The Case For Using Cheap (But Not Free) Labor

News publications are always in search of ways to produce more content without spending too much. Journalism students are perpetually looking for clips and experience -- plus some extra cash. It's a match.

J-students have long done internships at newspapers and other media companies, and the most ambitious find roles as stringers for their local publication. But there's been talk recently of expanding the relationship to one in which students contribute more regularly. And I see plenty of reasons why that should work.

1. Students are natural candidates to help out with education beats, college sports coverage, blogging and, perhaps most importantly, video and audio that is likely to come naturally to them. You think publishers are willing to get new media consulation for cheap?

2. Journalism instructors are often reporters at a publication looking to make an extra buck, so there's already a natural connection between the schools and the news staffs. So long as a news site has a relationship with a professor or dean who can handicap his/her students' writing/reporting skills, the arrangement should work.

3. Professors would be able to integrate real-world experiences into their classroom. As a student, I was always more motivated when my interview pick up line was "I'm doing an article for a real live paper" than the dreaded "I'm doing an article for class that will never see the light of day." The so-called "teaching hospital" model of education makes sense for a field that's so hands on to begin with.

4. College newspapers/TV stations are a good way to cut your teeth, but wouldn't it be beneficial to have students competing to see who gets bylines at a professional publication?

There are real concerns here about this type of arrangement lowering the perceived value of what a journalist does, being that the students could be asked to produce content for nothing (if there's academic credit on the table) or near nothing. Which is why it's important for a publication to view the students as helping rather than replacing current staff writers/editors. If the choice is between running more wire or linking to other publications and using modestly paid students to add content, the latter is a good choice.

Then the question becomes how to package the student work. Colleges have successfully set up their own news services, which could be of increasing value to the publications. Or students could set up their own stipend deals with the news sites, so long as there's an agreement that they get compensated.

Whatever the arrangement, there's certainly a good chance for creativity and innovation when fresh faces are brought into a newsroom.

The Downie/Schudson Report, Translated for Students

The chatter this week in journalism circles was about the release of "The Reconstruction of American Journalism," a report from Len Downie Jr. and Michael Schudson. It's 17 must-read (web) pages that cover press history, the fragile state of the news media and what should be done to sustain original reporting.

Understandably, commentators seized on the report's recommendations. A quick summary of the key ideas: a) The IRS or Congress should allow independent news organizations that focus on public affairs reporting to assume nonprofit status; b)Philanthropists should continue to pony up; c) Public media should shift more resources to local news reporting; d) A national local news fund should be created.

Instead of writing a response to the report, I thought I'd highlight some of the key points raised before the recommendations section and translate what it all means for students looking to enter this brave new media world. (Bold sentences are original wording from the report).

Here goes:

Fewer journalists are reporting less news in fewer pages, and the hegemony that near-monopoly metropolitan newspapers enjoyed during the last third of the twentieth century, even as their primary audience eroded, is ending.

Translation: Those traditional reporting internships that j-school placement offices loved to point students toward are drying up. Keep your job-search options open. Don’t be shattered if newspapers won't bring you in; there are plenty of smaller news operations that will have you.

Newspapers and television news are not going to vanish in the foreseeable future.

But don’t be shocked if you do get that coveted old-media internship or first job, either.

The Internet’s easily accessible free information and low-cost advertising have loosened the hold of large, near-monopoly news organizations on audiences and advertisers.

Do you really have to always post your roommate search on Craigslist? How about giving your ol' daily paper a try.

Something is gained when reporting, analysis, and investigation are pursued collaboratively by stable organizations that can facilitate regular reporting by experienced journalists, support them with money, logistics, and legal services, and present their work to a large public.

Don't dismiss your student newspaper. It's long provided the training that has propelled professional journalists to good careers.

Digital technology—joined by innovation and entrepreneurial energy—is opening new possibilities for reporting.

When you get your first news job, get ready for your older colleagues to press you on your knowledge of everything related to social media. Don't wince at the phrase 'Digital Native.'

The fast-increasing number of blog-like hyperlocal neighborhood news sites across the country depend even more heavily for their news reporting on freelancers and citizen contributors that is edited by professional journalists.

Get to know your college town and you can be a content-producing machine.

I saved one of the report's key recommendations for last. It has the most relevance to students right now:

"Universities, both public and private, should become ongoing sources of local, state, specialized subject, and accountability news reporting as part of their educational missions. They should operate their own news organizations, host platforms for other nonprofit news and investigative reporting organizations, provide faculty positions for active individual journalists, and be laboratories for digital innovation in the gathering and sharing of news and information."

In other words, welcome to your first journalism job. Just don't expect to be paid.

Or maybe...

"The most proficient student journalists should advance after graduation to paid residencies and internships, joining fully experienced journalists on year-round staffs of university-based, independently edited local news services, Web sites, and investigative reporting projects."

Questioning the Doc

There's no denying the growing influence that documentary films have on the national debave over issues like the Iraq War and health care. As works of art, they can be powerful. As visual think pieces, they can be effective. But scrutinized reports they are often not...at least before their release.

Here we're talking about the traditional journalistic practice of second-party editors looking at content and context, not to mention occasionally raising questions about how information was received or video obtained.

Media-savvy viewers go into documentaries knowing that the filmmakers may not be striving to produce a balanced work. But shouldn't there be an expectation that documentarians are following a code of conduct?

Much like traditional journalists, documentary makers face myriad ethical concerns, many of which are outlined in a new report from American University's Center for Social Media.

While "old media" types typically adhere to a common set of principles that apply to the craft (don't accept gifts from sources; don't alter a quote or leave out passages that change the context), folks in the documentary world operate without broad standards in ethics practices, according to the report, "Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work."

The authors interviewed dozens of doc filmmakers, many of whom said the same thing: Commercial pressures and time limitations often force them to consider cutting corners.

Along those lines, the report raises several interesting ethical questions that might look familiar to people at traditional news organizations: Do subjects have a right to review and request changes to a film? Can a director stage an event to further the narrive, particularly if the point wouldn't be made as clearly otherwise? (It happens, as the report notes).

There's a lot of good stuff in the study -- too much to chronicle in this space. But it's a good read, and an even better starting point for a conversation in j-schools about what's lost and gained when work is produced that isn't subjected to traditional news editing.

A Golden Era of Student Writing?

Among the biggest fears of writing instructors these days is that students will slip an "lol" or "u" or emoticon into their writing. In other words, they will momentarily forget their audience -- teacher, not Facebook friend.

In my experience, however, this doesn't happen. I've yet to read a paper as a journalism instructor that looks more like an extended text message than an article. Students can separate personal writing from professional assignments.

There are plenty of things to like about today's young writers. Technology hasn't ruined their ability to craft strong prose -- and in some cases platforms like Twitter and Facebook have helped teach them the importance of brevity.

Clive Thompson argues in a recent Wired piece that the age of illiteracy is not at hand. He notes that young people write far more than any generation before them. "That's because so much socializing takes place online, and it almost always involves text," he says.

Thompson quotes a Stanford University writing and rhetoric instructor who points out that students nowadays are adept at "assessing their audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get their point across." They know when to be pithy and know when to write in a sober tone.

Thompson ends his column by saying that "What today's young people know is that knowing who you're writing for and why you're writing might be the most critical factor of all." This is a key lesson in media literacy, and Thompson's assessment of the young scribes is dead on.

My Baby's a Racist and I Should Kill Granny

....that's what Newsweek tells me, anyway. In consecutive weeks, the increasingly opinionated weekly magazine has gone to press with headlines reading: "Is Your Baby Racist?" and "The Case For Killing Granny." This from the same publication that informed me earlier in the summer that I'm a socialist.

The interesting thing is that the articles corresponding to these in-your-face headlines are fairly sober, straightforward stories -- not sourceless opinion pieces, as you might expect by the bold words out front. The 'racist baby' piece is a look at the roots of racism; the 'granny' piece about the need to rethink end-of-life care for the elderly.

What's clear is that Newsweek has made a calculation about headlines -- tabloid sells (not a new idea for newspapers with the initials NYP.) Or at the least it sets the tone for a new magazine strategy to be more bold, have more columnists and rely more on big names like Fareed Zakaria and editor Jon Meacham.

Newsweek has up front about its changes. "We'll aim to be provocative, but not partisan," a note introducing the new-look magazine stated, adding that there will be more opinionated pieces.

"If we succeed, these well-argued essays will make you feel vindicated—or maybe outraged. But they'll draw you in."

Draw me in those headlines did. But my household gets Newsweek in the mail each week, so we don't seem to be the intended audience. Newsweek said it was dropping its guaranteed circ from 2.6 million to 1.5 million.

What will be telling is how the new headline strategy plays out on the traditional newsstand and the new newsstand -- web news feeds that give readers even more choices from which to select. Bold headlines could equal more clicks. But is there a risk in selling a piece as opinion and delivering something different?

A TV Argument That Packs No Punch

The punch heard 'round the sports world took place after midnight Friday morning where I live. It involved an ungracious football player from Boise State University and an unhinged sore loser from the University of Oregon. The rest of the facts are as follows: The Oregon player socked the Boise State player in the chops just after the final whistle, in front of the Boise State coach and, yes, on national television.

Now, punching an opposing player in front of his own coach is not the smartest idea. That had me talking the next morning. But what most commentators seemed to dwell on was that all this happened live on national TV. The implication: How could this bozo not think about how bad this looks with all the people watching? To that argument I say phooey. Let me explain.

First, do people realize just how many football games are on TV these days? Let's just say the Tulane-Tulsa national TV matchup the next night didn't have me on the edge of my recliner. Whether a sporting event is being shown across the country isn't much of a litmus test.

If this were 1979 or even 1999, the "it looks bad because it's on national TV" argument might hold some weight. Let me explain further. If it's 1979, ESPN isn't big enough yet to show highlights of the incident three times on the half-hour, analyze it, put it online and then moralize over and over. The channel does that now, so why does it matter whether people are watching it live? They'll see the highlight plenty the morning after whenever they tune in. I go back to my opening point about how late this event actually happened. Who was really watching live?

If it's 1999, ESPN gives this play plenty of play on the airwaves. Maybe the clip isn't on an endless loop. Some people surely don't have cable or just don't watch ESPN. And there's no YouTube, most importantly. In 2009, even people who didn't watch the game or even care about the result are looking at the video, talking about it on Twitter, and repurposing it in who knows how many platforms.

So, does it really matter anymore whether something like a football punch happens on live TV? If it's during the national championship game, maybe. But otherwise, the echo effect is so great now that I argue that it doesn't.

Multimedia Mania

We're past the time when people sitting around conference tables at major news media companies have to argue about the merits of including multimedia on their web sites. The verdict has long been rendered: Readers like video and audio to go along with their words.

So it is that these print (or Web-only) publications invest in cameras and recorders, and anyone on staff who has any type of broadcast experience becomes the in-house instructor to the legions of the lost.

But the question that should often be asked is what quality of work audiences expect of reporters who are dabbling in new journalistic endeavors. Or, framed another way, how professional should publications expect their podcasts or videocasts to sound or look?

For smaller companies that can't afford to hire broadcast experts or invest in top-quality equipment, standards are of particular importance. On the one hand, audiences are so used to grainy or slightly shaky YouTube-esque video that a little of either on a video posted on a news site probably won't send them heading for the hills. There's something to be said for visual pieces that don't seem overly produced, as well as those that are stylistically unique and fit the feel of the publication.

Then again, if you're requiring articles to be edited, fact-checked and edited more, what kind of message are you sending to readers if your audio interviews sound like they are happening on an airport runway?

Seems to me that the litmus test doesn't need to be whether or not a piece would be fit to air on NPR or the nightly news, but rather whether the content helps add value to the site (not just doing video for video's sake) and whether any problems with sound quality and visual clarity distract readers from that content.

It's certainly smart to train reporters how to frame their interview shots and get sound bites that come with little background noise. It's also fair to expect improvement over time. Still, technical perfection isn't needed. A perfected sense of news judgment is.

Free or With a Fee, That is the Media Question

How to explain this contradiction:

I, like others, see the writing on the wall for newspapers and other media companies that once gladly put their content online for free with the thinking that online ad revenue would largely pay the bills.

I see the stories about Rupe Murdoch promising to charge for this online content and seeking to create an online news consortium. I see the headlines about the growth of Journalism Online, which aims to smooth the transition to a paid online model for publishers and readers. And I can't help but see what likely will be the future of online news -- micropayments and such.

In conversations about paying for content, I strongly argue that people should be willing to underwrite the work of reporters and editors.

But then I click on a story from the Washington Post. It asks me for my name and e-mail address, information that takes about 10 seconds to provide. It's not asking for money. Yet I turn away, look for another free article or route to the same information. Not because of a philosophical objection but typically because I'm in a hurry to acquire information. The same thing happens when I see one of those ads that covers and text and prevents you from quickly scanning the info. Run the other way.

And that's just what happens when I encounter any non-monetary barrier to the content. I haven't even tested myself on how I'd react to a pay wall.

And so, on a personal level, I understand what's at play here: A battle between the business needs of media companies and the basic instincts of online grazers who are used to free.

It doesn't mean that I won't continue to support whatever moves are necessary to keep the news business in business, but it does mean that I will continue to recognize how hard it is to change reader behavior.

The Need for Media Lit in High Schools

A smart essay published recently in Utne Reader reminded me of a topic that I've long wanted to cover in this space. Writer Danielle Maestretti argues that in an age of information overload, we're shockingly lacking information literacy. In her own words:

The debate over how we read, perpetuated largely by media insiders, is starting
to seem like little more than a distraction from the real problem: We have
access to more information than ever, yet we do not know what to do with it. We
are desperately information-illiterate.

Maestretti also does a good job of describing what information literacy means nowadays:

In 2009 literacy isn’t about finishing a book or slogging through 12 web pages
to get to the end of an article. It is about knowing what to do with
information, how to find the good stuff, how to assess sources. What matters is
not that we are readers, but that we are critical readers.

So, yes, we need literacy training of this sort. Where should we find it? No better place than high schools, for starters. What should be taught? How about this, just as a basic day-one curriculum for students launching into research projects:

- How search engines work and how to get the most out of your searches
- The benefits and drawbacks of Wikipedia -- "a great place to start a search and a terrible place to end it."
- The ethics of taking short passages from blogs, articles or other information sources, regardless of whether you're linking to them or not
- How to find the source of information that you're quoting

And that's just on the topic of research. Because the media landscape is changing so rapidly -- with newspapers faltering, audiences splintering and opinion-mongering becoming the norm -- the time has come to work media literacy into the high school curriculum. There is overlap between info and media literacy, for sure, with the latter simply being more focused on the news media industry.

Many students will never take a journalism class in high school, let alone in college, so in a way this type of instruction is akin to chemistry for liberal arts majors (one of my personal favorites.) In other words, this introduction to the 24-hour news cycle and the business side of journalism might be some students' only exposure to a topic that can easily be introduced in social studies classes that cover American institutions.

If we're looking to reach the next generation of (mostly online) readers and news consumers, what better way to start than to introduce them to the changing media landscape, and to do so early on in their education.

More on this topic soon...

Sign of the Times

A new generation of web-only publications has discovered the benefits of using foundation support to help pay for a portion of reporting costs. But, one can argue, that's just a niche.

But now, according to Poynter Online, the gray lady herself is considering foundation funding to help defray some of the newsgathering expenses. The New York Times was careful to tell writer Bill Mitchell that it is still in the discussion phase on this one. Still, the mere revelation that the Times is considering this move is a sign of the changing times for newspapers.


There are, of course, always concerns about foundations looking to have a say in the tone of coverage. But that's an issue that can easily addressed by editors and foundation leaders -- NPR has long handled their arrangement gracefully.

Given what seems to be a widespread reluctance among industry leaders to move immediately toward a pay-for-content model online, and given the importance of publications like the Times continuing to pay for reporters who are stationed in far-flung locations, there's no reason that the "old media" shouldn't be having these conversations about new funding options.

In Defense of the MJ Obit Writers

In the week-plus after Michael Jackson's death, there's been quite heavy criticism of the press coverage. I've never been a cable news apologist, and won't start now. The oversaturation is comical.

But the complaint that seems off base goes something like this: Journalists spent so much time talking about Jackson's faults while he was alive, yet they all the sudden write glowing obituaries that portray him as a barrier-breaking musical genius. What gives?

The simple answer is scope of coverage. For the past 15 years, the news on Jackson has been grim and the press focus has been narrow -- dispatches from trials, a publicity stunt here and there. There'd been little reason to remind readers of Jackson's musical talents beyond the obligatory paragraph or two.

An obituary, be it for an international icon or a little-known artist, is an appraisal of someone's entire body of work. Naturally, in the case of Jackson, the obit writer would focus on what made Jackson famous in the first place -- the music.

This isn't to say that some of the pre-death Jackson coverage wasn't in bad taste or that the volume of ink spilled (I know, dated reference) after those first obits wasn't excessive. But the fact that there initially was such a jarring change of tone in the Jackson coverage seems to say less about choices made by news outlets and more about the tragic turn Jackson took.

Create Your Own Mag Online!

Online news aggregators have been hot for some time now, which is why when I read that Time Inc. is allowing readers to piece together their own publication using articles from their favorite Time magazines, I was curious how it'd look on the Web.

Some media comentators have written this off as a gimmick -- though others have already praised the effort. And the five editions I'll soon be getting are free, so in some sense it is a trial for Time, one has to assume.

What's the company's incentive? I already subscribe to Sports Illustrated, but I suppose I could fall in love with another of the company's publications that I wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise. Time will tell, and I'll check back with a review.

A Brave New World of Micropayments?

First, a quick note about why it's been exactly one month since I've posted here. Basically, I've caught the blogging bug and it's taken me elsewhere for the time being. My new blog, called "The Feed," about people in the 18-to-35 demographic is up and running on the St. Louis Beacon Web site. But I'll try to keep up my posting here as well.

Now back to your regularly scheduled blog topic. Micropayments. Need I say more? Actually, probably yeah, because six months ago I wouldn't have known what that term meant for journalism -- and still many don't.

The basic idea is that the free model of online journalism isn't sustainable and that readers will come around to paying small amounts of money to read content, just as iPhone owners will happy fork out a tiny sum for new apps.

News Corp is reportedly planning to introduce such a payment plan for individual articles and premium subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal's Web site, according to Financial Times. Rupe Murdoch has done a nice 180-degree turn on the issue of charging for content. Readers historically have been open to paying for some financial news, perhaps because of the importance of getting the most up-to-date information about market trends. A new study shows that readers would be willing to pay for sports, as well.

As for the other traditional sections of the paper, well, the best advice would be this: Think of ways to add value to typical news packages. Is there supplimentary video? Can you direct readers to a landing page where similar stories around the Web are culled? Things like this that can convince an audience that publications aren't just putting up a paywall for nothing in return might be the best bet.

Fair Game: Friend or Fan?

You wouldn't know it these days from my frequent posting of status messages and commentary, but I came to Facebook back in 2006 for strictly business purposes. As a higher education reporter whose only connection to student sources was an .edu e-mail that no one checks and a dorm phone that no one has, the social networking site was invaluable.

For years, I've used Facebook to contact interview subjects. One of the best methods is searching groups that are organized around a certain subject. But what happens when the group, or people in it, want to take the relationship to the next step? What's the ethical response when a source wants to "friend" you or a group asks you to be a "fan?"

Let me say that at this point being someone's friend on Facebook means little more than being a real-word acquaintance. Likewise, being a fan of a group doesn't even indicate that you've ever been to an event or met most of the people in that circle.

Still, at the risk of being labeled a traditionalist, I'd hedge toward politely declining these offers in the name of neutrality. It's easier just to accept, of course. But there's a strong argument to be made that publically supporting any group you cover as a journalist shows a bias, just as it would if you signed a petition or made a donation -- though those acts seem more egregious.

Part of this equation, of course, is what you're covering and who you're "fanning." I couldn't imagine a political reporter becoming a fan of the local Democratic or Republican Party. But it'd be easier to envision an arts reporter being a fan of a symphony.

I suppose the question should be this: Does joining an inner circle give you a better chance at hearing about information that could lead to a scoop? And does the possibility of that positive outcome outweigh the potential impression of being aligned with a certain group or cause?

A.P. Makes the Lead Block

Interesting news out of the Newspaper Association of America conference that the Associated Press plans to police the Web for sites that, in its estimation, are unfairly profitting from its content. The AP has already been a staunch defender of intellectual property, and it's not entirely clear how the organization plans to carry out its plan.

The announcement comes on the heels of an industry-wide discussion over how publications can share in some of the profits made by news aggregators that regularly link to or post snippets of their content. We'll be following this development...

Strange Bedfellows

Paging Sy Hersh, Arianna Huffington has an offer for you. Well, not exactly, but close.

It seems the Huffington Post is taking to heart the criticism that it's profitting from the journalism world without giving back. The publication plans to work in tandem with donors to fund the work of about 10 investigative journalists who will focus on economic reporting. You'll be able to see the work on HuffPo's Web site as well as on other sites.

From the AP story:

Huffington said she and the donors were concerned that layoffs at
newspapers were hurting investigative journalism at a time the nation's
institutions need to be watched closely. She hopes to draw from the ranks of
laid-off journalists for the venture.

"All of us increasingly have to look at different ways to save
investigative journalism," she said.

Editor as Aggregator

A speech given at the SXSW festival in Austin about the future of the news biz has attracted lots of attention. The speaker, online media maven Steven Johnson, also appeared last week on one of my favorite radio shows, On Point with Tom Ashbrook.

Johnson (in the festival speech) echoed what other media analysts are starting to say about how newspaper Web sites can stay relevant in a link-happy world:

Let’s say it’s just too overwhelming for the average consumer to sort through all the new voices available online, to separate fact from fiction,
reporting from rumor-mongering. Let’s say they need some kind of
authoritative guide, to help them find all the useful information that’s
proliferating out there in the wild.

If only there were some institution that had a reputation for journalistic integrity that had a staff of trained editors and a growing audience arriving at its web site every day seeking quality information. If only…

Of course, we have thousands of these institutions. They’re called
newspapers.

In other words, as Johnson says, "old media" can be the authoritative guide to the vast ecosystem of news. Or in the catchy phrasing of Jeff Jarvis, "Cover what you do best. Link to the rest."

Thus, some reporters keep their beats. Editors, for the most part, become aggregators. To some extent, they are already. They have the last say on what news stories are covered by their trustworthy (we assume) reporters. In this brave new world, an editor's job would be not only to set an internal budget but seek out trustworthy and talented outside voices in the community who could fill the holes that a much smaller staff misses.

Besides becoming best friends with Google News, The Editor 2.0 would need to think a little differently about how to use his resources. At a publication like the Seattle P-I, which is basically becoming a start-up media company, it will be an interesting experiment to see how editors' traditional training prepares them to become master of their online domain.

When Congress Gets Involved...

...You know your industry is in some trouble. (Not that we haven't already noticed.)

This article from Congressional Quarterly lays out the ways in which lawmakers are throwing a lifeline to struggling newspapers. Side note: It's a little odd to see politicians earnestly praising the press as an essential institution; I hope to see the day when it's back to bickering and about quotes taken out of context.

But back to the news -- some of it old, some of it new. Nancy Pelosi and other lawmakers have suggested recently that antitrust regulations should be loosened, which could allow publications to join forces or at least pool resources. Then there's the idea of allowing the media organizations to become nonprofits, public radio style.

I'll save my two cents on these proposals for another day. But it's worth addressing the common concern when it comes to congressional action on issues involving the press. That is, how can media organizations keep their independence when the politicians they cover are lobbying for them?

Let's keep one thing in mind here: We aren't talking about a financial-style bailout. These proposals are about making changes to the ways publications can operate. Big difference. The slipperly slope argument is in play as usual, but these days should we be afraid of a frank discussion about how lawmakers could help newspapers on the edge?

The Death of P-I (Part II)

Well, my hometown is now down to one daily newspaper. Not that the shuttering of the Seattle P-I print edition comes as much of a surprise. This would fall into the category of a fairly slow (by today's media terms) death. Once it was announced that the paper would be put up for sale, rumors swirled about an online-only product with a skeleton staff.

That's just what's happening. Here's hoping the Seattle Times, the other partner in the longstanding JOA, can somehow benefit and become stronger.

The only question is whether the iconic P-I globe will keep spinning.

Covering the Recession

Have to admit, I was drawn in by the Jon Stewart v. Jim Cramer cable host "war of words" -- and disappointed when Cramer's appearance on The Daily Show ended up being more Congressional hearing (as one New York Times reporter put it) than 8 Mile battle.

But, OK, I can forgive Stewart for trying to be serious. He's probably doing the right thing given the gravity of the economic situation. And if you go back to the very start of the controversy, before Stewart hit his typical comedic stride by warning NBC hosts who came to Cramer's defense that "Viacom in the house!," the Comedy Central host made a claim that's worthy of attention.

In an unusually heavy segment, Stewart more or less argued that CNBC, the station of Jim Cramer, had been such a cheerleader for Wall Street and the economic boom that they'd lost sight of their mission of reporting financial news. When the recession came, he said, they had blood on their hands.

Perhaps. But for the sake of this site, I'm more interested in coverage since the economic collapse began. Specifically, are journalists guilty of playing up the recession to an extreme and stoking so much fear about doom-and-gloom scenarios that we're just making things worse? Is it our job to even think about how our coverage may or may not affect the country's economic health?

The first issue is how people consume news. If anyone watched 10 straight hours of financial news on cable television these days they'd probably want to jump out of a building -- to no fault of the stations programmers. Similarly, if readers just read business section headlines and nothing else for a week they'd also feel like hiding under a blanket. The grim facts speak for themselves. You can't avoid reporting on the stock market, bailouts, the car sale crisis, etc.

It's when journalists get beyond the "straight news" reporting that this question of oversaturation becomes more interesting. Every publication has -- for good reason -- done articles about how the economy affects parents' school choices, grocery shopping and vacation planning. It's possible to go overboard writing about cutbacks in yoga classes and how people are buying Snuggies rather than paying their heating bills. (Ok, made up that last one).

Point is, like lots of other things in journalism, it's about a healthy balance. We have a responsibility to report the economic news and take note when lifestyles are seriously affected by the recession. We also have an obligation to avoid fear mongering.

And it Begins?

Speaking of charging for content, Newsday of Long Island appears poised to start charging for online content. An interesting lead blocker, to be sure. Let's see if this opens a lane for more newspapers to run through. Because, ya know, another publication taking the plunge means a trend by journalism rules.

R.I.P R.M.N

Another sad day for newspapers, as the Rocky Mountain News is biting the dust. Colorado's oldest newspaper is publishing for the final time Friday.

Denver residents are coming to terms with something that Seattle residents recently learned...in the words of Rich Boehne, chief executive officer of Scripps: "Denver can't support two newspapers anymore."

Nothing's Free

There seems to be somewhat of a consensus among media critics and columnists (add this piece in the Wall Street Journal to a headliner in Time) that publications should be able to eventually charge for online content without being chastized by the "free information" folks. Those would be the people who yell at every turn that information was meant to be free.

I'll save the great philosophical debate for another post, but I've gone on record in support of any plans to monetize online content -- so long as it's material that's above and beyond typical work. I've also gone on record repeating the economic truism that it's hard to start charging for something you've given away for free.

But hard's time has come. Anyone want to be the first into the pool?

*** SOAPBOX ALERT*** The Problem with High School Signing Day Coverage

In sports, there are non-stories (anything involving Tony Romo and Jessica Simpson), stories that are covered in excess (anything involving the NFL Draft...just 79 days away!), and stories that should simply be relegated to the "news and notes" section of the newspaper.

In that third category I'd place coverage of high school football signing day, which just passed. In what's now an annual rite of passage, highly touted college recruits hold press conferences and surprise the media by donning the hat of the team of their choice. It's good television, to be sure. But it's also bad form for journalists to spend so much effort reporting the decisions of 17 year olds, most of whom will be destined for the regular-ol' job market (rather than the NFL) much like their future college classmates.

I'm hardly the first person to rant about this issue. Still, it seems like the critics are fighting a losing battle. Chalk it up, perhaps, to the villain of all villains, the 24-hour news cycle. But then how to explain recruiting Web sites that track these happenings year round? There's a market out there, no argument.

But when the media fawn over prospects and reward the young athletes for drawing attention to themselves, you know who else wins -- the brokers who charge for highlight videos and the coaches who resort to diry tricks.

Newsies For Hire

A recent article in the American Journalism Review, "Is There Life After Newspapers?," posed a question to laid-off journalists: What are you up to now? Listed among the new professions were yoga studio owner and substitute teacher. Politico didn't make the list.

But a New York Times story out this week lists several former journalism bigwigs who have accepted jobs with top Democrats. There's a Time magazine Washington bureau chief turned Biden communications director, as well as a former L.A. Times managing editor turned high-ranking Kerry aide.

The premise of the article is that the new career moves are fueling a debate on favoritism -- a well-worn claim that reporters and editors are a left-leaning bunch who popped champaign bottles on Election Night 08 and now are cashing in. My take?

1) It's probably true that a plurality of journalists voted for Obama this year and side with Joe Democrat in your average election. Slate, by no means a politically middle-of-the-road publication, did a survey that found almost every staff member supported the Illinois senator.

2) It's also true most journalists keep personal politics out of their professional judgment -- some going as far as to abstain from voting.

3) News organization layoffs mean that journalists have to go somewhere. Perhaps the most common career move is to public relations. For the dwindling cadre of Washington reporters and editors, those communication jobs are found in politics. Do we blame them for not wanting to uproot their families?

4) There's nothing unethical about a journalist going into the field they covered. Unless, that is, they continue to write about politics even after interviewing for a political job, or are asked to influence coverage at their old publication. As usual, disclosure is key.

5) In some cases, there's not even the perception of bias. Dr. Sanjay Gupta as surgeon genreal? As the Times piece notes, the CNN medical correspondent reported on health records of the presidential candidates last year. But he's certainly no Keith Olbermann.

Which may be just the point. There'd likely be little outrage if Olbermann or Chris Matthews took positions in the Obama White House, if only because the anchors are so forthcoming about their political identifications. There's wasn't an uproar -- mostly affirmation -- when Tony Snow made the move from FOX News to the White House.

As the Times article says, the people making the career switch in these cases are "for the most part, more traditional journalists from organizations that strive to approach the news with objectivity."

But let's make sure we separate the issues at hand. Yes, there can be awkward moments and talk of conspiracy when a journalist joins the political payroll -- which could be more common now that a Democrat is in the White House. Yet I'd argue that this is more a story about job security than ideological payback.

Recapping the News Dive

It's an unfortunate trend, but a number of journalists have recently done a superb job providing an overview of the crippled state of the news industry. The latest recap comes from James Warren, a former managing editor and Washington bureau chief for the Chicago Tribune. Writing in The Atlantic, Warren explains the classified ad conundrum and revisits the flawed model for online revenue. He links to another fine piece from media guru Eric Alterman, who wrote last year in the New Yorker.

Warren now writes for some of the sites -- The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast -- that rely heavily on newspaper reporters for original content and will undoubtedly lose out if this content continues to diminish.

Reading articles about the decline of the news media is somewhat masochistic and, admittedly, even a tad narcissistic. But it's also important. Every once in awhile, we all need a little kick in the ass to remind us why we're still in the game.

The Sound of Silence

I had C-Span on standby. As today's historic inauguration played out on television, I was wary of commentators trying to talk over each other to score the best sound bite. Maybe I'd just watched too many Olbermann-Matthews co-anchor-a-thons over the summer.

But to my delight, the networks -- namely CNN and NBC, the channels I flipped between -- played Barack Obama day just right. Mostly silence during the big moments, filled with a little bit o' Brockaw nostalgia and Kearns Goodwin historical gravitas when the time called for it. There was no need for a replacement station.

I also had the pleasure of watching the inauguration proceedings with recent immigrants who were witnessing their first presidential celebration in America. It was a touching moment, and nice to see people who genuinely enjoyed the event. My article on the experience is here.

My favorite quote: “Before today I didn’t really feel like an American,” said Aden Mohamed, a native Somali who came to the United States two months ago. “Today, I feel like part of this country.”

Truly an amazing day for anyone covering or watching.

The Call for iNews

Last week, the New York Times' David Carr asked in a column whether the faltering newspaper business could take a page from Apple and invent an iTunes for news that would bolster companies' bottom lines. As Carr asks:

"Is there a way to reverse the broad expectation that information, including
content assembled and produced by professionals, should be free?"

The line of thinking is easy to follow: Readers, like listeners who were used to downloading music for free, can be retrained to pay for content. It doesn't sound absurd on its face. Newsgathering is often expensive if done right, and the cost of reporting just isn't being paid for by things like display ads.

But let's not forget the basic economic principle that says people typically won't pay for something once they've gotten it for free. Let's also remember that many music listeners were downloading with fear. They were concerned about legal ramifications of their actions and could be persuaded to pay for piece of mind. There's no such concern with reading news for free.

The answer to Carr's question is that, yes, some loyal readers would pay for the content. He points out that he subscribes to the Wall Street Journal online, even though he could get much of the same news by going behind firewalls. Problem is, Carr isn't your typical news consumer.

Then there's the issue of pricing. Apple is being lauded for changing the one-price-fits-all model of iTunes. But how would one set a pay scale for articles -- by author, publication prestige, article length?

And don't forget about the technology angle. In a response column to Carr's piece, Slate's Jack Shafer notes that "a flawed iTunes for news already exists." That is, Amazon's Kindle, which allows users to download paid subscriptions to the Times and other publications for a fee. Shafer rightly notes that the market for a reader isn't where it needs to be.

It's also worth mentioning that a sizeable number of newsies (whose careers may depend on a new business model for journalism) would likely be against the idea of charging for news online. There's a strong argument to be made for democratizing information -- and the iNews model would certainly be a step back.

So where does that leave us?

Likely with a compromise. Charging everyone probably won't work. But keeping the status quo won't either. What about the idea of creating extra features -- videos, podcasts, behind-the-looks at how a story was reported -- offered to readers who are willing to pay? Sure, you run the risk of creating a tiered system of delivering news. But it might be worth a try.

A Day Without a Journalist

From the makers of "A Day Without a Gay" and the original "A Day Without a Mexican," now comes a thriller about a news cycle that has....NO NEWS. Da da da. "A Day Without a Journalist." Why not?

We'll show 'em. No reporting. No editing. No headlines. No crawl text. Would a full 24 hours without journalism make any statement at all? It certainly would make it so that:

* Bloggers (Yes, I realize the irony here) and local news stations would have to scrounge for their own material

* The breakfast table would have more awkward conversations

* People would have far less to read/talk about at work

* People would be far more productive at work

* Stranded airport passengers would all be talking on their cell phones at once

In all seriousness, though, we're so used to constant news feeds that a daylong drought would be quite noticeable. If you think about it, one news cycle carries a substantial amount of information. Falling behind a day is enough to make a person feel out of touch. If Joni Mitchell's right and readers don't know what they've got 'til it's gone, maybe this is actually worth a try?

(illustration courtesy of Centennial Society)

Washington Weak

The District of Columbia is used to a cyclical game of who's your neighbor. It's the nature of a city filled with people who move in and head out with the political tide. But, as a thoughtful article in the American Journalism Review notes, there's one group who seems to be leaving for good -- local newspaper Washington correspondents.

Jennifer Dorroh mentions in the piece a growing list of publications that are choosing to scale back or cut entirely the D.C. bureau. As detailed in the story, a diminished Washington presence means that newspapers will be less able to hold public officials accountable and less likely to find the next big scandal, let alone chronicle day-to-day activity on The Hill.

Wire services can cover the big national stories, but there's no replacement for reporters who know what readers in a given region want to see covered. You can blog about Washington all you want, but face-to-face access is still the name of the game.

The Death of P-I?

As both a journalist and (former) Seattlite, it's always been a source of pride that my home town falls in the same category as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles when it comes to newspapers. That is, there are multiple metro dailies.

Until now, perhaps. It's dissapointing -- but hardly surprising -- to hear that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is up for sale with likely 60 days to live. The P-I's parent company, The Hearst Corp., has reported that the newspaper lost about $14 million in 2008.

For years rumors have persisted that either the P-I or the Times, which share a JOA, wouldn't survive. In such a tumultuous newspaper environment, it's impressive that both papers have lasted this long. There was a time when nearly any big city could support two newspapers -- if not more. But that time has passed, and Seattle is hardly in the same population league as the cities mentioned earlier.

We were always a Times family growing up, and perhaps for no other reason than tradition I kept up on Seattle news with that newspaper's Web site. But I always appreciated the P-I for its reporting, as well as for its iconic spinning globe and, well, funny name.

A quick tangent: It's always a bit odd to see a newspaper report about itself, especially when it's A-1 material. Can you imagine being a staff writer assigned to write your own career obituary?

But back to the big picture. Readers generally have won when there's local newspaper competition. That appears to be gone. Still, the Times won't be the only game in town. The P-I has floated the idea of going Web-only with a small staff. The online publication Crosscut has been a welcome addition, and there certainly is room for more innovative competitors.

Still, make no mistake, journalism in Seattle has taken a big hit.