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.