Neditor

Return to the Blogosphere: Wildfires and Facebook

2007-11-05T22:24:00.000-08:00

Two posts caught my eye in the blogosphere this week and I wanted to share them with you all. I also posted some of my thoughts on these sites, and have included a copy of the comments below. My first stop was Brian Lowry's column at Variety. Lowry is the trade magazine’s chief television critic and previously reported for the Los Angeles Times. This past week he wrote about two media trends he observed during the heavy coverage (left) of the recent wildfires throughout Southern California. First, Lowry argues that many in the national media make assumptions about the culture of the region, and these surface as stereotypes when the reporting begins. Second, Lowry found it hard to take local television seriously during the disaster, as such outlets usually focus on coverage of celebrities and scandal. You can find my response posted here. I then browsed over to Henrik Örnebring’s “Doctor of Journalism” blog. Örnebring is a research fellow at the University of Oxford and primarily blogs about European journalism. However, I think his recent post about the portrayal of journalists via Facebook groups (below) is relevant around the world. Örnebring notes that while such groups on the social networking site are usually tongue-in-cheek, they still promote an outdated image of journalists as alcoholic hacks desperate for a story. My comment can be found here.

------

Cross-post of Variety comment:
Brian, I enjoyed this post on “Things We Learned in the Fire.” However, much of your argument for Part I is drawn from a small handful of anecdotes, which is unfair given the great number of hours of airtime devoted to covering the fires. I do not think that national fire coverage featured any type of “condescending attitude” overall. While Glenn Beck’s comments were certainly out of line, other networks like CNN and NBC stationed several reporters throughout the region to respectfully cover a story of loss and peril. Conversely, Don Lemon’s “little quip” was probably appropriate for that story given Qualcomm Stadium’s success when it came to accommodations for evacuees. When it comes to Part II, I think viewers had an easy time forgetting celebrity news when they were faced with fires raging across the Southland. I agree that local news is indeed sliding towards the “Extra” tabloid format, but your post skipped over reporters who worked twelve-hour days on the front lines, getting information for the many who had been forced from their homes. While it is easy for us to critique media coverage, I imagine residents caught in the thick of it were able to “take talent seriously” when it was their homes and pets in the balance.

------

Cross-post of “Doctor of Journalism” comment:
Henrik, thank you for this entertaining post. As a university student studying journalism, I have perused many of the Facebook groups you mention, though I never stepped back to consider the message such factions send. However, it is important to remember that most of these groups were created for tongue-in-cheek self-mockery, with creators going so far as to create journalistic caricatures of themselves. As you justly point out, most of the traits celebrated by the groups (a “hard-hitting, carousing, adventurous, carousing, frontline, techno-phile”) are indeed myths and do not truly reflect the diversity of today’s young journalists. I think it is a curious point that as these “myths of journalism” age, their ethereal presence is only bolstered. For a generation that hates to be pigeonholed, why support a group that lumps all journalists into one outdated stereotype? Perhaps the image of boisterous, alcoholic, male reporters is more entertaining than anything else. However, I am curious about the networking implications of such groups. You note the growth of serious groups (usually centered on a common employer), but do you believe these more casual groups offer any benefits of networking among members likely to be future colleagues?

FEMA Briefing: A Heck of a Press Conference

2007-10-29T23:50:00.001-07:00

With wildfires raging across Southern California last Tuesday, cable networks Fox News and MSNBC (below) broke into their coverage to broadcast a live press briefing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Harvey Johnson, a deputy administrator, took the podium to update the public on the government’s response to the devastating blazes. However, the questions portion of the briefing featured unusually soft queries—surprising given journalists’ tendency to cross-examine the Bush Administration in the years since the Hurricane Katrina disaster. According to a USA Today article, off-camera voices in the room asked questions such as “Sir, we understand the secretary and the administrator of FEMA are on their way out there. What is their objective?” and “Sir, there are a number of reports that people weren't heeding evacuation orders and that was hindering emergency responders. Can you speak a little to that, please?”

The problem is that these voices were not those of Washington reporters. They were of FEMA employees attending the briefing, lobbing softball questions to their boss. Journalists were unable to make it to the briefing because FEMA announced the conference less than 15 minutes before it began. The agency did create a 1-800 number reporters could call to listen to the conference, though it was not configured to allow for questions. While the conference itself was uneventful, reaction was overwhelmingly negative as word came out that the event was staged. White House Press Sectary Dana Perino said, “It's not something I would have condoned, and they, I'm sure, will not do it again." Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security (the department overseeing FEMA) was even harsher, saying “"I think it was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I've seen since I've been in government.” FEMA has since apologized and explained that it wanted to get information out as quickly as possible. When reporters did not make it in time, employees felt obligated to pose “questions” instead. CBS’s Bob Schieffer said in his weekly commentary that Chertoff should get rid of these employees all together and then “explain to the new people that the best way for a disaster relief agency to get good publicity is to do a good job helping disaster victims.” Since then, John Philbin, head of FEMA’s public relations, has left his post. In the end, the conference did little harm to the public but proved to be a major embarrassment for the administration. If the agency was solely interested in distributing information, administrators should have just turned on the cameras and read a statement to the networks tuned in at the time. The moment that those employees off camera began with the fawning questions, the American public was deceived.

The Bush administration has faced criticism for staged media content before. A 2005 New York Times article revealed that at least 20 federal agencies had produced news stories on topics from military strategy in Iraq to farm policy. These “video news releases” were sent to local TV stations and many found their way into actual broadcasts. Out of laziness or oversight, most aired without the newscast attributing the content to the government. These segments usually included “‘interviews’ with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed.” Meanwhile, opinions from critics or government watchdogs would be notably absent from the pieces. Such tactics worked well at a time when stations were under pressure to both expand their coverage and cut costs. To fill those extra minutes on the air, a free piece with slick production and a reporter who sounds credible made a very tempting addition. Admittedly, this type of press manipulation is far more complex than the decision to fake a news conference in the fog of a regional disaster, but both illustrate the administration’s strained relationship with the media. Perhaps the besieged administration sees packaged news as the only way to get good coverage—even though the aftermath usually gets more of the attention and negates the original message.

Shielding Whom? Bloggers Left Out of Federal Bill

2007-10-22T21:38:00.000-07:00

The Free Flow of Information Act approved by the House of Representatives this past week is sparking a new debate over who is truly considered a journalist. The legislation, commonly known as the federal shield law, was first introduced in May by Representative Rick Boucher (D-Virginia). It relates to an essential tool used by seasoned broadcast and print reporters--anonymity. Journalists working on stories requiring sensitive, privileged or classified information will often grant anonymity to sources who supply details that cannot be obtained anywhere else. To the public, this is obvious when an article or broadcast piece includes attributions such as “government officials say” or “sources close to the investigations have revealed.”

Things get complicated when these anonymous sources are involved in illegal activities themselves. Authorities often try to compel journalists to reveal their sources, possibly exposing these contacts to civil and criminal prosecution. Reporters who refuse have been declared in contempt of court and sentenced to jail time. Most famously, New York Times reporter Judith Miller (left) spent eighty-five days in jail in 2005 after she refused to identify the White House official who leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. This federal shield law would “shield” reporters from penalties in most instances and protect their ability to use confidential sources. However, granting these new protections requires the government define who exactly qualifies as a journalist. Media critic Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times argues that this is a slippery slope, “The whole notion of letting the government define a journalist is abhorrent to anyone who values the 1st Amendment.” He notes a Senate committee approved a measure to vaguely define journalists as anyone actively “engaged in journalism.” Meanwhile, the House version goes with a more confining definition: "A person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain."

Rutten objects to this classification because it essentially applies only to full-time reporters working at established outlets. Bloggers and part-time “citizen journalists” would effectively be left out in the cold. While Rutten may be correct that bloggers do have a valuable role in online discourse, the conclusions of his column are slightly alarmist. The technicalities within the bill are not designed to limit free speech. All citizens retain the right to speak, blog, or broadcast freely. Rather, these new definitions limit the scope of federal protections to true professionals with a need to deal with sensitive or illegal material. Leaving the definition too broad would allow anyone having contact with individuals involved in illegal activities to claim citizen journalist protection, regardless of them ever having published works in the “public interest” or not.

While there are indeed citizen journalists involved in professional, groundbreaking and honest work, Rutten’s call to protect them would also give protection to the unprofessionals, who are rightly accused on occasion of producing cliché and sometimes misleading work. Former Silicon Valley entrepreneur Andrew Keen argues in a new book (right) that so-called “Web 2.0” technologies like interactive blogs and YouTube have led to a “cult of the amateur” that only succeeds in producing unpolished, irrelevant and uninformed commentary. While Keen's argument overlooks the groundbreaking work taking place online today, he does fairly point out that some new technologies fail to honor true expertise or wisdom. For example, sites like Wikipedia are editable by anyone--regardless of their education or experience. Meanwhile, Keen warns that changing market pressures could bring an end to the trained, full time journalist. The public would instead turn to bloggers, who Keen says are less meticulous with facts and lack the journalistic resources of large newspapers or television networks. However these bloggers, who rely on mainstream press to inspire much of their commentary, would not survive in a vacuum. In a speech earlier this fall, PBS anchor Jim Lehrer told a university audience that there will always be a role for objective, conventional journalists. Without them, he said, search engines and blogs would not have any real news content to deliver. The professional journalists are the ones feeding the news and commentary cycle at the most basic level. Lehrer shares Keen's distrust of the bloggers who attempt deliver the news, but does not agree with the author's doomsday predictions. Nevertheless, the positions taken by these two men do raise strong counterpoints to Rutten’s argument (one that groups Pulitzer Prize winning correspondents with conspiracy theorists). Professional journalists will still have jobs for the foreseeable future, but deserve some distinction from the self-appointed pundits online. While everyone is entitled to protection under the First Amendment, this federal shield law should be reserved for those seasoned professionals dealing with situations truly requiring anonymous sources.

Fox Business Channel: For the Expert or Everyman?

2007-10-06T21:20:00.000-07:00

As News Corp. prepares to launch Fox Business Channel (FBC) on October 15, there is growing speculation about the approach it will use in tackling financial news. According to Variety, the channel will try to appeal to both diehard investors and consumers interested in business. However, the article notes this has proved to be a perilous path before:

The approach, appealing to the American consumer as well as the professional investor, has been tried before, notably by CNNfn, which didn't survive the dot-com crash…. [A]nchors were once instructed to ditch the finance jargon -- "the Fed" for example -- but found they ended up talking down to their core aud[ience] of finance professionals.

The Wall Street vs. Main Street conundrum is a daily challenge for business news channels. FBC executives are promising to cut down on the financial lingo that alienates average television viewers. NBC Universal’s CNBC tilts more towards the professional set. Its daytime viewership averages around 250,000 and the channel attracts some of the wealthiest television viewers. Industry experts believe there is room for another channel.

News Corp. may already have a leg up when it comes to programming targeted towards consumers. Fox News Channel (FNC) is currently home to the top six business-themed shows on cable. Neil Cavuto’s popular “Cavuto on Business” will remain on the news channel, even as he serves as a flagship personality on the business sibling. Meanwhile, managers have tapped a variety other talent, including a Nashville radio host who specializes in personal finance.

FBC’s new logo (above) forgoes the multicolor graphics that adorn FNC. Executives from the network say the gold scheme is a hint towards the riches viewers can apparently amass by watching the channel. Perhaps this is another indication that the network is aiming for the everyday consumers – power users of CNBC probably don’t need to be reminded of their wealth. Meanwhile, promotions posted on FBC's new site (screen capture left) feature actors depicting everyday people such as a baker, voice actress and antiques dealer, each asking questions like "how am I going to send my children to college?" Each spot also reinforces a "business of life" brand.

The launch of FBC comes just months after News Corp. announced a plan to takeover the revered Wall Street Journal. Critics of that deal worried that chairman Rupert Murdoch, an Australian, would use the newspaper to further a conservative agenda while trampling its journalistic independence. However, as a piece from The Economist points out, it’s in Murdoch’s best interest to protect such a holding:

Mr Murdoch is a tabloid king who has a reputation for taking everything he buys downmarket. The Journal is the gold standard of business reporting. Mr Murdoch is one of the biggest beasts in the business jungle, constantly on the prowl for synergies and acquisitions.…If Mr Murdoch degrades the Journal, he will be destroying the very thing for which he is paying such a premium—the paper's reputation.

At the time of the deal, it was rumored that Murdoch was seeking out the Journal and its Dow Jones parent because its resources could be marshaled in the launch of an upcoming business channel. However, with this launch just days away, there are no obvious signs of any type of cross-branding between the station and the newspaper. FBC uses a distinctive logo, draws on existing FNC personalities and will cover both consumer and investor news.

The success of FBC will be interesting to watch this fall. With FNC currently at the top of cable news ratings, buzz from the older sister station could translate into strong ratings for the newcomer. However, like with the Journal, Murdoch has an incentive to keep the channel's news as apolitical as possible. Investors don’t like their business news mixed with opinion and spin.

CNBC (right) enjoyed its heyday during the bullish years of the late nineties, but market conditions are less certain now. FBC will probably see strongest growth among consumers interested in the economy and finance issues. More devout investors are probably happy with the straight-talking CNBC for now. However, FNC made waves when it jumped into the cable news market 11 years ago and has now surpassed the genre's pioneer, CNN. Could FBC enjoy the same success?

The “Media Matters” Effect: Fueling Partisan Coverage

2007-09-29T20:53:00.001-07:00

Media Matters (right) has again demonstrated its influence in parts of the mainstream media. This past week saw a three-way shouting match among the left-leaning site, CNN and commentator Bill O’Reilly. It began with O’Reilly’s comments during his September 19 radio show. The pundit described recent lunch with Reverend Al Sharpton at Sylvia’s, a black-owned restaurant in Harlem. According to a Media Matters transcript of the exchange, O’Reilly said he was surprised by the similarities between the eatery and those patronized by whites: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun." The item was posted on Media Matters the afternoon of September 21, adding to a large collection of complaints the site has against O’Reilly. By September 26, CNN picked up the story and began airing news reports asking if O’Reilly’s comments were racist. CNN anchor Rick Sanchez (left) led the charge, reporting on the fallout (much of it manufactured by CNN) and inviting guests to debate on his show. O’Reilly fired back, arguing that his comments were simply "benign" and that he was quoted out of context. On his own show, O'Reilly said “Media Matters fabricated the story, and major media outlets picked up the fabrication, trying to diminish me and the Fox News Channel.” However, during this segment he described his original words as a productive “discussion of race” without replaying the original tape.

This was not the first time O’Reilly has squared off against criticism from Media Matters. During an interview on Irish television, O’Reilly was asked about the controversy he generates in the United States. O’Reilly turned the tables, accusing the host of pulling material from the “assassination website” Media Matters. He then dodged giving a real answer, saying “I can’t possibly answer that question, I don’t know what the discussion was." O'Reilly and other pundits are understandably aggravated by Media Matters because the restaurant controversy is only one in a series brought on by the site. Last spring, the editors were responsible for bringing to light the disparaging remarks Don Imus made about the women’s basketball team at Rutgers University. Public outrage grew until Imus’s show was canceled a week later. A New York Times article noted that the Media Matters post echoed across the blogosphere so loudly that within a few days "both [Imus's] radio and television outlets were getting out 10-foot poles." But this latest ordeal with O'Reilly has only intensified the spotlight on Media Matters. The site, launched in 2004, says it is “dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” However, as this Newsday article from last year notes, the site has clear connections to Senator Hilary Clinton: "Two years ago, she advised [founder David] Brock on creating the group, encouraging the creation of a liberal equivalent of the Media Research Center, a conservative group that has aggravated Democrats for decades...[Clinton] thinks he provides a valuable service, according to people familiar with the relationship."

Critics of the site say it is out to libel any personality that does not tow the Democratic party line. Noel Sheppard, a contributing editor at the conservative media site NewsBusters, charges "Hillary and her backers have created an advocacy network whose expressed goal is to take down all of her critics in the media." Other opponents say Media Matters resorts to quoting out of context in “smear” campaigns. This is an exaggeration. While items posted on the site can become a lightning rod for controversy, they still carry an extremely professional tone and do not resort to any partisan name calling. Clips are presented far from “out of context”--transcripts of television or radio appearances can span many pages (see example here) and give readers a true idea of what preceded and followed the words in question.

The point I want to make here is twofold. First, CNN and other media outlets are obviously visiting Media Matters and using material provided there as fodder for stories. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann routinely uses material featured on the site, which in turn lands him a positive mention from the group. Media Matters has emerged as a clearinghouse for transcripts and video clips of controversial comments made by conservative hosts. Secondly, I believe this relationship hurts the reputation of the media outlets involved. Rather than monitoring O’Reilly’s show themselves, CNN seemed to wait for something juicy to rise to the top, pre-packaged by Media Matters. This type of reporting, where the network is clearly taking leads from an activist website, gives credence to critics who say the channel has a liberal bias. Consequently, O’Reilly can launch into counter-attacks about a liberal press conspiracy against him. Both sides have valid arguments here. All the while, Media Matters does a reliable job of documenting what at times can be truly vile or hateful words coming from the right. Each has a role to play along the media spectrum, but some type of firewall between the parties would go a long way towards ensuring a more civil discussion on topics as important as race.

Adventures in the Blogosphere: Rather and Petraeus

2007-09-24T23:11:00.000-07:00

In light of many important media stories in the news this past week, I decided to take a drive through the blogosphere. Two especially good posts caught my eye, and I wanted to take the opportunity to respond with my own comments. I’ve included copies of these comments below, along with permalinks which will lead you to the external sites.

My first visit was to BuzzMachine, a popular blog about both mainstream and online media. It is written by Jeff Jarvis, an associate professor at City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism. He’s been published across a variety of media, and is an occasional guest on cable news. His posts are usually detailed, thoughtful and eclectic.

In light of the lawsuit by Dan Rather (left) against CBS for violating his contract, Jarvis published a scathing post knocking down many of Rather’s assertions. I found the piece to hit several points dead on, and my comment can be found here.

Secondly, I visited MediaMatters, a progressive media watchdog group. Last week’s column by senior fellow Eric Boehlert looked at the media’s coverage of the “General Betray Us” newspaper ad (right) placed by MoveOn.org. Boehlert has written for Salon.com and has covered media and politics extensively. However, just as I was finishing my reply, the comment thread for this post was archived and new posts are no longer accepted.

-----

Cross-Post of “Buzz Machine” comment:

Jeff,

This was a rather blistering post, but I think it speaks for how a lot of journalists and others in the media are feeling. Mr. Rather is unwilling to admit there was a mistake, and even contends his apology was forced. He is blowing his own journalistic horn at the same time claiming distance from the fact checkers and others who played a part in the 60 Minutes error.

I agree with you that suing for $1 would have the same point of principle without making Mr. Rather appear even more greedy and egotistical. He is clearly at the end of his career and this latest stunt only further sours his reputation.

However, I was wondering if you think there is any credence to Rather’s complaints about corporate media ownership. In his “Larry King Live” interview, he warned that large media conglomerates and their political connections are a threat to the future of journalism. While his theories of CBS abandoning the “truth” to appease the White House are unsubstantiated, it doesn’t mean similar things could not happen in the future. Do you think there is such a risk, or can alternative media act as a check on this power, much in the way bloggers touched off Rathergate three years ago?

-----

Comment on “MediaMatters" column:

Eric,

I think you make several excellent observations in this column. News of nine more American service members being killed did go unnoted during the frenzy surrounding Petraeus’s testimony, even though it further illustrates the point that coalition forces are still paying a heavy price because of Iraq’s instability. Thank you for citing that poll (from Fox News, no less) showing American’s skepticism of Petraeus’s honesty .

I think you make excellent points about the media underreporting the true content of MoveOn’s ad. Instead, they were all too eager to turn it into a polarizing political issue that would ignite emotion on both sides of the aisle. I saw reports of the ad that did not discuss anything beyond the “Betray Us” headline before diving into political punditry. Conservatives were subsequently able to lambaste the entire ad without challenge.

Do you think this type of single-track coverage is systemic to today’s mainstream media, or was this a special case because of the circumstances surrounding the general’s long-awaited testimony? Many in the media were probably looking for a simple, soundbite friendly way to cover hours and hours of congressional testimony. A single newspaper ad reflected the sentiments of many anti-war critics, and proved to be a debate-worthy topic. It certainly has had an effect, and more people are probably familiar with MoveOn’s ad than anything Petraeus actually said before congress.

Public Radio: An Evolving Tune

2007-09-16T10:40:00.001-07:00

Before diving into my specific field of television news, I wanted to take this opportunity to explore a somewhat older but still extremely relevant medium. A presentation by Ira Glass (right) this past weekend at USC's Visions and Voices series highlighted some of the best story telling on radio today while also noting a variety of issues currently facing public broadcasting. Glass is executive producer and host of Chicago Public Radio's This American Life, which can be heard on more than 500 public radio stations across the country. The program is unique in that it is devoted to long format stories based on a different theme each week. During the event, Glass demonstrated how a story bursting with action, dialogue and music can propel a narrative along in a way that keeps listeners tuned in.

Such carefully woven radio pieces are true works of art, and are just one reason why NPR remains popular among American adults. Glass pointed out that NPR is still a leading source for news. On a given day, more people listen to “Morning Edition” than watch top television programming in the same timeslot. He attributed a recent slip in NPR listenership to normal fluctuations in the radio market. However, such fluctuations may continue because of evolving technology and changing consumer taste.

NPR has been scrambling to reach out to new audiences in new ways. The rapidly-growing popularity of MP3 players has led more listeners to desire on-demand or "time-shifted" programming that is recorded before-hand. Listeners no longer need to be near a radio at a specific time to enjoy a given program. Consequently, NPR now offers an enormous library of its content in free downloadable podcast form. A 24-hour stream of NPR content is also available on any computer with an internet connection. These new models present a different set of business challenges, because an à la carte approach to programming means listeners can bypass "pledge drives" that account for much of a station's financial support. Stations have toyed with the idea of finding larger sponsors to back the growth of mobile content.

Meanwhile, shifts in commercial radio may in fact be driving more listeners to NPR. Increasing consolidation of terrestrial music stations has resulted in more homogeneous offerings. At the same time, the universe of talk radio is dominated by conservative hosts. This has propelled more moderate and liberal listeners towards NPR, which has a debatable elite liberal slant. Additionally, a decline in hard news on most types of local stations has listeners searching for alternative outlets. NPR often fills this void, with its member stations carrying a variety of locally-produced news and syndicated national programming.

Another challenge facing public radio is an aging demographic, as younger listeners seek out news and entertainment from sources that are increasingly varied and diverse. Today's average NPR listener is 51 years old. The organization wants to attract younger crowds without "dumbing down" the content on which it prides itself. One response has been the "Bryant Park Project", set to debut this fall. The program is meant to draw listeners in their 20s and 30s. A listen to one of the pilot episodes reveals a much more casual approach to the public radio genre. The hosts sound younger and more dynamic, at times seeming to go off script and banter with one another. In a story about a new 1,822-foot tall building under construction Dubai, host Alison Stewart asks a reporter if Canada is "bummed" now that Toronto's CN Tower has lost its place as world's tallest building.

During his presentation, Glass spoke of the power of narrative in journalism. A powerful story, he said, can reach a "backdoor" deep inside the mind of a listener. There will always be a place for this type of journalism, as it offers a break from the flow of headlines and sound bites that dominate most media. Glass said his goal with any piece is to "make it real" to such a degree that it is like experiencing the actual world. Whether such content is delivered via conventional radio, MP3 player or cell phone is probably irrelevant. Years from now, hopefully listeners will remember the power of a specific story rather than the gizmo they used to receive it.