy making themselves the center of the news, they forgot what they were there for.

There have always been citizen journalists but they have taken their story to the mainstream press and either had the story taken from them or had it buried, never to see the light of day. What is happening now is the citizen doesn’t need the media to spread the word.

In steps the citizen journalist who not only tells the story but demands to know where was mainstream press? Why hasn’t this made front page news? Why aren’t we enraged over this abuse of power/rights/money/sex whatever? Meyer and others say that this new citizen journalist who can also take control of production and distribution will eat the traditional newspaper’s lunch. How he thinks traditional media will survive is if it finds a way of using its reputation and influence to take back of the sense of community and social responsibility by embracing technology.

The old media that survive are those who harness their good will-their influence and reputation-in a cost efficient structure without sacrificing the reputation for accuracy. I hope we meet the challenge. Someone will, that’s all that matters.

Meyer, Phillip. The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving Journalism in the Information Age. 2004. University of Missouri Press, Columbia and London. p. 227.

Is there life after hope?

I read with some discomfort the article in the Wall Street Journal about retirees who have taken up blogging ("Put it in writing" by Ronni Bennett 6/14/08 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121259672013845371.html)) and I cringed in sudden familiarity with the segment of the population to which I am sliding into and becoming what she calls an "elderblogger." Oh, God, she's talking about me!

Is it worse or better that the esteemed WSJ is turning its eyes towards this demographic that might not make it through the digital world without its help.

Although she writes that blogging can be an antidote to loneliness, she does list some bloggers who have other reasons such as learning something about yourself, vacations, humor and public policy.

I just wonder if I'm more comfortable with my self in a solitary mode than most people. I can't ever say I've been lonely in my heart. That's not to say that I would never be lonely. Most people go through that stage at least one point or other in their lives. When my husband and my son and my nine siblings die, maybe I'll be lonely, too.

This new way of communicating (not so new, maybe five years old or longer) might be opening up new avenues for us to express ourselves in ways we've not found available before. Yes, we've written journals and diaries for years and years, but what's the point if no one reads them, right. Not that anyone is reading this. But I wonder why the writer says blogging has helped her form more friendships, have deeper more personal connections than we do with our real world friends. Is that the same phenomenon as being much more open to a complete stranger than to someone you know.

I worry about the Internet being the medium through which we make connections, deeper connections if you ask Bennett. It seems counterintuitive, as she says. I worry enough that we spend too much time texting and talking through computers to another person barely a room away. What is happening to talking face to face?

For the aging, (the really aging ones, not me) loneliness is an issue and if the Internet can help relieve loneliness then I'm all for it. But blogging seems like sticking a message in a bottle and setting it out to sea and hope a message comes back to you. What is it about our human need to reach out, no matter what the medium and even if no one sends a message back. Is there life after hope?

Not Dead Yet

Okay. Forbes magazine has given newspapers the kiss of death by including the industry in a listing of the top ten fastest dying industries. They culled their information from the research firm IBISWorld. For the period ending 2012, this research firm projects newspapers will experience a 10.5 percent decline in employment, 10.5 percent in revenue and 11.5 percent in output.

But wait, there’s hope for me! Journalism isn’t going to die anytime soon! My husband will be happy I can stay employed for the next 10-15 years while he retires early. This is why I started this blog: so I have some familiarity with digital media to keep me “relevant” and employable for years to come. Because I love what I’m doing. I just have to learn more about being a mobile journalist with digital equipment from digital recorders and microphones to digital cameras hanging off both aging shoulders. And then I have to know how to get it all posted from my home computer. Won’t the publishers love me!

But are physical newspapers dead? I don’t know. The auto industry is seeing significant declines, but has the car disappeared? Not so fast. Newspapers have been around a whole lot longer than cars. Perhaps we diehards that need our physical newspaper can keep up the demand and refuse to leave our papers the same way Americans refuse to leave their cars.

Newspapers, I think, will just maintain their presence as one of the many mediums through which we the people will be able to choose to receive our news. I still like the idea of my news being filtered through an editor to make sure a story is balanced, that I read about both sides. I still want coverage of both sides in more than 10-second sound bites or one-sided blogs.

No doubt the Internet has raised our knowledge of the world exponentially. There is now so much at our fingertips. And that, to me, is one of the problems. There’s so much at our fingertips how do we know what’s credible? What’s real? What source is reliable?

That’s what editors have been doing for years. So I’ll stick with the newspapers that I can hold in my hand and continue to make those physiological connections that have etched neural pathways as deep as the Grand Canyon upon my brain.

They shoot horses don’t they?

From pancake people to horses. The metaphors are piling up (no pun intended.) Jeffrey Bezos, chairman, president and chief executive of Amazom.com, Inc. talked about changing reading behavior in an interview with Wall Street Journal’s techie Mr. Mossberg. Mossberg interviewed several well-known uber-techies in the All Things Digital special section of Monday’s WSJ. In “The Way We Read,” Bezos talks about the electronic book device called Kindle being marketed (Where? They don’t have any around here) worldwide.

Mossberg asks if books are going to be facing a decline in people needing the physical, tactile touch of books and newspapers. Bezos responds: “Over some time horizon, books will be read on electronic devices. Physical books won’t completely go away, just as horses haven’t completely gone away. … It’s very hard to find a technology that has remained in mostly the same form for 500 years. And anything that has stubbornly resisted improvement for 500 years is going to be hard to improve.”

When Mossberg asks about the “people who talk about the tactile feel of the book – the hard to describe intangibles around reading a paper book that you lose on an electronic device,” Bezos responds: “I’m sure people love their horses, too. But you’re not going to keep riding your horse to work just because you love your horse.”

In another article in the same All things Digital section, Rupert Murdoch speculates on the future of the printed newspaper. “…over the last 10 or 15 years, they have made every economy possible in production, with computers and so on, but not in journalism. Now they have to turn to journalism and they are going to deteriorate tremendously.”

What we need is a rebellion. Am I so far left behind that I can’t see the writing for the horses a..? Murdoch goes on to say papers might last another twenty or thirty years, but there is a huge opportunity for a paper for the 10 percent most influential, most affluent, best educated people in the community.” It’s all going on the Web, according to Murdoch.

I just can’t see myself getting all my reading the news solely on an electronic device. I don’t want to carry a Kindle in my bag as I commute back and forth to work. I don’t want to prop myself up in my bed (my husband calls the set up a throne) and dump a Kindle on my chest or belly and read from it. So what if I can download a gazillion books? I only need one, the one I’m reading. Besides what would I do with all the space now taken up by my bedside book piles?

As a member of the market segment that is going to be the majority of the population (at least in the U.S.) within the next ten years, I say companies have to wake up to the demographics and keep on providing and improving upon the technologies that got them where they are today and not dispose of them like a horse, put out to pasture and called only when someone wants to pet it. I don’t know about any of you, but I will keep demanding what suits me physically – for my eyes and hands to partake when I want to be comfortable, not seated at a computer. I will be the horse that stubbornly resists for the next 500 years. Do they call that a mule? Okay, I’m a mule. Join me as we stand our ground.

A question for our times

A question for our times

“Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet it doing to our brains” by Nicholas Carr is a fascinating articulation of what many of us have dreaded about the digital age. It’s why many of us purist readers who need to hold the newspaper or book in our hands have dreaded the onslaught of the Internet. The article is printed in the July/August 2008 issue of The Atlantic Monthly.

Whether you agree or not with the concerns, as journalists and other professionals responsible for the dissemination of information, we would be wise to look at how the Internet is changing the way we process information.

Maybe I’m just old fashioned, but as a reporter covering education and government, I have harbored the same concerns about what the Internet is doing to the way we process information. There’s just too much of it! And how do we put it all in context?

In the article, Carr says, “And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles.” He cites Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist, and others’ concerns that the “media or other technology we use in learning to read play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains.”

And I thought it was just me! I thought the chipping away of my capacity for concentration and contemplation was just a sign of my advancing age!

Educators in the schools that I cover today are beginning to question why they should invest in teaching the alphabet, or even teaching handwriting to kindergarten and first graders, when it is assumed by most that everything will be done on a computer. So why invest the time and staff? Teach them keyboarding as early as possible! Parents are actually complaining that handwriting and spelling and all those skills are unnecessary for tomorrow’s workforce and are a waste of taxpayer money.

Carr concludes with a frightening picture of society: that we will be so overloaded with snippets of information (whether important or not) “we risk turning into pancake people – spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.”

We see it already in the media. The 30 second sound bite or video shot is now the 10 second sound bite or video. The 20 inch story is now the 10 inch story, with bigger pictures. We are losing our ability to focus our thought.

I also worry that with this inability to focus and the modification of our neural circuitry, we lose the ability to put things in the context of memory, allow our imaginations to make associations and allow us to reflect upon how those words are affecting us, allowing us to feel our emotions.

This is what worries me most: Is the instant and constant information creating a society unable to connect to ourselves and one another emotionally? Will the removal of our tactile senses by reading on a computer screen and writing using the keyboard strip away part of our very humanity?

Atlantic Monthly Article

I'll be writing about the article in the just released Atlantic Monthly magazine entitled "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" I hope to share some insights with all of you.