Magapaper: The New J-School Track?

Back in college, the default pickup line was "what's your major?" Snoozer. But within the journalism school, it was the slightly more interersting "what's your track?" As in, newspaper, magazine or the slightly mysterious new media.

If I'd had any foresight I would have chosen new media over magazine. But, hey, it was 1999 and the glossy covers won me over. New media has obviously become the hot track, so much so that I'm guessing the "new" is no longer part of the name.

But what about the newspaper and magazine tracks? Someone's gotta want them. Here's an idea: Why not merge them into a track called "magapaper." Some of my favorite online news sites today -- take Slate and Salon -- are what I could classify as a part newspaper, part magazine. In other words, they're updated daily or often more with newsy stories. They are also written in a breezy style that magazine readers recognize.

It's worth noting that Salon calls itself an "online arts and culture magazine," and Slate an"online magazine of news, politics and culture." But you find me a Slate or Salon reporter and I'll show you someone who knows how to turn in a story on deadline, newspaper style. My point being that college journalists need to be taught to be hyrid writers -- able to handle long-form magazine pieces and quick-hitting news stories.

What would a magapaper track teach? Well, certainly a mix of what we traditonaly called newspaper and magazine writing -- that is, before the styles basically fused online. You can't teach personal style, but you can teach stylistic writing, and that would be a foundation of the education.

And, of course, there'd be a lecture devoted to dressing for your cable news cameo debut.

Cover The Vote

Media commentary is so often called media criticism for good reason. There's much to lament in journalism these days. But good coverage shouldn't go unnoticed. And so I say heckuva job to the reporters who've been drawing attention to a range of voting issues that have arisen this fall. There might not be a more important story right now -- and the media have been on top of it.

Publications have dutifully covered accusations of wrongdoing at ACORN and produced timely think pieces -- see Slate's look at the danger of believing in vote fraud. What's heartening, as well, is that the tone of news coverage about long lines for early voting hasn't been overly cheerleaderish -- wow, record turnout! -- but has been somewhat sober. There's plenty of warrented concern about polling places being unprepared on Election Day -- a story that's had legs thus far.

One could argue that the media were caught flat-flooted after the 2000 election debacle, but have learned from their mistakes. As record voter turnout is expected in 2008, reporters, at least, are prepared this time around.

Playing Right Along?

Two of the most provocative media pieces to come out this month both relate broadly to the theme of journalists craving news to break and politicians going out of their way to pass it along to audiences themselves.

David Carr's NY Times story focuses on Barack Obama's press strategy of speaking directly to Democratic voters through text messages and notes on the campaign Web site, rather than through leaks to the media. Saturday's 3 a.m. text about Joe Biden as VP is just the latest example.

From many accounts, despite the Obama camp's up-front announcement that it would alert folks through texting, reporters still were in a frenzy to break the news themselves. This included frantically calling campaign sources to get a revised "short list," and checking cell phones every five minutes for updates.

There's nothing wrong, of course, with some good-old-fashioned hustle, but why all the effort on this story? Picture Obama standing on a desk, tossing a paper airplane to John Q Public with the words "Biden's My Man" written on the wings. Then tilt down to see a swarm of wee reporters jumping as high as they can to grab the darn thing out of the air... na na na na na, you can't get it!

The press is getting played, and for what? So that a news organization can claim that it saw the text first at 2:45 a.m. and post the news on its Web site -- which who, exactly is reading at that hour? -- five minutes before a competitor has it up. The stories about speculation make for good office fodder, sure. But what's the value to readers/listeners?

Slate columnist Jack Shafer points out the absurdity of the great veepstakes information chase. "If Obama is guilty of gaming the press to sustain interest in his campaign, his partner in crime is John McCain, who as early as May 21 was auditioning potential vice presidents and continues the tease this week," he writes.

It's best to view this episode as a teachable moment. Instead of getting caught up in the fracas, why not report on the story for what it is -- a game of information keep-away. Do as Carr and Shafer did and write about the implications of politicians speaking directly to their constituents, and what role the media has in setting the agenda.

That way, readers can only complain about getting woken up by an early morning message -- and not about the press latching onto any speculation about a horse race that isn't even the main event.