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.

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.

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.

Drumroll Please... A Newspaper That's Added Content

Ok, so I realize this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who's paid attention thus far to the Wall Street Journal's new weekend magazine, WSJ. But, hey, in this media and economic environment until the thing shows up on your doorstep more than once nothing can be taken for granted.

What to make of this new offering? Well, a lot of people are talking about gifts in the latest edition -- the editor, a 13-year-old violinist -- and I suppose the whole mag is a present from Rupert to you, the soft-feature-story-loving reader.

Speaking of Mr. Murdoch, remember when he said pretty plainly that he, um, wanted to displace the Times as the paper of record. Maybe he meant in the regular print edition? Cause while colorful (speed walking across the Sahara, cool), the mag doesn't look like it's going to bring home any Pulitzers. To be fair, it was billed as a luxury lifestyle magazine and the "authority on modern wealth."

And so clearly Rupe's going after the Times in another way. Take a look at the ad on the magazine's home page: Cartier.

Bling's in your court, Sulzberger.

The Obama Observer

I'll see your New York Times choose-your-own-Obama-cabinet Web feature (check out the post below) and raise you a Politico follow-the-president-elect's-every-dry-cleaner-trip-and-basketball-game calendar. On "Politico 44," a Web page within the Web site that the publication describes as "a living diary of the Obama presidency," you can see a daily schedule for the president-elect. Yes, the official meetings are up there with the news that Malia reportedly performed in a play that the whole family attended.

Something tells me "Politico 42" would have been a hotter sell.

Fantasy Politics

WHO YA GOT???

Newspapers are tripping over themselves these days to be as interactive as possible. Reader polls. Live chats with editors. Comment boxes. Sometimes all three in the same graphic.

The New York Times seems to be taking a page from ESPN.com with its latest interactive idea. Titled "If You Were President ..." the feature asks readers to make their selection for President-elect Barack Obama's cabinet by choosing who they would like to see as members of his new administration. Readers do so by using a dropdown bar that gives popular names -- or they can enter their own pick -- along with logos of the office.

College football fans have long gone through the same exercise to select who they think is deserving of a Top 25 ranking. Sports fans in general are used to selecting their dream teams through fantasy sports. Who's to say politicos won't enjoy the same type of game.

C'mon, tell me you wouldn't drool over drafting a Colin Powell, Al Gore, Janet Napolitano, Tim Kaine, Warren Buffett starting lineup. Unstoppable.

From Punditry to Comedy

Really?

D.L. Hughley as political satirist? Looks like someone at CNN has been enjoying his "Daily Show" lately. The cable news channel has tapped the R-rated comedian to host a primetime weekend show where he'll do some stand up, talk to some newsies and perform some sketch comedy.

CNN told the NY Times that it"is not trying to re-create" Jon Stewart's emmy-winning program, but expects the show to more closely resemble "The Tonight Show." What that says about the state of cable news is the subject of another post. Let's just got with it for now...it has me thinking, what could other TV stations do to match CNN?

Fox News' Deadpan Hour with Ben Stein: The comedian spends 55 minutes explaining the economy and the creation of the universe using silly putty; finishes the show with a roll call....Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

MSNBC's Larry David Variety Show: The "Curb" creator and "Seinfeld" mastermind vents about the state of politics. "What's with the lapel pin? Why is Barack Obama expected to smile during the debates when the camera's not on him? I'd be picking my nose."

C-SPAN's...uhhh, uhhh....

Bull On Parade

Much as MSNBC's Keith Olbermann found his editorial voice attacking right-leaning politicians and their policies, CNN anchor Campbell Brown is making her name calling out campaign leaders and other newsmakers whose comments sound fishy.

Brown isn't relying on hyper-partisan rhetoric. In fact, she's making a painstaking effort to claim neutrality as her network seeks to find a middle ground between MSNBC and Fox News. Her YouTubular-rant directed at Sarah Palin's handlers for shielding her from the media? More of a show of solidarity with spurned reporters than anything else.

In Brown's "Cutting Through the Bull" segment that points out overstatements and debunks campaign ads, it's a Democratic tit for a Republican tat. It's setting the record straight on John McCain's role in the savings and loan scandal and explaining Barack Obama's relationship with violent antiwar protester William Ayers.

Brown's show is fairing well in CNN's 8 p.m. slot. According to The New York Times, the program drew an average of 826,000 viewers a night from March 10 through Sept. 28.

There's nothing wrong with a little fact checking on cable news. Pointing out absurdity has become a nightly ritual on The Daily Show. But Brown and CNN reporters don't use Jon Stewart's brand of satire -- or any humor for that matter. And therein lies the potential problem.

By rehashing the smear campaign of the day in such a serious setting, CNN runs the risk of perpetuating falsehoods. As The Washington Post reported last year:

"The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths."

It's not as if Brown invented the "fact checker" feature (newspapers have long run such columns around election season) or broke new ground by responding to puzzling sound bites. It's just that by adopting the "no bull" theme for her show, she is promising evenhanded public interest journalism in a format that rewards partisanship and quick-hitting reports.

Only time will tell if Brown's show has enough meat.

The New Rules on Corrections

At a time when journalism conventions are changing rapidly, and print publications are cutting staff and reducing page sizes, at least one tradition remains: the correction box typically posted on the bottom of page 2.

It has long been the place to find out about yesterday's mistakes, and to feel vindicated after alerting an editor that your aunt Beth's last name was spelled wrong. There's a pretty simple rule about when to run a print correction: If there's a confirmed factual error, set it straight. If the word "too" appeared when the sentence called for "to," well, then, let your English teachers foam at the mouth, confront your copy editor by the snack machine...and move on.

Some of the same rules apply to online news sites, which have the luxury of making instantaneous changes. You won't find editors alerting readers of punctuation errors, and you'd like to think that major factual errors would get the ol' "Editor's note: This passage has been changed from its original version" treatment.

But there's undoubtedly a larger gray area for when to correct online mistakes. What if it's 7:15 a.m. and a reporter notices he attributed a quote to the wrong source. He calls the editor, who makes the change. Do you run a correction with the story, even if it attracts attention to an error that few people ever saw?

Then there's the question of whether readers even know where to find these online versions of correction boxes. It's been noted that a large percentage of daily newspaper Web sites don't have such a link on their home page -- if at all.

Still, some of the most popular sites do due diligence on this front. The New York Times puts its correction link on the left bar of its home page, in between the classifieds and crosswords links. (Not a far cry from a virtual page 2 treatment.) The L.A. Times gives corrections a similar treatment. MSNBC also gives prominent play to its correction link, as does Salon.com.

What's missing, though, is consistency and transparency. News sites would do well by readers to include a corrections link on the home page. This link should take readers to a page that has a real-time list of corrections made (however small). That way, even if the editor in my 7:15 scenario above decides not to draw attention to the error by noting the correction in the story, a curious reader could still find out what a previous version of the story said.

Editor's Note: I accidentally published this post the first time without making sure it was the final version. As a wise man once wrote: D'oh!

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.