This article caught my attention because it was different than most I have recently read. Yes, we all know that newspapers are dying and that they are having a hard time coming up with enough cash. But how often do we hear of people trying out solutions?
Crosscut.com, an online publication started in Seattle that describes itself as "non-partisan" and "in the public interest," has decided to go non-profit.
Battling the difficult economy, the dropping ad prices, and the high start-up costs was tough for Crosscut.
When advertising sales weren't making ends meet, David Brewster, one of the publishers, said he was running out of both money and patience. So, he turned to a solution that has the potential to save Crosscut.
According to the article, Crosscut will now go from a profit-based business to a non-profit organization:
"As a nonprofit, Crosscut would continue to accept advertising but also would solicit tax-deductible donations from individuals and grants from organizations to help finance its journalism."
One of the most prominent examples of a non-profit news organization is National Public Radio.
So now comes the question - will the public support journalism?
I think that comes down to the press-citizen relationship. People need to think of the press as an asset - something highly valuable that is of immense public service. If they take the press for granted, or if they blame it for current problems, then that relationship will be destroyed.
I think that a non-profit model could possibly work - but I highly doubt that most news organizations are in the right position with their readers right now. If they take steps toward showing themselves as reliable, un-biased, quality journalists, then maybe this non-profit thing could save the press after all.
What do you all think? Will it work? Will people donate to their journalism organizations, or do news professionals need to win their trust first?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Regulations on media outlets
I ran across this article about FOX News and the legal case it is currently involved with. It caught my attention because it involves a controversy that has been going on for a while.
(You can read more about the case here.)
Basically, the issue of profanity in the media has gone to the Supreme Court. The issue was discussed by justices, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), and an attorney for FOX. They debated the use of expletives on television, citing examples of Cher, Nicole Richie, and Bono uttering curse words live.
The justices cracked jokes and employed euphemisms to refer to the words involved throughout the case.
The current policy is that the FCC can punish a network for repeated expletives. However, they are currently trying to determine if this can apply to "one-time," single slip-ups.
The article explains the court hearing's background:
"The Federal Communications Commission reversed long-standing policy targeting only repeated expletives and said any one-time use of vulgarities associated with sexual or excretory functions could be sanctioned.
The FCC then declared indecent a 2002 outburst by Cher on a Fox awards show and several other incidents. Fox Television Stations sued, saying the new limit on "fleeting expletives" was arbitrary and violated the First Amendment. "
As I read this article, several opposing thoughts came to mind. On one hand, there are certain "widely accepted" standards which are part of society to protect children. Most public news channels are considered "safe," and families can leave the news on and expect professionalism and decency. I think it should stay that way.
On the other hand, the logistics seem a little strange. How can the FCC punish something that is said live? Yes, more safegaurds should be put in place. Networks should brief their guest stars on what is acceptable and what is not.
Basically, if it's pre-recorded, there should be definite boundaries on what can and can't be said on public or widely-accessed television. In general, most sketchier shows are played after 10pm to avoid children viewing them. This practice is good, and should be continued. However, when it comes to live television, I think it will be a pointless effort to actually enforce legislation that blames a network for a "one-time" curse word slip.
What do you all think? We all support the fact that everyone has a First Amendment right to say whatever they want. But should the FCC play the "watchdog" role in regulating offensive content?
(You can read more about the case here.)
Basically, the issue of profanity in the media has gone to the Supreme Court. The issue was discussed by justices, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), and an attorney for FOX. They debated the use of expletives on television, citing examples of Cher, Nicole Richie, and Bono uttering curse words live.
The justices cracked jokes and employed euphemisms to refer to the words involved throughout the case.
The current policy is that the FCC can punish a network for repeated expletives. However, they are currently trying to determine if this can apply to "one-time," single slip-ups.
The article explains the court hearing's background:
"The Federal Communications Commission reversed long-standing policy targeting only repeated expletives and said any one-time use of vulgarities associated with sexual or excretory functions could be sanctioned.
The FCC then declared indecent a 2002 outburst by Cher on a Fox awards show and several other incidents. Fox Television Stations sued, saying the new limit on "fleeting expletives" was arbitrary and violated the First Amendment. "
As I read this article, several opposing thoughts came to mind. On one hand, there are certain "widely accepted" standards which are part of society to protect children. Most public news channels are considered "safe," and families can leave the news on and expect professionalism and decency. I think it should stay that way.
On the other hand, the logistics seem a little strange. How can the FCC punish something that is said live? Yes, more safegaurds should be put in place. Networks should brief their guest stars on what is acceptable and what is not.
Basically, if it's pre-recorded, there should be definite boundaries on what can and can't be said on public or widely-accessed television. In general, most sketchier shows are played after 10pm to avoid children viewing them. This practice is good, and should be continued. However, when it comes to live television, I think it will be a pointless effort to actually enforce legislation that blames a network for a "one-time" curse word slip.
What do you all think? We all support the fact that everyone has a First Amendment right to say whatever they want. But should the FCC play the "watchdog" role in regulating offensive content?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Newsroom diversity
I ran across this interesting article from the AP regarding religious diversity among publications.
The article talks about evangelical Christians and how they are historically under-represented in the media. You hear lots of exagerated talk about the "big, bad liberal media" among a lot of conservatives, and they often point to the lack of religious diversity in the newsroom as the reason.
The article told of Christian journalists leaving the field to work for religious publications instead. "While there's been heavy gender and racial diversity ... there's a lack of cultural diversity in journalism," said Terry Mattingly, director of the Washington Journalism Center.
Religion is in the definite minority in the newsroom. The Pew Research Center for the People and Press conducted an interesting survey. Only 8% of journalists attended regular religious services. 68% of journalists either never attended religious services or only attended a few times a year.
This is in stark contrast to the general public. 39% of people attend religious services on a weekly basis.
Robert Case, of the World Journalism Institute, made it clear that evangelicals are often grouped into a "sterotype." However, they "are diverse politically, intellectually and theologically," even though this diversity among Christians is often overshadowed.
"It bothers me that when mainstream outlets want an evangelical voice, they've turned to Jerry Falwell or James Dobson or Pat Robertson," Case said. "They are men of high regard and standing, but there are others who have a different take on things."
This article was particularly of interest to me, because I am of the evangelical faith. I do think that journalism is and should always remain open and un-biased. However, I think diversity in the newsroom should at least equal diversity in society. And I don't just mean Christians. I mean other people of faith as well.
I think there are definite places for religious slant in writing, such as in faith-based publications. But obviously, I do not support more Christians in the mainstream newsroom just to "take it over" and impose their agenda. We want as little bias as possible, and that definitely includes religious biases.
I do think, however, that Christians shouldn't be so afraid or resentful of the media, and I believe they should go out there and work in the mainstream media. Hopefully, these journalists will realize the great asset they have - the ability to write about and cover religion with in-depth understanding and first-hand knowledge of faith-based communities and how they operate.
The article summed up the goal of evangelicals in journalism:
In seeking a greater voice in the media, most evangelical leaders say their goal isn't to evangelize inside newsrooms, which demand that journalists set aside their beliefs for the sake of objectivity.
"They have to be journalists first," Mattingly said. "You don't need more Christian journalists. You need more journalists who happen to be Christians if they're going to contribute to any real diversity in newsrooms."
So what do you all think? Does the media seem inclusive and diverse? Or should more faiths be represented in the newsroom?
The article talks about evangelical Christians and how they are historically under-represented in the media. You hear lots of exagerated talk about the "big, bad liberal media" among a lot of conservatives, and they often point to the lack of religious diversity in the newsroom as the reason.
The article told of Christian journalists leaving the field to work for religious publications instead. "While there's been heavy gender and racial diversity ... there's a lack of cultural diversity in journalism," said Terry Mattingly, director of the Washington Journalism Center.
Religion is in the definite minority in the newsroom. The Pew Research Center for the People and Press conducted an interesting survey. Only 8% of journalists attended regular religious services. 68% of journalists either never attended religious services or only attended a few times a year.
This is in stark contrast to the general public. 39% of people attend religious services on a weekly basis.
Robert Case, of the World Journalism Institute, made it clear that evangelicals are often grouped into a "sterotype." However, they "are diverse politically, intellectually and theologically," even though this diversity among Christians is often overshadowed.
"It bothers me that when mainstream outlets want an evangelical voice, they've turned to Jerry Falwell or James Dobson or Pat Robertson," Case said. "They are men of high regard and standing, but there are others who have a different take on things."
This article was particularly of interest to me, because I am of the evangelical faith. I do think that journalism is and should always remain open and un-biased. However, I think diversity in the newsroom should at least equal diversity in society. And I don't just mean Christians. I mean other people of faith as well.
I think there are definite places for religious slant in writing, such as in faith-based publications. But obviously, I do not support more Christians in the mainstream newsroom just to "take it over" and impose their agenda. We want as little bias as possible, and that definitely includes religious biases.
I do think, however, that Christians shouldn't be so afraid or resentful of the media, and I believe they should go out there and work in the mainstream media. Hopefully, these journalists will realize the great asset they have - the ability to write about and cover religion with in-depth understanding and first-hand knowledge of faith-based communities and how they operate.
The article summed up the goal of evangelicals in journalism:
In seeking a greater voice in the media, most evangelical leaders say their goal isn't to evangelize inside newsrooms, which demand that journalists set aside their beliefs for the sake of objectivity.
"They have to be journalists first," Mattingly said. "You don't need more Christian journalists. You need more journalists who happen to be Christians if they're going to contribute to any real diversity in newsrooms."
So what do you all think? Does the media seem inclusive and diverse? Or should more faiths be represented in the newsroom?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Saying goodbye to the wire - Newspapers drop AP subscriptions to cut costs
This article, published on the New York Times website, really caught my attention.
We've heard all the hoopla over the economic woes that newspapers are going through. But other than laying off staff, I haven't heard of many steps that papers were taking in order to survive the financial storm.
Apparently, dropping AP wire services from their publications is the new way to cut back on costs.
This brings one word to mind: desperation.
The Associated Press was created over 100 years ago, and it is the premier news service that shares stories, photographs, and videos with publications all over the world. They have over 13,500 clients.
The annual price for the service is large - the Star Tribune pays over $1 million a year, and the Columbus Dispatch over $800,000 a year. Larger newspapers pay more.
The Columbus Dispatch announced their decision to drop the AP service last week, but contracts can only be broken with a "two-year notice." So, they have a couple years to figure out how they will operate "post-AP."
Some newspapers are banding together to share articles with each other, while others are looking at Reuters or other news outlets to fulfill their news needs.
As I read this, I couldn't quite decide on my position. One one hand, AP service has become expensive, and I do want newspapers to live to see another day... even if they have to scrape by for a little bit while they wait out the storm.
But on the other hand, I truly, honestly believe that a publication couldn't survive as a global paper (maybe a local one, but not a full-service international one) without AP. The AP has writers in over 100 countries, taking pictures and covering stories that some small-town writer from America can't possibly cover.
The Associated Press is, in essence, a newspaper's access to the world. And newspapers are, in theory, the people's access to the world. See the problem?
Yes, I think some alternative news services could be established. But I doubt that any service will come close to the sheer number of reporters and photographers that the AP has on the ground right now.
So, the AP should do something about it. Cut costs. Give newspapers a break. Then maybe, they'll be helping newspapers survive while keeping the public tuned in to world events.
What do you all think? Is there a solution to this?
We've heard all the hoopla over the economic woes that newspapers are going through. But other than laying off staff, I haven't heard of many steps that papers were taking in order to survive the financial storm.
Apparently, dropping AP wire services from their publications is the new way to cut back on costs.
This brings one word to mind: desperation.
The Associated Press was created over 100 years ago, and it is the premier news service that shares stories, photographs, and videos with publications all over the world. They have over 13,500 clients.
The annual price for the service is large - the Star Tribune pays over $1 million a year, and the Columbus Dispatch over $800,000 a year. Larger newspapers pay more.
The Columbus Dispatch announced their decision to drop the AP service last week, but contracts can only be broken with a "two-year notice." So, they have a couple years to figure out how they will operate "post-AP."
Some newspapers are banding together to share articles with each other, while others are looking at Reuters or other news outlets to fulfill their news needs.
As I read this, I couldn't quite decide on my position. One one hand, AP service has become expensive, and I do want newspapers to live to see another day... even if they have to scrape by for a little bit while they wait out the storm.
But on the other hand, I truly, honestly believe that a publication couldn't survive as a global paper (maybe a local one, but not a full-service international one) without AP. The AP has writers in over 100 countries, taking pictures and covering stories that some small-town writer from America can't possibly cover.
The Associated Press is, in essence, a newspaper's access to the world. And newspapers are, in theory, the people's access to the world. See the problem?
Yes, I think some alternative news services could be established. But I doubt that any service will come close to the sheer number of reporters and photographers that the AP has on the ground right now.
So, the AP should do something about it. Cut costs. Give newspapers a break. Then maybe, they'll be helping newspapers survive while keeping the public tuned in to world events.
What do you all think? Is there a solution to this?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Does the glass ceiling remain?
As I was perusing the web for media stories, I found this article that caught my attention. It speaks of the writer, Caryl Rivers, who recently won the Society of Professional Journalists' Lifetime Achievement Award.
Rivers has quite a remarkable resume to boast about. She worked as a Washington correspondent for several newspapers, covered difficult subject matter, and authored 14 books. She currently blogs and contibutes to some of the nation's major newspapers, such as the Boston Globe and the LA Times.
The part of the article that caught my attention was this: that Rivers "is quick to acknowledge that the media have improved in their treatment of women, but she believes that the profession still has a glass ceiling. In a March 2008 Boston Globe article, 'The Double Standard,' Rivers accuses reporters of asking Barack Obama easy questions while directing the tougher ones to Hillary Clinton."
You can read her 'Double Standard' article here. In it, she vehemently defends Hilary Clinton from the harsh manner in which the media was treating her: "As Gloria Steinem noted in her much-discussed New York Times op-ed piece, what if Obama had been a woman, with the same resume? A female candidate with his resume would have been laughed at if she said she wanted to run for president."
In her first quote, she said that she thinks the "media have improved on their treatment of women," but that the infamous glass ceiling still remains. I think this is an interesting statement. It's definitely something that I haven't really given too much thought to in the context of journalism.
I wish I could speak with Ms. Rivers today, now that Palin has burst on to the political scene. If Ms. Rivers thought the media was treating Hilary, an influential political woman, badly THEN... what would she think NOW? Palin has been virtually ripped apart in every way - everything from whether or not her youngest son is really her child, to her personal family issues, to "whether she can be both a good parent and a good VP" (an incredibly sexist question, by the way) have been covered in extensive detail by the press.
Now, I'm not saying that all of Palin's press treatment is simply due to her gender, and I'm not saying Hilary's was either. But when we look at the way both of these ladies were treated, it does make you start to notice things a little better.
"The media coverage of the Clinton campaign will be, for years to come, a textbook case of how the coverage of female candidates differs from that of males. Women have to walk a very thin line when they run for high office," Rivers wrote.
The question that should be asked, then, is why? Why does the media report every detail about Palin's kids' lives, and yet we've heard virtually no news whatsoever about McCain's kids? I'm sure his kids are up to stuff, but no one cares to cover them or question McCain's involvement or parenting. In most households, both fathers and mothers are actively involved with their children. It seems like some media professionals forget that men are also parents, and they focus instead only the women.
The final topic to be brought up is in the journalism profession itself. Rivers said that when she was a young journalist, a woman would not typically be in journalistic leadership positions. Even today, you can take a look at the editors and managers of any major newspaper and rarely find even one woman. I do think that in the field of reporting, women writers and broadcasters are definitely gaining some incredible ground. But I still think that the media industry is, mostly, run, edited, and managed by men.
What do you all think? Does the media tend to treat women differently? Is this OK and reasonable, or is it not?
Rivers has quite a remarkable resume to boast about. She worked as a Washington correspondent for several newspapers, covered difficult subject matter, and authored 14 books. She currently blogs and contibutes to some of the nation's major newspapers, such as the Boston Globe and the LA Times.
The part of the article that caught my attention was this: that Rivers "is quick to acknowledge that the media have improved in their treatment of women, but she believes that the profession still has a glass ceiling. In a March 2008 Boston Globe article, 'The Double Standard,' Rivers accuses reporters of asking Barack Obama easy questions while directing the tougher ones to Hillary Clinton."
You can read her 'Double Standard' article here. In it, she vehemently defends Hilary Clinton from the harsh manner in which the media was treating her: "As Gloria Steinem noted in her much-discussed New York Times op-ed piece, what if Obama had been a woman, with the same resume? A female candidate with his resume would have been laughed at if she said she wanted to run for president."
In her first quote, she said that she thinks the "media have improved on their treatment of women," but that the infamous glass ceiling still remains. I think this is an interesting statement. It's definitely something that I haven't really given too much thought to in the context of journalism.
I wish I could speak with Ms. Rivers today, now that Palin has burst on to the political scene. If Ms. Rivers thought the media was treating Hilary, an influential political woman, badly THEN... what would she think NOW? Palin has been virtually ripped apart in every way - everything from whether or not her youngest son is really her child, to her personal family issues, to "whether she can be both a good parent and a good VP" (an incredibly sexist question, by the way) have been covered in extensive detail by the press.
Now, I'm not saying that all of Palin's press treatment is simply due to her gender, and I'm not saying Hilary's was either. But when we look at the way both of these ladies were treated, it does make you start to notice things a little better.
"The media coverage of the Clinton campaign will be, for years to come, a textbook case of how the coverage of female candidates differs from that of males. Women have to walk a very thin line when they run for high office," Rivers wrote.
The question that should be asked, then, is why? Why does the media report every detail about Palin's kids' lives, and yet we've heard virtually no news whatsoever about McCain's kids? I'm sure his kids are up to stuff, but no one cares to cover them or question McCain's involvement or parenting. In most households, both fathers and mothers are actively involved with their children. It seems like some media professionals forget that men are also parents, and they focus instead only the women.
The final topic to be brought up is in the journalism profession itself. Rivers said that when she was a young journalist, a woman would not typically be in journalistic leadership positions. Even today, you can take a look at the editors and managers of any major newspaper and rarely find even one woman. I do think that in the field of reporting, women writers and broadcasters are definitely gaining some incredible ground. But I still think that the media industry is, mostly, run, edited, and managed by men.
What do you all think? Does the media tend to treat women differently? Is this OK and reasonable, or is it not?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Free speech gets a boost in California
I was pleased to hear about a new bill in California, turned into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger on Sept. 28, that would help student reporters and their advisors gain more freedoms.
This piece of legislation seeks to keep school administrators from punishing or threatening advisors who encourage and allow students' free speech.
Basically, if a student writes about something that is later deemed "controversial" by the administration, this law would protect the advisor or faculty member from being fired or retaliated against by the school.
I'm really glad this legislation was passed, because I see it as a monumental step forward. It comes at the perfect time,because lately students have been fighting to make their publications reflect student voices and not just serve as "propaganda machines" for their schools.
As a student reporter, if I were covering something that I thought would harm my advisor, I would probably think twice about it. This law will finally give First Amendment rights to students.
"Students believe that teachers should not be punished for the way students think," said high school journalism teacher John Brown. I wholeheartedly agree.
For those of you who don't see the issue at hand, there are some examples as cited in The Advocate's article. One advisor was fired by a school because of a critical editorial he let the students publish. Another advisor, at an LA high school, was fired when his students wrote about the adminstration's random locker searches.
Hopefully this law will quickly become a precedent, and other states will follow with similar legislative actions. The First Amendment is not a luxury or ideal - it is a real, essential, working part of our country's Supreme Law.
So what do you all think? How far should censorship go? Also, if anyone went to private school, you know that there is a whole other issue to be faced. Do private school students waive their rights when they enter into a tuition contract with the school, or should they get rights too? Should this California law apply only to public school administrators, or to everyone? Definitely something to think about.
This piece of legislation seeks to keep school administrators from punishing or threatening advisors who encourage and allow students' free speech.
Basically, if a student writes about something that is later deemed "controversial" by the administration, this law would protect the advisor or faculty member from being fired or retaliated against by the school.
I'm really glad this legislation was passed, because I see it as a monumental step forward. It comes at the perfect time,because lately students have been fighting to make their publications reflect student voices and not just serve as "propaganda machines" for their schools.
As a student reporter, if I were covering something that I thought would harm my advisor, I would probably think twice about it. This law will finally give First Amendment rights to students.
"Students believe that teachers should not be punished for the way students think," said high school journalism teacher John Brown. I wholeheartedly agree.
For those of you who don't see the issue at hand, there are some examples as cited in The Advocate's article. One advisor was fired by a school because of a critical editorial he let the students publish. Another advisor, at an LA high school, was fired when his students wrote about the adminstration's random locker searches.
Hopefully this law will quickly become a precedent, and other states will follow with similar legislative actions. The First Amendment is not a luxury or ideal - it is a real, essential, working part of our country's Supreme Law.
So what do you all think? How far should censorship go? Also, if anyone went to private school, you know that there is a whole other issue to be faced. Do private school students waive their rights when they enter into a tuition contract with the school, or should they get rights too? Should this California law apply only to public school administrators, or to everyone? Definitely something to think about.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Gotcha Journalism?
Before you read this post, please watch the brief video here. It shows Sarah Palin picking up a meal for her and her daughter a Philadelphia cheesesteak restuarant. Listen to the dialogue that goes on between her and a voter.
During the video, he asks her about Pakistan, and she tells him that if they needed to invade Pakistan in order to stop terrorists and protect our people, she would do it, "absolutely."
The problem? McCain's policy is not in agreement with that statement for the most part. Obama had a position similar to Palin on this issue, and McCain criticized him for it. He said that we shouldn't tell countries we're going to invade them. We should do what we have to if needed, but we should not talk about it.
The real issue was not so much what was said - but how it was presented: as "gotcha" journalism.
This term was used by McCain and Palin to describe what they thought the media did in this instance. In a Katie Couric interview, they talk about the Pakistan incident as a "gotcha" soundbite meant to hurt their campaign.
"Couric asked: Is that [going into Pakistan to fight terrorists] something you shouldn't say out loud, Sen. McCain?
John McCain: Of course not. But, look, I understand this day and age of "gotcha" journalism. Is that a pizza place? In a conversation with someone who you didn't hear … the question very well, you don't know the context of the conversation, grab a phrase. Gov. Palin and I agree that you don't announce that you're going to attack another country … "
During the video, he asks her about Pakistan, and she tells him that if they needed to invade Pakistan in order to stop terrorists and protect our people, she would do it, "absolutely."
The problem? McCain's policy is not in agreement with that statement for the most part. Obama had a position similar to Palin on this issue, and McCain criticized him for it. He said that we shouldn't tell countries we're going to invade them. We should do what we have to if needed, but we should not talk about it.
The real issue was not so much what was said - but how it was presented: as "gotcha" journalism.
This term was used by McCain and Palin to describe what they thought the media did in this instance. In a Katie Couric interview, they talk about the Pakistan incident as a "gotcha" soundbite meant to hurt their campaign.
"Couric asked: Is that [going into Pakistan to fight terrorists] something you shouldn't say out loud, Sen. McCain?
John McCain: Of course not. But, look, I understand this day and age of "gotcha" journalism. Is that a pizza place? In a conversation with someone who you didn't hear … the question very well, you don't know the context of the conversation, grab a phrase. Gov. Palin and I agree that you don't announce that you're going to attack another country … "
Couric later said:
It wasn't a "gotcha." She was talking to a voter.
McCain: No, she was in a conversation with a group of people and talking back and forth.
Sarah Palin, when asked what she learned from the ordeal, replied: That this is all about "gotcha" journalism. A lot of it is. But that's okay, too.
The media storm (see here, here, and here, to name just a few) instantly jumped on this accusation.
But Palin isn't the only one being attacked - Joe Biden also had his struggles with the media in recent days. There is a video of him apparently saying that his ticket would not support coal - which is something BarackObama.com clearly rejects. The McCain camp ran an ad highlighting the gaffe.
This is another case of what could be called "gotcha journalism." Someone was videotaping the senator, put it up on YouTube, and caught him saying something that contradicted his presidential candidate.
So what do I think of these events? I don't like that they refer to is as "gotcha journalism." I think its journalism - plain and simple. As a journalist, I want to see everything represented - in a truthful AND complete way. If someone says something ... I want it reported. In our society, things shouldn't necessarily be "off-limits" just because they are said to a voter rather than in a televised debate. However, I do think that certain issues can be exaggerated. When the media constantly harps on issues that are of minimal importance, I think they have taken it too far. The objective has to be balance.
Any opinions on this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
