Consistently Inconsistent

In the latest issue of Editor & Publisher, a headline asks the question "The End of 'Objectivity' in New Journalism Era: A Good Thing?" Starting the article with the supposition that there ever was a golden age of objectivity in the press is questionable.

But the author brings up a very important point about a new dilemma facing reporters. He describes a quite common situation in which a journalist is asked to blog about his beat on top of writing daily articles for the print and Web editions. Beyond the workload concern (a topic for another post) is the issue of tone.

Editors tend to like blog posts to be more informal. Fine. Nothing wrong with engaging with your readers in a different style. But there are often expectations that the blogger will include opinions. Therein lies the trouble. If you're asked to play it like Brokaw in print and like Olbermann online (I realize I'm mixing mediums in my metaphor), how do you reconcile your two voices?

I'm a stickler for consistency. Hire a reporter. Hire a columnist. Hire a blogger whose job duties are well defined. It's the middle ground that's dangerous -- editors sending mixed messages to writers about what tone they expect. Or perhaps it's the problem of sending no message at all. "Why don't you start a blog?" is analogous to saying "Why don't you throw up content on the Web." Without direction, the reporter is left guessing.

All this isn't to say that journalists shouldn't be able to vary their styles depending on audience and subject. Casual writing is more a part of the profession now than ever. Edgy is expected, but editorializing still comes with its consequences. Sources on the beat don't -- and shouldn't -- separate the blog persona from the print/online news persona. An off-colored joke won't soon be forgotten. Put another way, Olbermann doesn't face the newsmakers he rants about the morning after.

We're not going back to the era of "and that's the way it is." Some journalists seek out the forum to express their opinions; some would rather write in latin than use the word "I." My concern is for the large group in the middle who are often caught in a world of unclear and inconsistent expectations.

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.

Covering an Historic Election

I'm recovering from what can only be described as a post-election hangover. This being the first presidential election I've covered in earnest (I had the much-dreaded man-on-the-street assignment in 2004), I was very excited to learn that I'd be appearing on St. Louis' PBS station, KETC, to talk about my reporting on youth voter turnout.

Throughout the day I checked in with the St. Louis City Board of Elections to see if the projected record turnout was coming to fruition (The jury's still out). I did do some interviewing of voters at the polls, including a trip to Washington University, where the Obama t-shirts and buttons outnumbered McCain apparel about 15-1.

The TV interview went well -- I'm far from an experienced pundit but I got my points across, even if I only got to use two of the many stats I'd memorized. Three minutes on TV goes really fast. My segment was part of an hourlong local broadcast of the election. There were no beamed-in reporters or magic touch screen monitors, but the program was well-conceived and executed.

I spent the rest of the evening at a party for a Republican Missouri state senator who was running for attorney general. It was a surreal scene. Fox News was on every TV set, and the crowd's mood soured little by little as it became apparent that Barack Obama was going to take the big prize.

Finally, at around 10:45, the state senator concedeed, and the place cleared out real quickly. I drove home equally as quickly, rewound the DVR to MSNBC and relived the later part of the evening. History was being made, and I didn't want my lasting memory to be from a party that resembled a funeral.

It's hard to fully appreciate the magnitude of the story I was able to cover this Election Day. Years from now, when I share the story with my children, maybe then it will hit me.

P.S. - Yes, I realize my hair looks kinda ridiculous in this photo. Too much hair gel + closeup profile shot = oh boy.

Waiting to Exhale

That collective sigh you're hearing on TV is coming from the pundits, anchors and reporters who are nearing the end of Campaign 07-08 (think it's really just been a one-year process?). The collective mood you're sensing from reading political blogs and last-minute MSM election coverage is one of, say, exausted elation.

Speaking of exausted... having covered pretty much every angle of the presidential race, journalists are down to talking about how they're ready for it all to be over. Understandable. Months and months on a bus with campaign aides will do that to you.

Funny thing, though, is they are probably the only ones in the industry who feel that way. It goes without saying that readership and ratings are way up when political races steal the headlines. News editors love it. And TV ad managers will be crying once political spots go off the air -- they've been propping up a struggling industry for months.

Programming note: I'll be blogging for the St. Louis Beacon all day tomorrow, and making a brief appearance on KETC, the St. Louis PBS station to talk about youth voting, which I wrote about for the Web site recently. More on covering the Big Day later in the week...

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....

The 9-to-5-ization of Journalism

Among my favorite newsroom cliches is this one: "I didn't get into this field to work a 9-to-5." Translation: The money ain't that good, so I don't want a desk job and sure as hell won't wear a tie." Nothing's changed on the latter front (though anecdotal evidence says journalists are dressing better these days ... who knows when you'll be on cable news). But with the growing popularity of blogging, reporters are becoming accustomed to a more traditional work schedule -- or maybe they're now working both days and nights.

Used to be the reporter's day really heated up (deadline standard time -- another of those cliches) only when the rest of the country was clocking out. No longer. Journalists are being asked to feed their blogs throughout the day to keep the working folk up to date. It's not uncommon for reporters to file a roundup of links before 9 a.m. The way editors see it, the news has to be there when the reader wants it most -- when they get into work and during their lunch break.

As my friend who works at ESPN.com jokes, his job performance is measured by how much productivity decreases at offices across the country. He's transitioned from a schedule where he'd most often be working from 4-11 to one where he's on from 8 till dark.

There are, of course, still the night editors, weekend anchors and all-hours producers to keep the field from getting too much in lock step. But the growth seems to be in 9-to-5 content providers (ughh, speaking of ugly phrases.)

The common complaint is that the constant updates are just extending the work day. But for those who are actually clocking out around 5, this marks a new day for journalists -- they can actually see their kids.