July 2008 Archives

Chandra Levy Redux

| 4 Comments

The splash made by The Washington Post’s much-discussed rehash of the Chandra Levy murder case rippled far beyond the thirteen days of the series’ publication, though perhaps not in the way WaPo executive editor Leonard Downie might have hoped. Bloggers and ombudspersons alike generally concluded that the series, though gripping, really wasn’t worth all the fuss.

The Post, for its part, claimed that “[i]n the end, the serial will reveal how an enormous effort by the D.C. police, the FBI and prosecutors was undercut by a chain of mistakes, a misdirected focus and missed opportunities that allowed a killer to escape justice.” In other words, the point of the series, per the Post, was to bring some much-needed closure to those readers who followed the course of the investigation seven years ago.

I can’t speak for those viewers of yore. When the Levy case first broke in May 2001, I was in the sixth grade. My scope of the world was predictably limited. I obviously had no interest in watching the news, and if I did happen to be sitting in the backseat while my parents listened to the radio, talk of Levy was invariably deemed too risqué for my ears and switched off. I have grown up almost completely in the post-9/11 media world, one without mention of Gary Condit or his penchant for curly-haired youth.

And yet I feverishly read the unfolding chapters each morning. I debated with friends—other equally interested female interns in the city for the summer (sound like anyone else?)—as to whether any new information was revealed in the investigation, swapping hunches as though recapping last night’s Dawson’s Creek episode while still in middle school. I was completely enthralled…but, I realize, with no real reason.

So I felt more than a little duped when the series concluded, and I realized that I had read the story not for its relevance, but because it was a sensational and relatable tale.

Though pegged as a return to journalism’s sensationalist roots, certain scenes read more 90210 than 1950s serialization:

“During their initial search of Chandra’s apartment, D.C. police found a pair of black panties stained with semen.”

“[Condit] was a handsome, swashbuckling teenager who liked fast cars and found himself in trouble with the law, racking up traffic tickets and a conviction for reckless driving. Despite his penchant for running with a fast crowd, he fell for a girl who lived in the good side of town…”

“Once inside the National Museum of Women in the Arts, Chandra wasn’t interested in dancing. She didn’t want a drink or anything to eat. She and her date climbed the grandiose staircase of the museum and looked out over the crowded dance floor.”

Nor did the series’ authors forget the nuanced vignettes that made the case relatable to a new, younger demographic, one that sees Chandra not simply as a case study in media coverage, but as a peer:

“Dirty dishes in the sink. A refrigerator that was empty except for some leftover pasta and Reese’s peanut butter cups.”

“Chandra had big-city dreams of leaving the flat, dusty town in the middle of nowhere and seeing the world.”

The editors admitted the story’s dramatized prose and format—Downie calls it “the kind of story that would sustain readership over a period of time.” But I wonder whether Downie and his reporters really did mean to elicit a sense of public closure on the issue, targeting those with knowledge of the investigation. While certain new details come to light—aha, the panties were BLACK!—I can’t help but wonder if the Post simply meant to hook another generation onto the Levy-mania nearly a decade forgotten.

On Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed a law that would ban fast-food restaurants from opening new outlets in South Los Angeles. Activists who approve of the ban are harnessing phrases like “food apartheid” and “nutritional segregation” to describe the disparity in qualities of food products (and their availability) in different neighborhoods. And the media is picking up these catchy phrases like shiny rhetorical baubles.

Check out Karl Vick’s recent article in the Washington Post:

The proposed ordinance, which takes a page from boutique communities that turn up their noses at franchises, is supported by nutritionists, frustrated residents and community activists who call restrictive zoning an appropriate response to "food apartheid."

"There's one set of food for one part of the city, another set of food for another part of the city, and it's very stratified that way," said Marqueece Harris-Dawson, executive director of Community Coalition, based in South-Central.

The activist group has focused on land use in the economically depressed neighborhoods south of downtown, working to shutter 200 liquor stores and a dozen motels on the premise that "nuisance businesses" encourage violence and crime while crowding out wholesome alternatives. The fresh, healthful fare that defines "California cuisine" remains almost impossible to find on a gritty landscape of corner carryouts and franchises.

It’s clear from the article that “food apartheid” is a phrase that’s actually employed by activists like Harris-Dawson. Still, it’s worth asking why Vick used a loaded term without direct attribution. (Articles from the WSJ and the LAT both use other sources, and the phrase is nowhere to be seen.)

Yesterday, when the Guardian ran a digest version of the WaPo article, “food apartheid” and Harris-Dawson popped up again, this time with obesity rates wedged in between:

Activists supporting the yearlong ban tout the new rule as an end to "food apartheid" and a fix for rising childhood obesity rates in the neighbourhood.

Nearly one-third of residents in the city's south are obese, compared with 19% for the overall Los Angeles area and 14% in the wealthier west side area.

"There's one set of food for one part of the city, another set of food for another part of the city, and it's very stratified that way," Marqueece Harris-Dawson, a community leader in south Los Angeles, told the Washington Post this month.

The phrase has become unmoored from its presumed source, but who’s measuring?

CNN didn’t do much better, introducing a July 15 segment on American Morning by putting it out front and center: “Plus, food apartheid. One woman's crusade to get burgers and fries out of the inner city.” Later in the segment, the program floated the quote without any specific attribution, saying merely, “Critics call it ‘food apartheid’.”

Using activist-speak like “food apartheid” as a blanket descriptive phrase seems like a serious judgment lapse on the press’s part. It’s particularly odd given the historical significance of the word apartheid; given these activists’ deliberate and callow attempts to invite a comparison between South Africa’s state-supported segregation policies and subpar dining choices in low-income Los Angeles. I’ve seen phrases like “velvet-rope apartheid” used flippantly in reference to exclusive clubs that discriminate between patrons at the door, which is perhaps only offensive in its trivial (and random) co-opting of the word, presumably by a journalist looking for a clever turn of phrase.

But the term “food apartheid,” which addresses the race dynamics of urban planning in a city that has had its share of race-related crucible moments, seems, if not any more offensive, at least more semantically dangerous in its meaningful re-appropriation. Of course, by encasing the phrase in phantom quotes—courtesy of an activist who would love to get it in print or on air—reporters get a free pass from considering its implications. But they shouldn’t.

The term “food apartheid” brings to mind the evolution of the term “partial-birth abortion.” Initially coined by an activist, “partial-birth abortion” became a ubiquitous phrase that inserted itself into the national lexicon (in the form of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act). “Food apartheid” or “nutritional segregation” may never make it into the name of a law. But it still seems irresponsible to play a game of telephone with these obviously loaded terms.

Schmidt Me, Baby, One More Time

| 1 Comment

Well, it’s official: the campaigns have Gone Negative.

And in this case, alas, negativity’s harbinger was none other than...Britney Spears. (Sorry, Brit!) Yesterday, the McCain campaign released an ad, "Celeb," which condemns Obama's "celebrity" status and compares the Dems’ nominee presumptive (oops!) to Spears. And also (he did it again!) to Paris Hilton. The connection being that the two starlets are celebrities, and Obama is also a celebrity. And the implication being that Obama's just as image-focused and vacuous as they are. (The ad pratically writes itself!)

“Do the American people want to elect the world’s biggest celebrity or do they want to elect an American hero?” McCain strategist Steve Schmidt asked on a conference call yesterday. The only imaginable answer, in Schmidt’s conception, is, of course, “no.”

But the political merits of deeming one’s opponent “the world’s biggest celebrity” are, at best, dubious. And "Celeb," for that and other reasons, has been largely—though not, of course, completely—disparaged. (And not just from the left. John Weaver, McCain’s own former strategist, called the ad “childish,” and characterized the general denigrate-Obama strategy that brought it about as “tomfoolery.”) Some critics have suggested that “Celeb” preys on xenophobia and traffics in violence and is perhaps just a little too reminiscent of Triumph of the Will. Many have deemed "Celeb" to be self-defeating, arguing that, in an American culture that worships the golden calf of celebrity, being dubbed one such idol himself will actually make Obama more appealing, not less. And most, regardless, have dismissed it as a cheap shot.

But here's where the plot thickens (as much as something that involves so little substance can, in the end, thicken). Rather than letting "Celeb" implode under the weight of its own negative reception, the Obama campaign instead parried with its own ad. “Low Road” frames McCain's attacks—and his political policies—as “the politics of the past.” “John McCain: Same old politics, same failed policies," it declares. (“Same old politics?” Get it? Because McCain is old? Sly, guys, sly.) The Obama campaign's ad is nearly as silly as McCain's—though the spot, at least, spares itself and its viewers the painful rhetorical contortion that "Celeb" employed to link Obama's supposed status as the Paris of Presidential Politics to his support of "foreign oil." And, to be fair, “Low Road” also offers some detail about why people should vote for Obama—instead of focusing, as McCain’s spot did, only on why they shouldn't vote for his opponent.

So, fine. Two campaign spots, both alike (basically) in dignity. And both alike (basically) in inanity. The whole production could have ended there.

But, no. Instead, enter the anchors. The fact that Camp Obama responded to Camp McCain in the first place—with a statement, and then, of course, with its own ad—made the whole thing, you know, a story. So, yesterday evening, we got this:

Good evening. It is a pledge made by every candidate in every campaign, to run on the issues and avoid negative attacks. Just last month, John McCain pledged that throughout the campaign, he would "show my admiration and respect for Senator Obama." As for Obama, he pledged to "run a different campaign, run a positive campaign." Well, that was then. Today the attacks were flying so fast and furious, it was sometimes hard to keep up.

That was Charlie Gibson, introducing yesterday's World News Tonight.

And this:

On the broadcast tonight, going negative. And here's the question: What do Britney Spears and Paris Hilton have to do with Barack Obama? Well, that's the question being asked about the new John McCain attack ad and now the Obama campaign is hitting back.

(Brian Williams, leading NBC's Nightly News.)

And this:

John McCain sharpened his attack against Barack Obama, trying to turn his popularity against him. And late today, Obama fired back.

(Katie Couric, on the CBS Evening News.)

Yep. The economy's plummeting and we're waging two wars—but the standard-bearing curators of human events, the evening news shows, have decided that, more than almost everything else that happened in the world yesterday, the American public needed to know that McCain likened Barack to Britney. Which...ugh.

That isn't to say, certainly, that there's no news value in the ads. There is. The spots come from two candidates, after all, who've both promised us that they're different—and who've both spoken out against that classic political bête noir, Politics As Usual—and who are now both engaging, with what appears to be glib aplomb, in PAU's favorite pastime. Which is a turnabout for both of them—not just in terms of politics, but also in terms of simply being politic. There's a story in that, sure. But that story is not "McCain called Obama names and then Obama called McCain names and now everything's all negative."

If the networks insist on covering all the attack-ad drama (as, I acknowledge, they will: one corollary to the press's fixation on the horse race is their particular fixation on campaign ads), they could at least give viewers something a little more substantial than the empty-calorie he-said/she-said they served up. ("It's getting ugly early," ABC's David Wright informed us, "and some Republicans are expressing concern about McCain's tone, in particular one former McCain aide calling the new celebrity ad childish, though the McCain campaign insists that Obama went negative first.") They could go beyond implying (false) equivalency between the two ads and consider each spot's implications in more detail. Or they could take a stand against inanity, ignoring the juvenile name-calling and addressing only the ads' (meager amounts of) substance. Anything would have been better, from the viewer/voter perspective, than what they gave us: reductive narration told in tones—the Drama! the Sound! the Fury!—of sermonistic schadenfreude.

And perhaps the networks could have questioned the wisdom of airing the ads, in their entirety, in the first place. Here's another instance, after all, in which the existence of a provocative image—in this case, two entire ads' worth of them—fuels a news item's Storyhood (see "Wright, Jeremiah" and, more recently, "Pointer, Three-"). The ads are easy air-fillers, convenient for news producers and reporters alike. And they’re particularly convenient, of course, for campaigns.

Indeed, when political strategists discuss their campaigns’ reliance on “free media,” they’re not talking about the First Amendment. "Political campaigns have for years sought to broadcast their ads free by making them intriguing enough to draw wide coverage from news outlets," The New York Times's Jim Rutenberg pointed out yesterday. "And Mr. McCain’s campaign," he continued,,

has proved particularly adept at getting such free air time in recent weeks, as news stations endlessly repeat the advertisements, which feature provocative visuals that can fill time during a relative lull in the campaign season.

Rutenberg pegged that observation to his discussion of McCain's now-infamous Landstuhl ad, which—erroneously, as we now know—accuses Obama of canceling his visit to wounded troops when he learned he couldn't bring cameras along with him. But the analysis applies just as well, if not even better, to—dare we dub it?—“Toxic”-Gate. When news organizations devote air time to inane, substance-free campaign ads, they're not only playing directly into the campaigns' hands; they're also, to some extent, taking the election out of the voters'. For my money, Keith Olbermann, discussing the Cause “Celeb” on last night’s Countdown, had it right. The title he gave the segment? "Ad nauseam."

Bizarre WaPo story today about an ill-fated police raid in Prince George's County that started with a mysterious thirty-two pound package of marijuana and ended with a handcuffed mayor and two dead dogs. Should Prince George's County dog owners be worried? Not according to Sheriff's Office spokesman Mario Ellis:

"We're not in the habit of going to homes and shooting peoples' dogs," Ellis said. "If we were, there would be a lot more dead dogs around the county."

Cats, on the other hand, are totally fair game.

Book Review: Microcosm

| No Comments

In February 1982, physicians in Medford, Oregon encountered an unknown pathogen that waged a sort of intelligent biochemical warfare against our bodies. After being ingested, the rod-shaped bacteria—small enough to fit 500 of them side-by-side across the diameter of a single period in twelve-point font—were able to monitor their surroundings for human hormones to determine where they were inside their victims. When they received the signal that they had reached the intestines, the rods sprouted tails that operated as proton-powered outboard motors, swam towards one another, and constructed their nano-weapons: syringes small enough to pierce human cells and deliver injections of treacherous chemical instructions.

The affected cells responded to the injections like mind-controlled doppelgangers. Their membranes deformed into landing pads, making it easier for their rod-shaped masters to sup on them as their internal fluids and molecules started to leak. In some cases, the rods also released toxins that spread through the rest of the victims’ bodies, tinkering with cells from the inside and causing them to explode.

This particular pathogen, known as serotype O157:H7 of the bacteria Escherichia coli, or E. coli 157 for short (the variety behind the spinach and beef food-poisoning scares of 2006 and 2007), is one of the many strains chronicled in science journalist Carl Zimmer’s latest book, Microcosm: E. coli and the New Science of Life (Pantheon Books). (The most recent American tomato/jalapeño scare is due to Salmonella, a distinct, but closely-related bacteria that split off from E. coli back when dinosaurs were still walking the earth.)

It may seem like devoting an entire book to one family of single-celled organisms is a bad idea. It’s an election year, after all, and with two wars, a tanking economy, and a warming planet to deal with, bacteria may seem distracting. But Zimmer is no ordinary science writer: he hosts a Web site where he posts photos of science tattoos, writes one of the best and longest running science blogs on the Web, and, in 2001, wrote a book that made parasites seem fascinating, elegant, and frightening all at once.

E. coli itself is a fascinating species. Its manifestations comprise the killers Shigella and O157:H7, as well as innocuous laboratory varieties like K-12 ("[S]o harmless that scientists make no efforts to protect themselves from it; instead, they have to protect it from fungi and bacteria.”), among many other strains. E. coli can build microscopic weapons and wage war, and yet without the beneficial strains living in our gut we might not be able to survive. When scientists started experimenting with genetic engineering, it was E. coli they worked with. And as futurists and computer scientists look for a link between life as we know it and artificial networks like the Internet, it is in the natural functioning of E. coli that they see something of a bridge.

Zimmer covers a lot of ground in Microcosm, and the book runs in chronological order, from E. coli’s discovery by the German pediatrician Theodor Escherich in 1885, right up to the current debate about biotechnology and the ethical implications of engineering "chimeras" like animals with partially human organs.

What’s great about Zimmer’s approach is that he takes the time to introduce the reader to the scientists and experiments that changed our understanding of E. coli and biology in general. Early on, he sets the tone of the book with a narrative account of one of the more seminal studies in the bacteria's history—the one that showed that a single bacterium could actually swap genes rather than just clone its own through asexual cell division. It's the story of a young student named Joshua Lederberg and two mutant strains of E. coli:

Lederberg started work at Yale in 1946. He selected a mutant strain that could make neither the amino acid methionine nor biotin, a B vitamin. The other strain he picked couldn’t make the amino acids threonine and proline. Lederberg put the bacteria in a broth he stocked with all four compounds so that the mutant microbes could grow and multiply. They mingled in the broth for a few weeks, with plenty of opportunity for hypothetical sex.

Lederberg drew out the samples of the bacteria and put them on fresh petri dishes. Now he withheld the four nutrients they could not make themselves: threonine, proline, methionine, and biotin. Neither of the original mutants strains could grow in the dishes. If their descendents were simply copies of their ancestors, Lederberg reasoned, they would stop growing as well.

But after weeks of frustration—of ruined plates, of dead colonies—Lederberg finally saw E. coli spreading across his dishes. A few microbes had acquired the ability to make all four amino acids. Lederberg concluded that their ancestors must have combined their genes in something akin to sex. And in their sex they proved they carried genes.

In the years that followed, the discovery would allow scientists to breed E. coli like flies and to probe genes far more intimately than ever before. Twelve years later, at the ancient age of thirty-three, Lederberg would share the Nobel Prize in Medicine with Tatum and Beadle. But in 1946, when he picked up his petri dishes and noticed the spots that appeared to be the sexual colonies he had dreamed of, Lederberg allowed himself just a single word alongside the results in his notebook: “Hooray.”

As Zimmer writes, the discovery that bacteria can trade genes, and that DNA and RNA can code for the same proteins across species, led French biologist Jacques Monod to proclaim, “What is true for E. coli is true for the Elephant.” Zimmer repeats this adage throughout Microcosm because it is the lynchpin for the entire book: that scientists can work within the E. coli model, rather than experimenting directly with more complicated multi-cellular animals like ourselves; that we can often use simple systems as telescopes into how more complicated systems work; that certain rules and concepts in biology and evolution are consistent across species and even domains.

One of the best parts of Microcosm is its discussion of antibiotics and how E. coli and other bacteria can quickly evolve to outwit them. Zimmer explains how some bacteria can even enter a state of hyper-mutation as a result of antimicrobial or antibiotic attack: when E. coli needs it most, it starts messing with its genetic code in order mutate, and evade the attack, faster.

It’s scary material, considering that widespread antibiotic use got started during World War II with penicillin and now, several generations of antibiotics later, it seems like we’re still losing the war against bacterial resistance. By as early as 1948, Zimmer notes, “doctors reported that penicillin was beginning to fail in their Staphylococcus-infected patients.” Yet:

These disturbing discoveries did nothing to halt the rise of antibiotics. Today the world consumes more than ten thousand tons of antibiotics a year. Some of those drugs save lives, but a lot of them are wasted. Two-thirds of all the prescriptions that doctors hand out for antibiotics are useless. Antibiotics can’t kill viruses, for instance. Many farmers today practically drown their animals with antibiotics because the drugs somehow make the animals grow bigger. But the cost of antibiotics is greater than the profit from the extra meat.

It would have been wonderful if Zimmer had decided to include a little more about where those numbers come from and what they mean. Does useless include prescriptions that are not used to completion or are used for a purpose other than what they were prescribed for? More importantly, however, Zimmer does an excellent job describing the process by which bacteria become resistant.

His discussion of Shigella infections in Japan after World War II is fascinating. It was in the late forties that Japanese doctors started to encounter bacteria that were resistant to not just a single antibiotic, but to all of them. It turned out that the Shigella bacteria were able to trade genes through Lederberg’s bacterial sex and through viral infections of the bacteria themselves. These and other strategies are collectively known as horizontal gene transfer, which, Zimmer writes, "allows genes to leapfrog from microbe to microbe across staggering distances. In the jungles of French Guinea, scientists have found antibiotic-resistant E. coli in the guts of Wayampi Indians, who have never taken the drugs.”

Some of the most interesting questions Zimmer raises in the book come from such discussions of the "murky struggles" between parasite and host, and the role of bacteria and viruses in human evolution:

Most viruses simply invade our cells, which produce new viruses that move on to the next host. But some viruses inset their genetic material in a cell’s genome. If they manage to infect a sperm or an egg, these viruses will be passed down from one generation of humans to the next. Over many generations, mutations cause the viruses to lose their ability to escape their host cells. Many lose most of their genes. What remains are instructions for making copies of their DNA and pasting that DNA back on their host’s genome. These genomic parasites now make up about 8 percent of the human genome. Recent research suggests that some of them have been harnessed by their hosts. A number of essential human genes, which help build things as different as antibodies and placentas, evolved from virus genes. Without our resident viruses we would not be able to survive. Once again, what is true for E. coli is true for the elephant: Where do our own viruses stop, and where do we begin?

With descriptions like that, Microcosm excels at making the science of E.coli accessible for lay audiences. Reaching far beyond the food scares of recent years, it is a story of discovery that illuminates a microscopic and alien world and explains how it has helped guide the course of human history. Anybody that picks up a copy will find that Zimmer has produced a book not just about E. coli, but about microbiology and evolution itself.

Parting Thoughts: John Flowers

| 1 Comment

Redefining policy—as one is wont to do when suffering an existential crisis—starts with asking the right questions. An alcoholic, for instance, who asks himself, “Does alcohol have a problem with me?” probably isn't going to get the help he needs. Ditto journalists.

We've been asking ourselves the wrong question about the future of our industry for years now. It's not “How do journalists fix their business?” It's “How does business fix journalism?” This is a question of revenue, after all—“How do you give away a product for free and yet turn a profit?”—and a question of revenue is the purview of the men who install marble fire places on their yachts, not the ones trying to get another 20,000 miles out of their Subarus.

If this were simply a matter of hemorrhaging readers, then the policy would be simple: “Everyone, fire your editors.” But it’s not. We have readers. Tons and tons of 'em. They may not like to pay for what they get, but there are a lot of them getting it nonetheless. No, what we need now is wholesale change, and that means we stop convincing ourselves that the familiar levers that a Katharine Graham or a Henry Luce could pull to right the ship still apply. Rather, we need to let radical change, in the form of a Sam Zell or Rupert Murdoch, take a swing at things (full disclosure: I worked for six months at Murdoch's Dow Jones Newswires, with two of those months during the old regime, but I'm far from qualified to give an insider's perspective).

Now, I know we don't like hearing those two names—in fact, “loathe” may be a more apt word—but those are the kinds of people the industry needs to start attracting, people whose money gives them clout, if we're to replace or complement the old economic formula with something new. If you're an industry player (and if you're in journalism, you certainly like to think you are), the job now isn't so much attracting readers, per se, it's attracting money men willing to bet—and bet big—on the industry.

Unfortunately, Wall Street is mostly missing from this debate. The reason is simple and rather self-fulfilling: if you have money, you want to make sure that you continue to have money. Probably the best thing a Wall Street analyst would have to say about the newspaper industry is that it's so well-spoken. Zell, salty language and all, is the true exception among financial types, Murdoch having bought himself a financial news company (big surprise). What Zell sees in us I haven't the foggiest, but if the industry is to get back on its feet, more Wall Street players need to be persuaded that the difference between a “fixer-upper” and a “crack house” is the neighborhood. And one way we do that is to talk shop about how solid are the fundamentals of our neighborhood:

--This isn't an industry that suffers bubbles, like some we could mention.

--While the profit margins that await the conquering hero will be slimmer than in some industries, they will be steady and they will be predictable.

--We've got something that Wall Street likes in its investments: cash flow. The money that publications earn is typically up front; no one buys a paper on credit and no one extends credit to an advertiser who can't document how he's going to pay.

--Foreign competition isn't the issue that it is in most other industries; if anything, it's more in spirit than substance.

--We reach every demographic every day, and a steak dinner to the executive from another industry who can honestly say the same.

--It also might be worth pointing out that ours is the one industry that won't suffer government regulation, even when it makes colossal mistakes.

--And if all that fails, appeal to their vanity: H.L. Hunt may have been the richest man in America in 1941, but Orson Welles made “Citizen Kane” about William Randolph Hearst.

The Warbucks won't be stepping into this situation totally cold, either. Blogs like Talking Points Memo and Huffington Post have started the conversation, pointing the direction toward a model that someone with a lot of money to invest and a historical reputation to secure could perfect on a “WAR ENDS IN EUROPE” basis (assuming, of course, the blogs don't themselves do it first).

Of course, this all is going to mean a lot of clenched teeth on the part of journalists. A few businessmen—if they ever do arrive in the numbers we need them—are bound to louse things up worse than they are now. Others will reach profitability at the expense of words like “integrity” and “Judeo-Christian.” In the meantime, dyed-in-the-wool journalists will be like the poor people below deck on the Titanic: at the mercy of someone else's fate.

But times change, and we need to stop feigning shock that they do. We must admit to the sort of change that is needed as well as the fact that that change isn't coming internally through tactical decisions; that we need a fresh view, an outside view, and a healthy dose of reality (and plenty of chalk) to figure out how to right our ship.

Hell, if anything, we should consider ourselves lucky that time (and the Internet) changed things as quickly as they did. Had we been a frog in a water come slowly to a boil, we'd have taken no notice of our own demise until it was too late and all we could do was prove T.S. Eliot wrong—that it ends with a “ribbit.”

One final note: a constant gripe from reporters is that if all you chase is money, money, money, you only end up reporting on puppies, puppies, puppies. And if that's the case, and that all people really do want are puppy stories, then give them puppy stories: about how many bomb-sniffing dogs are dying in Iraq; or about how much the average pet owner spends on his vet bill versus his prescription drug bill; or about what happens to the family dog after a foreclosure.




_________________________________






The steady drip of layoffs and buyouts, slowly desiccating once-vibrant newsrooms around the country, has also produced a reservoir of anger, sadness, fear, uncertainty—even some cautious optimism here and there—among reporters and editors who invested years, decades in some cases, of their lives to print journalism. We’ve asked anyone so inclined to channel these emotions, not into rant—although there will be a bit of that—but rather into reflection on what went wrong, and where we might go from here. We will publish one per day, under the headline “Parting Thoughts.” All of the letters we publish will be collected here.

Among the things members of the Phoneix Country Club are forbidden to do:

1) Use foul language or wear capri pants on the tennis courts.

2) Be a woman and be in the Grill Room.

3) Speak ill of The Club to the media (yes, Winthrop, that includes questioniong Rule 2).

OK, so I'm just guessing on the first one, but the other two are as reported by today's New York Times (as for rule 2, women can, per the Times, use "a smaller room with a hot plate down the hall" from the Grill Room). Apparently a club member ran afoul of Rule 3 by talking to the Times about Rule 2 and was expelled.

My Facts, Your Facts

| 14 Comments

Reader comments posted on digital news sites are often heavy on invective, hurled from noms d’Internet that allow people to disregard traditional norms of civil discourse. For many of these anonymous snipers, the reported facts are not facts at all, but the unreliable product of paid liars, incompetents, toadies, and haters who dare to call themselves journalists.

How did we get to this pass? A turning point may have been the messy exit of Jayson Blair, who was shot down by journalists themselves and subsequently became a stinking albatross around the neck of everyone in what used to be called straight news. Many Americans, adrift on a stormy sea of proliferating news outlets, now perceive bias, bias everywhere, but not an honest word of reportage.

Meanwhile, a small industry, of remarkably uneven quality, has arisen over the last few decades to examine the supposed unreliability of journalists. The bias police range from ideological outfits like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting on the left and the Media Research Center on the right to such watchdogs as Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly—not to mention the ombudsmen who now keep an eye on many big-city newspapers (and this magazine).

But while the pack zigs, Farhad Manjoo, until recently the technology columnist for Salon, zags. His first book, True Enough, is a provocative and engaging examination of media bias. Like beauty, argues the author, bias is in the eye of the beholder. So instead of looking at those who report and analyze the news, Manjoo examines their audience. It is a novel and eye-opening approach.

Manjoo argues that “selective perception” is part of the human condition, and that in this era of unlimited news outlets, it is surprisingly easy to get all of your news from places that tell you only what you want to hear—a kind of segregation of the mind. The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously observed that we are entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. That, writes Manjoo, is no longer true. Instead he posits “a fundamental shift in the way Americans are thinking about the news. No longer are we merely holding opinions different from one another; we’re also holding different facts.”

This argument is founded on a paradox. “At the same time that technology and globalization have pushed the world together,” writes Manjoo, “it is driving our minds apart.” Shared facts do not mean shared perceptions of what those facts mean. To illustrate his point, the author cites a study involving a much debated 1951 football game between Dartmouth and Princeton. A star Princeton quarterback was injured, and for observers from his own school, this was evidence of foul play, not bad luck in a violent sport. The Dartmouth quarterback was injured as well, but students there simply condemned the losers as whiners.

How could such divergent views arise from a single event? As Manjoo recounts, a Princeton psychologist and a Dartmouth sociologist showed films of the game to students at both colleges. The Dartmouth students reported roughly equal numbers of transgressions by each team, but characterized more of the Princeton errors as “flagrant.” The Princeton students found more than twice as many errors by the other team, most of them flagrant as well.

The researchers concluded that the students had such disparate observations because they chose not to see actions that conflicted with the way they felt about their own teams. In other words, they fitted their perceptions to their feelings, not to the facts.

Manjoo goes on to discuss All in the Family, the celebrated seventies sitcom in which Carroll O’Connor’s Archie Bunker spouted racial and ethnic slurs and argued endlessly with his long-haired son-in-law. Two psychologists—inspired, as it happens, by the football film study—interviewed Midwest high school students about their reactions to the show. As they discovered, almost all viewers found the show amusing. Yet the bigots drew comfort and reinforcement for their views from Archie’s slurs, while those more inclined to think like his son-in-law saw him in a negative light. “Even when the whole country is watching the same thing, in fact, we aren’t,” Manjoo concludes.

Just about every audience gets taken to task in True Enough. The author scolds both Democrats who wrongly believe that Bush lost in Ohio in 2004, and Republicans who think John Kerry was neither a war hero nor an inventive combat strategist. Widely accepted but crackpot beliefs about the Kennedy assassination, global warming, 9/11, and aids are all examined in terms of how people filter out what they wish to be false and embrace, sometimes rabidly, what they wish to be true, even when empirical evidence shows otherwise.

Most troubling for journalists is Manjoo’s evidence that even-handed and neutral reports are the most vulnerable to being discredited. He chalks up much of this problem to naïve realism—the psychological shorthand by which we assume the world is as we observe it. “We all think our views are essentially objective and when people disagree with us, we’re apt to decide that they’re not being reasonable,” he writes. “They’re being unfair.” In other words, when people with strongly held views read about, say, the Israelis and the Palestinians, a truly fair and balanced article will be perceived as biased—because to a zealot, even-handedness is bias.

Much of what Manjoo explores is captured in a single word: truthiness. The satirist Stephen Colbert reinvigorated that hoary term during the premiere of his television show in 2005. America, he said, is a nation divided between those who “think with their head” and those who “know with their heart.” Colbert was going after some of the principal PR techniques of the Bush administration, but the problem with things that are just true enough to be believed is far more pervasive.

Manjoo reminds us of how Oprah Winfrey reacted when a memoir she had chosen for her book club, James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces, turned out to be a fraud. At first, Winfrey stood up for the serial fibber—until Frank Rich, who had done yeoman work exposing official truthiness and outright lies, took her to the woodshed. To her credit, Winfrey saw the problem she had created for herself, and invited Frey back onto her show for a national display of contrition. (Also worth noting: even after Frey conceded his fabrications to an irate Winfrey, his book continued to sell many thousands of copies per week.)

Purveyors of truthiness often pander to viewers on issues they know little about. Make up stories about the price of gasoline, says Manjoo, and the easy availability of pricing information will unmask you. But make stuff up about economic policy or the war in Iraq or other “grand, sprawling topics where information is difficult to come by, hard to make sense of, and given to competing explanations and interpretations,” and you can get away with Swift Boating and its spawn.

Here lies the core of Manjoo’s argument: the vast majority of people want their beliefs to be reinforced, not challenged by inconvenient facts. To show the power of desire to warp perception, he focuses on the work of three Stanford University researchers, Lee Ross, Mark Lepper, and Charles Lord. In a 1979 study, the trio asked people with strong views for and against capital punishment to read materials that made substantial arguments for both sides. Then the subjects were asked to discuss their beliefs.

“This led to a funny result,” recounts Manjoo. “People in the study became polarized. Taken together, the two reports they’d been given suggested that it was hard to know whether or not capital punishment deterred crime; after looking at the research, a truly dispassionate person should have moderated his or her extreme position. But people moved the other way instead.”

Surely this is a troubling outcome for journalists who believe in empirical facts as the basis of reality. But for Manjoo, truthiness is only part of the problem. He cites the transformation of CNN’s Lou Dobbs: a man who once revered Big Business is now one of its great detractors, even as he conducts a one-man crusade against illegal immigrants. “When you investigate the roots of bias in the media,” Manjoo writes, “Lou Dobbs’s personal motivations begin to appear less important than the system in which he operates.” And according to the logic of that system, viewers will invariably consider stories on controversial topics “slanted away from their own views.” So why not throw in their collective lot with Dobbs (and Glenn Beck and Olbermann and O’Reilly)? The bottom line: in contemporary media, “objectivity doesn’t pay as well as taking a strong, mad-as-hell stance.”

Dobbs has shifted his approach, says the author, because audiences have bought into the notion that news is not, and cannot be, objective. If viewers outside Dobbs’s target demographic find many of his reports bizarre, so what? Attacks by critics may actually reinforce the broadcaster’s ties to his audience. “Dobbs is not a raving idiot,” Manjoo assures us. “He just plays one on TV. Given the circumstances, he’d be a fool not to.”

How, then, can the profession fight back? Just as sunlight is the best disinfectant for rotten government, so is skepticism the best and most reliable friend of journalists who care about truth and not just stories that are “true enough.” The old adage is more essential than ever: if your mother says she loves you, check it out. Repeated trips to the factual well remain the best way to distill reality and guard against hype. Check, cross check, and check again. Truth may be getting its shoes on while a lie reaches half way around the world, as Mark Twain observed. But truth still matters, and in the long run, it will prevail so long as a decent number of people push for it.

I wonder sometimes about our priorities over here in the business space.

Authorities and their chroniclers in the business press are going after Wall Street like Eliot Ness for deceptive practices in the sale of auction-rate securities, sold as cash-like instruments but backed, we find, by subprime loans—like everything else.

New York and the federal government have probes going. Now we see Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has settled with UBS, Phil Gramm’s bank, for a sum that recalls a scene from Austin Powers: One miiillllioon dooolllaars.

UBS is paying $750,000 to the state to cover fees and expenses and $250,000 to provide support to cities and towns affected by the breakdown of the auction-rate markets.

That million will go to all the Homer Simpsons running investments for Massachusetts and its cities and towns, or as the Journal puts it,

…to the state for fees and to educate government officials about appropriate investments for their money.

Okay, UBS pays an additional $3.4 million to redeem the junk. But still, the whole thing seems hardly worth the bother.

Auction-rate securities are sold mainly to institutions—and, yes, cities, towns—and the wealthy.

And while crooked sales practices are not to be countenanced - a UBS executive, according to The New York Times, called the $300 billion market a “complete loser,” even as the bank pitched the product as short-term, liquid, and safe - I’m anxious to hear much more about deceptive sales practices in the trillions-of-dollars mortgage market, particularly in the subprime space, which cranked out $600 billion worth of toxins in 2006 alone, one fifth of all mortgages. This is the stuff underneath the auction-rate problems, and every other problem in the financial sector.

Who remembers Ameriquest?

Still, The Wall Street Journal has a very nice story about an auction-rate salesman at Credit Suisse - those cagey Swiss bankers again—gone missing, authorities believe in Bulgaria.

Here’s the best line, about the missing salesman, Julian Tzolov:

In his early days in the U.S., he struggled financially. In 1994 Mr. Tzolov filed for personal-bankruptcy protection over $7,000 in credit-card debt due to "financial difficulties and lack of support from my parents."

Blame it on your mom. Nice.

In economic news...

Indicators are basically pointing down; no news there. There is no joy in Mudville, as Starbucks continues its struggles. The Los Angeles Times says the bankruptcy of department-store chain Mervyn’s (pronounced ‘MOYvins” here in Brooklyn) is hurting malls. Housing continues to get crushed in California, Britain, even Northern Ireland.

And now hotels are heading for a fall.

Disney, though, mystifies tea-leaf readers with a strong quarter, buoyed, according to The Journal, by revenue and profit growth at its theme parks, which, as anybody who’s been to one of them knows, can suck dollars from a tourist with Oreck-like force.

The Financial Times emphasizes, however, that the company’s cable performance was the real driver of Disney’s good quarter.


Much ado

The Journal makes a big deal of two stories that probably don’t merit it:

A deal by an American sports marketing company in China is treated like V-E Day.


As is a probe of the community group, Acorn, over concerns that it is mixing housing and voter registration work, which helps Democrats:


Democrats on Capitol Hill have helped to steer millions of dollars in housing and other grants from the federal government toward Acorn and groups like it. The groups must qualify and compete for the money, which is typically doled out from the federal government to states and municipalities. The housing package includes a new, permanent source of affordable-housing money that congressional Democrats and grass-roots groups have sought for years. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund will be funded by a tax on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage titans.

But in the scheme of things we are not talking about a lot of money.

That tax eventually will channel upwards of $600 million annually in grants for developing and restoring housing, mostly as low-income rentals, available to Acorn and other groups.

And here are the kind of numbers were talking about for Acorn:

Last year, as the housing crisis worsened, Acorn Housing raised $7.7 million, of which $2.8 million, or 36%, was from the government, according to a return supplied by the housing group.

It's about journalistic priorities, is all.

And finally…

Bloomberg is helpfully keeping track of subprime write-downs and gives us the latest in this morning’s story about Deutsche Bank’s latest:

The collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage market has led to $476 billion of credit losses and writedowns at financial institutions globally, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

A group of newspapers in Ohio (a Battleground State, you recall) is rating campaign ads on a scale* of 0 to 10 (0 being "misleading" and 10 "truthful"). These papers (The Plain Dealer " in cooperation with" The Canton Repository, The Cincinnati Enquirer, The Columbus Dispatch and Dayton Daily News) give McCain's "Celeb" ad (in which images of Obama, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton intermingle) a "0," commenting, in part, "Lu]mping Obama with Spears and Hilton - two celebrities who have not exactly comported themselves in public in a Mother Teresa-like manner - seems like a dubious comparison" before also untangling some of the issue-based claims in the ad.

*In looking at other ads recently evaluated, it seems the scale used to be (sometimes still is?) a "Sniff Test," which an ad can pass "on the nose," raise "a whiff of doubt," or, seemingly worst of all (and without a nod to noses), be stamped as "stretching the truth." All a worthy effort, but I think it would help to keep the scale consistent.

The Presidential Campaign as Experienced on Cable News over the past 24 hours (though it’s not just cable and it’s not just these 24 hours or even this election) is reminding me of this fifth grade schoolyard shouting match:

You're fat!
You're ugly - and I can diet!
You're stupid - and I can get plastic surgery!
You're a loser - and I have a tutor!
Takes one to know one - and, you smell!
He who smelt it dealt it...

Except that instead of two kids in fifth grade facing off we have some confusing scrum of campaign surrogates, newspaper columnists, cable news "strategists," cable news anchors and assorted others all shouting into (and often repeating one another) the Election Echo Chamber. (And, yeah, instead of someone's reputation as Awesomest Fifth Grader being in the balance it's...what, America's future?)

McCain’s negative!
Obama’s presumptuous!
Whiner!
Poseur!
Grumpy old man!
Greenhorn!

And each jibe is typically treated by the campaign press more or less like its predecessor (The Latest Attack! Opposing Camp Responds!), the focus remaining on the strategy and potential efficacy and the ensuing back-and-forth (with the occasional “ad watch” piece or thoughtful analysis attempting to help readers locate the truth or something true or some bigger picture therein).

And if you think the old “I’m rubber, you’re glue” riposte can be The Stopper in this shouting match that it was back in fifth grade, think again. Because Jack Shafer already called "rubber" for Obama yesterday morning (CJR considered this back in Febuary). And the shouting goes on…

…Morphing, even, yesterday afternoon into a cable news face-off (Democratic strategist v. Republican strategist) purportedly over Which Candidate Is More “Rubber” (set up by MSNBC’s David Shuster thusly: “Is this the year when nothing sticks to either candidate?”).

Maybe we can argue over that for a while? Who’s more Teflon?

Candidate A is Teflon!
No, candidate B is Teflon!
Well, Teflon’s a carcinogen!
No, Teflon is a “likely” carcinogen….

While My Guitar Gently Veeps

| 7 Comments

Who doesn't love the Veepstakes? Not only is the whole game fun to play—Clue and CandyLand rolled into one!—but it also has a delightful seasonality about it, a breezy, summery quality that lets us know that the heat of general election season really is, once again, upon us. So we don't fault the Veepstakes for its self-indulgence or its tendency to legitimize campaign-generated rumor or the fact that it does the voting public little good, save for the titillation of being part of a rhetorical roller coaster that speeds along its own question-mark curve. Hey, it's the Veepstakes. It's tradition.

And this year’s enactment of that tradition, it’s worth noting, has been especially—amusingly—roller-coaster-esque. We’ve seen TV reporters become particularly aggressive in their questioning of their running-mate-worthy guests, dedicating, sometimes, half an interview to their attempts to trick those guests into admitting they’re being vetted. We’ve heard veep-trail talk of Viagra and facial hair and political pawn-ery. We’ve seen the candidates' suitors publicly declaring their devotion by acting as surrogates—The gas tax holiday is a terrific idea! The surge is definitely not working!—for their candidates. We’ve seen front-runners-who’ve-dropped-out (Jim Webb, Bobby Jindal) and front-runners-who’ve-been-decided-against (Hillary Clinton, apparently). We’ve even seen one wooer, Charlie Crist, remedy the potential liability of his erstwhile confirmed-bachelorhood with a shotgun engagement. Truly, excitement all around!

But though its melody will linger on, the Veepstakes’s song will soon be ending. The short lists, we’re told, are now really short; the announcements of the Veepstakes Winners will come, you know, “soon.” (The Washington Post might just win the award for the Most Space-Wasting Veepstakes-Related Headline, with this, from the front page of last Friday’s paper: “McCain May Act Soon on VP Pick.” His convention is basically a month away; when else but “soon” would McCain announce his choice?) Word on the street—K Street, anyway—is that things will come down to The Two Tims, Kaine (Obama) and Pawlenty (McCain). But, again, nothing's for sure.

With that in mind, here's a thought: If we're going to spend so much time and space speculating about the candidates' potential running mates, then why don't we fill the Veepstakes's news hole not just with rumination, but also with some substance? Instead of simply rehashing rumor—It's so gonna be Webb!—and peddling predictions—Jindal's a lock!—why don't we complement the gossip with some conversation? Perhaps with some edifying discussion about why we should, you know, care about all this in the first place? Seriously. Why don't we spend some of our remaining Veepstakes time—not all, but some—talking about the office at the core of all the speculation?

The vice presidency, after all, being Constitutionally unfettered—indeed, the only demands that document makes of a veep is that he break ties in the Senate and stay alive—makes for a kind of moldable seat for its occupant. Unlike the presidency, in which, by design, the office transcends the man, when it comes to the vice presidency, the man transcends the office. And that office has evolved over the years from the presidential contest’s consolation prize (and not much of a consolation, at that: “My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived,” John Adams famously wrote of his own veep experience) into a position that more nearly reflects the office’s “second in command” shorthand. In the past sixteen years, in particular—and the past seven-and-a-half, in even more particular—the office has attained unprecedented power.

Will the power trend continue with the next VP, whoever he or she may be? Or will the next resident of One Observatory Circle scale back his or her influence? Will we see a future veep in the mold of John “All I Have to Do Is Have a Pulse” Adams? Or of John “Not Worth a Pitcher of Warm Piss” Garner? Or Garret “Assistant to the President” Hobart? Or Al “I Do My Thing, You Do Yours” Gore? Or Dick “I Do My Thing, You Can Do Yours If I Say So” Cheney?

Most likely, the vice presidency—for the next four years, and the foreseeable future—will be cast in the Gore model. The next veep will probably be a true executive deputy, with his or her own governmental responsibilities and, importantly, stewardship over his or her own policy priorities. But that, of course, is mere—and more—speculation. Vice presidential power going forward may be more than Gore’s, or less. We won’t know how the office will evolve until we know who its next occupant will be. But in the meantime, as we find ourselves nearly at the end of 2008’s Veepstakes game, it’d be nice to do a little talking about the four (or eight?) years that will come after the game ends—not to speculate about what the office will look like, or about who, ultimately, will occupy it, but to discuss what it should look like, how we’d like it to be shaped. Which would be a change in the Veepstakes’ rules, sure. But it’d also make the game, at this point, much more fun to play.

When "News" Becomes News

| No Comments

First it was a report of a woman's eye maimed by her own faulty thong. Then it was the story of an injured mountain climber using her bra to, ahem, rouse help. Today, we have two additional instances of stories dubbed "News You Can't Use" by MSNBC early in the morning (on Morning Joe) then being repackaged and presented as "regular" news later in the day. (No underthings involved this time).

Today's examples: a horse named Arrrr (think: What Pirates Say) who recently won a race and how funny it is to hear the racetrack announcer calling the win for a horse so named; and, footage of Judge Judy (and plaintiff and defendant) experiencing yesterday's earthquake in L.A. "All journalism is suspended!" joked Joe Scarborough by way of introducing the "News You Can't Use" segment this morning.

Apart from the irony factor, the MSNBC-wanting-to-have-it-both-ways factor, why would "news" Morning Joe's viewers "Can't Use" be deemed entirely "useful" for MSNBC's later-in-the-day viewers?

Morning Joe viewers are (are thought to be?), to quote MSNBC head Phil Griffin from a recent New York magazine article, "from Boston to Washington, D.C." -- well-informed, politically-savvy types, in other words. And they are served Arrrr's story as "news." For the people who watch MSNBC at mid-day (who are they, housewives in Hot Springs? Seniors in Sarasota? People getting root canals? Some humorless media watchdog?), it's news.

Just is all that "disturbing video."

True Lies

| No Comments

On Monday, Megan Garber criticized the MSM for its failure to dissect a recent John McCain ad that hurled factually dubious allegations at Barack Obama. The ad claimed that Obama withdrew from a planned visit to an Army hospital in Germany once he learned that photographers would not be allowed inside. Problem is, as several blogs noted, there's no evidence that the McCain camp's claim is true.

It’s not as if the ad hasn’t drawn MSM attention—The New York Times’s Jim Rutenberg reports that it has been replayed hundreds of times on various newscasts, and has been criticized on the air by people like Chuck Hagel and Claire McCaskill. But that criticism was offered as opinion, not as an independent assessment of the ad’s veracity.

We've long said that journalists should be encouraged to report on the factual validity of campaign claims and promises, rather than just transcribing those claims and promises without comment or analysis. In today's Washington Post, Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz stepped up and passed some judgment, in as forthright a manner as we've seen this campaign season.

The first paragraph, emphasis ours:

For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.

Later, emphasis ours:

"I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers," McCain said Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event.

Still later, emphasis still ours:

"It is safe to say that, according to press reports, Barack Obama avoided, skipped, canceled the visit because of those reasons," [McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds] said. "We're not making a leap here."

Asked repeatedly for the "reports," Bounds provided three examples, none of which alleged that Obama had wanted to take members of the media to the hospital.

Shear and Balz’s bluntness is striking precisely because it’s so unexpected. Most reporters recoil from the idea of passing judgment on the news on which they are reporting. It seems antithetical to the notion of journalistic objectivity, and it leaves reporters open to accusations of partisan bias. Undoubtedly, after this, Shear and Balz will be slammed in certain circles as liberal hacks. But such are the hazards of honest reporting.

Journalists should strive for objectivity, yes—but objectivity to the truth, not to some rote notion of he-said/she-said “balance.” Good reporting provides citizens with the information necessary to form informed opinions on important subjects. The typical “Person Blue dislikes this ad, while Person Red thinks it is valid” framing—the framing employed by most outlets in their coverage of this story—does nothing to help people answer the fundamental question here: Do the ad’s charges have any merit? The facts indicate that McCain’s ad is inaccurate. Kudos to Shear and Balz for coming right out and saying so.

Dress For The Job You Want?

| No Comments

First, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank catches one of the guys running for president Acting Presidential again. "Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee," writes Milbank today. (See Todd Gitlin for one interpretation of this "'presumptuous' meme...swooping virally through the media.")

What will the "presumptuous-meme" peddlers* make of this?

Vanity Fair has dubbed Mr. Acting All Presidential's spouse "our commander-in-sheath," a reference to the striking purple sheath dress (with black patent belt!) which Michelle Obama wore on Fist-Bump Eve, a wardrobe choice which helped Mrs. Obama top Vanity Fair's "International Best-Dressed List."


*Are they the same as the arrogant-meme pushers and the entitled-meme people?

When I was a board member of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, my colleagues and I used to give little seminars to scientists at universities and foundations about how to speak to the media. Some scientists came mostly to throw metaphorical tomatoes at us, because they’d had bad experiences with the press. And some came because they wanted to know how to help the press get the story right, to avoid wildly erroneous and career-busting catastrophes.

But we all shared the same assumption: Relations between the press and scientists are bumpy, neither side likes the other very much, and scientists don’t trust reporters to disclose their real agendas.

Now, it turns out, we were wrong. Or at least the authors of a new study in the journal Science would have us believe. In a report published in the July 11 issue, researchers surveyed 1,354 scientists in five countries and discovered that “interactions between scientists and journalists are more frequent and smooth than previously thought.”

And it went on. While 42 percent said they feared critical reactions from their peers for talking to the press, almost as many (39 percent) said that news stories “enhanced personal reputation among peers.”

Nearly half of the scientists said their encounters with the media had had a mostly positive effect on their careers, and only 3 percent said it had had a mostly negative impact. And more than half said they were “mostly pleased” with their latest appearance in the media.

All of which tells me: We may not be doing our jobs.

Think, for a moment, about how theater critics do their job. They go to an opening, decide whether the play is entertaining or not, and let fly. Most theater critics presumably think theater is a worthwhile thing, or they would have become — who knows? — science writers.

Most theater critics want to see good plays, rather than bad. So you could say it’s in their interest to be gentle with first-time playwrights, and to go easy on non-profit theaters that could be put out of business by a bad review.

But what theater critics ought to be doing—and the evidence is pretty good that they’re doing it—is giving me the real lowdown on whether I ought to spend $200 on a Broadway show for me and my wife. That’s a substantial investment, and I expect a critic to help me make a good investment—to wave me away from the junk and point me toward the shows that are going to make me laugh, or cry, or better understand something about the human condition.

Why shouldn’t we, as science writers, be doing the same thing?

We want to let people know about new research that can help them, or entertain them, or help them better understand something about the human condition. And we probably do a pretty good job of that.

But we also want to warn them away from the junk. And in science, there’s plenty of that, too, along with misuse of scientific findings and commingling of results with opinion, which lead to stories that claim far more than the research can support.

I’m not proposing that we should go to war with scientists. But let’s think of ourselves more as science critics.

Journalists and scientists have different interests. The job of scientists is to raise money for research, do that research, and promote their results. We can probably all agree that’s a good thing. But the job of journalists is not to promote research, or to encourage the government or anyone else to devote more money to it.

The job of journalists is to shine a light on what’s going on, and make sure that the money is going where it’s supposed to go, that studies are done correctly, and that results are not over-stated or under-stated. If researchers stand to personally profit from their research—through ownership in a private company, for example—we need to find that out and say so.

And we need to understand something about how scientists work and what motivates them. One doesn’t have to be on the beat very long to discover that when scientists discover something new, after perhaps years of trying, they are likely, in their initial enthusiasm, to give it greater importance than they should. We need to ask tough questions, and bring them back to earth, so that we don’t report claims that aren’t justified.

According to the study in Science, many scientists still report feeling some discomfort with the press. And that’s probably a good thing. Let’s not get too comfortable with one another.

If we keep the pressure on, we can hope that there will be less corruption in science, less profiteering, and fewer deaths from unproven medicines, poorly engineered bridges, and cancer and heart disease.

Not that we care about any of that. Our job is to find out what’s going on, and let people know. If that speeds us toward a cure for cancer—hey, that’s great. But curing cancer is not our job.

Parting Thoughts: Rick Vernaci

| 3 Comments

I left journalism a dozen years ago, well before The Plague struck.

It had been twenty mostly happy years since the first day I walked into a newspaper office in Texas and was surprised to find that it smelled like ink; that every desk in the small, dark newsroom had an oil can filled with rubber cement; that the building shuddered when the press started up; and that—although I didn’t know it at the time—I had joined a cult that measured things in picas and points.

Mao died that day, and I felt like I was on the inside of something because I knew about it a little while before the rest of the town did. I would figure out much later that the rest of the town didn’t care about things like that. These were people who worked in refineries and chemical plants. They were glad to be coming home alive after another day of tending a big tangle of hot pipes full of explosive poisons.

And when they picked up The Baytown Sun that night, they looked to see what the weather was going to be tomorrow, and then skipped to the sports section to read the stories previewing the football games the town’s two high schools were playing the following evening. The schools had football stadiums whose combined seating could accommodate nearly all of the town’s 60,000 or so inhabitants.

Mao caught a break that day. He was above the fold on the front page even though he wasn’t local. I’d be willing to bet that most people, though, looked first at the “theater ear,” a little coupon in what would traditionally be white space at the upper right-hand corner of the front page, awarding two free tickets to the movies for someone whose name had been picked from the phone book.

Pretty much every household in town took the paper, even though the quality of the product was marginal. The reason was simple: it gave them something they wanted but couldn’t get anywhere else.

About two-thirds of the reporters and editors were local and had no plans to leave. The remaining third were people like me, drifters looking to get their ticket punched so they could move on to big metropolitan newspapers.

As I moved first to a larger newspaper in the north, and then to The Associated Press, finally winding up in Washington, those newsroom proportions would flip, and most news people I saw were rootless, always looking for something and someplace better. We were like carnival workers with better dental plans and without the tattoos. We had no ties to the land or to the people.

We gave them journalism, which has become the answer to the question: “What’s wrong?” They wanted news, which is a request: “Tell me something I want to know about.”

Newspapers lost sight of that, and it’s one reason they’ve found themselves in trouble.

Still, when the Internet came along I thought newspapers were indestructible. They were supposed to have been killed by radio and then by television. They were club-footed and dim every time they had to address a new medium. But they always managed to survive and eventually to thrive.

Not this time. At least not yet.

This is the biggest threat the newspaper business has faced since the Stamp Act.

Part of the problem is of newspapers’ own making. They gave the product away because some silly-assed Internet millionaires told them that’s how you make money. Tell that to the Mars candy family and see how many free M&Ms it gets you. After a while, the newspaper companies saw how stupid this was, and a few of them tried to wring some money out of the freeloading readers. It didn’t work. They had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams at establishing the retail price for Internet-delivered news at zero.

They’re screwed for the time being but maybe not forever.

The reason is that one of the hidden components of news is reliability. Finding and writing about some useful or hidden truth requires a bit of effort and skill. Not everybody can do it. That’s why newsgathering is called a craft. Bloggers are not craftsmen, nor are the screamers on cable TV. They’re like people who show up at Speaker’s Corner in London’s Hyde Park, where all that’s required is a set of vocal chords and nothing better to do.

As a group, bloggers have quality control issues on a level with the Chinese toy industry. Finding ones who aren’t defective is a lot more trouble than just buying a newspaper and turning the pages.

The brand and its reliability are worth something. In the end they will prevail. Between now and then it’s just a question of finding a way to make the numbers work. Because, after all, this is a business.




_________________________________






The steady drip of layoffs and buyouts, slowly desiccating once-vibrant newsrooms around the country, has also produced a reservoir of anger, sadness, fear, uncertainty—even some cautious optimism here and there—among reporters and editors who invested years, decades in some cases, of their lives to print journalism. We’ve asked anyone so inclined to channel these emotions, not into rant—although there will be a bit of that—but rather into reflection on what went wrong, and where we might go from here. We will publish one per day, under the headline “Parting Thoughts.” All of the letters we publish will be collected here.

As Obama's World Tour wound down, Maureen Dowd was on hand to observe (and then to share with us in her column today) that the candidate and the campaign "weren't as wary with the press."

Indeed:

The senator left his briefing books behind for a rare instance of mingling with his journalism posse at a Berlin restaurant as he sipped a rare “very dry” martini with olives. (This was either because he wanted to charm the press, which, contrary to popular imagination, is not universally enchanted with him, or because he could not get ESPN in his hotel room.)

Such good sports were Team Obama, not only did they entertain questions from Dowd like "what presents [Obama] takes home to his daughters" -- that's "snow globes" for Sasha and "key chains" for Malia--but, Dowd writes, "they didn’t even seem to mind the caricature of Obama, ears sticking out, that had been drawn on the round We-Are-The-World Obama logo in the press section. The cartoon candidate demanded: 'Worship me.'"

Laugh at ourselves? Yes, we can?

Pity, That

| No Comments

In a piece about how John McCain has and should handle his status as onetime campaign press "it" candidate running against the media's current crush (move on, seems to be the consensus from pundits from the left and right), MSNBC's Joe Scarborough tells The New York Observer: "The last thing you want as a politician is to be pitied by voters or the press."

If so, it doesn't help McCain, then, to be compared in the same article to Britney Spears (admit it: even you have felt sorry for Spears at some point by now). ABC News' Jake Tapper tells the Observer:

It’s difficult not to see McCain’s point that Obama has generally been getting not only more positive press but quantitatively more press, period. That just seems empirically true. But it is a bit like Britney Spears complaining that Miley Cyrus gets more publicity than her talent warrants. True, but haven’t you been there yourself?

(So if the candidates are pop stars, that makes Tapper et al... groupies? Paparazzi? Also, does this mean that McCain and Obama, all this time, have been lip-synching?)

Opening Bell: Gloom, Doom

| No Comments

Business is cyclical and so is business news, but even so it’s amazing how universally bad the news is across industries and around the world.

Bloomberg has a couple of its useful (but little-noticed outside the Bloomberg box) stories that peak around the economic corner. Profits at U.S. companies may drop the most since 1998, Bloomberg says, led by financial firms, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. European consumer confidence, meanwhile, is the worst since 9/11.

The Wall Street Journal expands on the stunning news, reported earlier, that Detroit automakers are cutting way back on car leases, which combined two great pillars of the American economy: cars and credit.


My quibble with the story is that it spends more time explaining what automakers stand to lose by this move and pushes why they are doing it to the bottom. Apparently the value of cars returned after being leased is plummeting, while banks are skittish about extending credit to automakers’ leasing arms. It would have been nice to have some delinquency numbers on auto loans, too.


Meanwhile, Bennigan’s is filing for bankruptcy. Dang. Where will we go for those Jameson ® BBQ ribs?

And Delta is charging $50 (!) for the second checked bag. Can this be happening?

Major financial outlets take a look at Lone Star, the private-equity fund on the other side of yesterday’s stunning deal that had Merrill Lynch selling collateralized debt obligations with a face value of $30 billion to Loan Star for twenty-two cents on the dollar. Loan Star paid even less in cash, about five cents, as Merrill had to finance the rest. The consensus seems to be that Loan Star got a pretty good deal.

This is ominous news, however, for banks and institutions holding these CDOs.


Doha—doh!

Coming amid the negative news, the collapse of the Doha Round of trade talks seems to fit, even though the sticking point for a deal had nothing to do with current economic news and everything to do with India and its less-developed partners disagreeing with the U.S. and its developed partners over how much protection to offer subsistence farmers in developing countries, as the WSJ gracefully explains:

The trade summit, among the longest global trade summits diplomats could remember, came undone over what seemed to be a simple bargain: rising titans such as China and India were to lower their tariffs on industrial goods, in exchange for European and American tariff and subsidy cuts on farm products.


China and India, however, demanded a "safeguard" clause that would allow them to raise tariffs on key crops such as cotton, sugar and rice if there were a sudden surge in imports. The two sides couldn't agree, however, on where to set the threshold for any import surge that would trigger the clause. The U.S. wanted to set the trigger at a 40% jump. China and India wanted the trigger set much lower, at a 10% increase.

The New York Times also does a nice job with this story.


And while Bloomberg offers the counter-take that trade actually will continue to grow even without a deal, other analysts say a deal would have provided a shot of much-needed confidence to the global economy.

Sorry, I have no opinion on it.

But...

I can recommend the Journal story on an Iraqi oil executive being pushed out by the central government. It features an interview with the executive, who has so far refused to leave his post. It apparently is peaceful enough in Iraq for people to return to government intrigue and boardroom power struggles.

I will take a hopeful sign for the day.

Earthquake!

| No Comments

Here’s a smattering of coverage in the hours following the 5.4-magnitude earthquake in southern California. Who wins, the Los Angeles Times or a collection of L.A.-area blogs? Check it out:

11:42:15 a.m. (PDT): The earthquake hits, and it’s initially labeled a 5.8 on the Richter scale. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), it occurred four km (three miles) WSW of Chino Hills, CA.

11:43 a.m.: Jozjozjoz, a user on la.metblogs.com, an aggregate of area blogs, posts the news real quick, with a map from the USGS.

11:45 a.m.: The Los Angeles Fire Department blog throws up a post about safety, including what to do in the event of aftershocks.

Also at 11:45 a.m.: LAObserved gets its post up about the quake, with details on the epicenter coordinates, courtesy of USGS.

11:46 a.m.: LA Weekly links to USGS, calling the quake a 5.8.

11:53 a.m.: The Times server is reported dead. Defamer gets a screen shot. LA Observed and CBS5's Eye on Blogs, in the Bay Area, note it as well. The latter also has steady updates for the first couple of hours. (Lightbulb thought: Check surrounding area blogs whose Web traffic may not be as frantic.)

11:55a.m.: The first comment on LAist reads: “rock n roll!”

11:57 a.m.: Defamer gets around to it, writing, “We interrupt your daily nonsense feed to report an earthquake,” and noting that both landlines and cell phones are down.

11:58 a.m.: LA Observed posts info about cell phone interruptions.


12:01 p.m.: The Times server must be back up. Its first user comment reads: “Felt it in San Diego UP Down not as destructive.”

12:05p.m.: First notice of the quake from the Times appears in my Google Reader, and it’s just details from USGS. There’s a ticker about it across the top of the home page.

12:06p.m.: The Times posts its first story, adding details (first about some evacuations and responses from officials, then some “person-on-the-street” responses) over the next couple of hours.

12:20 p.m.: Defamer has already moved on to Jon Voight's "Screw Obama" op-ed in the Washington Times.

12:35 p.m.: LA Observed adds an update to its post, noting that the quake has been downgraded to a magnitude of 5.4, down from 5.8.

(For the first hour, SFist doesn't do such a shabby job either, laying out the updates briefly and clearly, using a combination of CBS, Twitter and LAist. Oh my.)

12:57 p.m.: LA Weekly has a blurb about cell phone outages in the hour or so following the quake.

1:15 p.m.: LA Weekly posts an update from the courthouse, where convicted triple murderer Timothy McGhee was testifying on the stand when the quake rolled in.

1:24p.m.: The Times posts an article about cell and landline phone outages, complete with warnings from the state to cut back on calls to allow potential 911 calls to go through. User comments on its site are still pouring in—the count is up to 872. There’s video now, too.

"Whiplash" Climate Journalism

| 9 Comments

Anybody who has been following Andrew Revkin's New York Times blog, Dot Earth, closely may have already heard of "whiplash" journalism. Revkin regularly engages in climate-change media criticism at the sustainability-oriented site.

Today, however, Revkin broke new ground with an excellent article in the weekly Science Times section, his first bit of media criticism to see print. The piece explores the ways in which reporters' tendency to bounce from one often-contradictory climate study to another confuses the public. Revkin cites a number of recent "discordant" findings, including arguments about the rate of Arctic ice melt, the degree of warming (or cooling) in the oceans, and whether or not warming makes hurricanes stronger:

These questions endure even as the basic theory of a rising human influence on climate has steadily solidified: accumulating greenhouse gases will warm the world, erode ice sheets, raise seas and have big impacts on biology and human affairs.

Scientists see persistent disputes as the normal stuttering journey toward improved understanding of how the world works. But many fear that the herky-jerky trajectory is distracting the public from the undisputed basics and blocking change.

"There's an expectation that science will clarify an answer to this question in a way that motivates a solution, or answer the question, what do we do? But it won't work that way," Revkin said in an interview. "The things that matter most are the least certain parts of it. So you really have to deal with this on the basis of the uncertainty, not on the basis that the uncertainty will go away."

Reporters' failure to provide context to many studies and their dependence on peer-reviewed, scientific journals for the weekly "news" are problems that received significant attention at a recent panel on covering climate change at Columbia University. John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American, one of the United States' oldest continuously published magazines, argued that science is all about "managing uncertainty" and that reporters need to fundamentally reconsider what constitutes a science news story:

Virtually all science news stories are built around a model of, the scientist publishes a paper, the paper appears to be important and valid, and we publish the fact that that came out," he said. "But the reality of science is that the publication of one particular paper, appearing even in the best journal in the world, hardly ever clinches the science to any significant degree. It's when lots of papers pile up and there is a general consensus (however that's determined) — that's how science moves.

Revkin says that he first turned a critical eye toward the ways the media covers climate change in 2004, after the publication of a paper about "balance as bias" in the press. The study, published in the journal Global Environmental Change, argued that major newspapers had irresponsibly included viewpoints skeptical of global warming in an effort to adhere to traditional norms of journalistic balance. Since then, Revkin has written about climate-related media matters in a number of Dot Earth posts (in addition to two book chapters), but getting the print edition to pay attention has been harder.

"I tried to get our media writers to write about it years ago," he said. "There have been enough [material], between the Boykoff thing on balance as bias a few years ago and [other issues]. Periodically, I would send notes on those studies and the growing chorus of people saying, 'Oh, it's the press's fault,' to our people who write about the media. But look at the Times's coverage of the media - we rarely still write about practice, we write about the business, and frankly, I think that's a gap in our coverage"

Fortunately, Revkin is filling in. In addition to the problems of balance and whiplash reporting in climate journalism, he has explored the dilemma of selective coverage. Last year, for example, two studies came to opposite conclusions about warming's effect on hurricanes. The one which predicted a big effect got much more media coverage than the one that predicted a minimal effect, even though the former appeared in a journal much more obscure than the other. Revkin reasoned on Dot Earth that:

There are a variety of reasons that the media tend to pay outsize attention to research developments that support a “hot” conclusion (like the theory that hurricanes have already been intensified by human-caused global warming) and glaze over on research of equivalent quality that does not.

The main one, to my mind, is an institutional eagerness to sift for and amplify what editors here at The Times sometimes call “the front-page thought.” This is only natural, but in coverage of science it can skew what you read toward the more calamitous side of things. It’s usually not agenda-driven, as some conservative commentators charge. It’s just a deeply ingrained habit.

Many of the problems with climate reporting have been exacerbated by the decline of specialized reporting at newspapers and the cacophony of the blogosphere, according to Revkin. In particular, blogs "amplify" the general trend in whiplash coverage, as well as the most extreme positions and arguments revolving around global warming. This matters, he says, because climate has already become heavily politicized and the public will need to act before all the related scientific uncertainties can be resolved or even reduced.

"It goes beyond the press," Revkin said. "Human nature is the biggest unexamined part of this climate story. In fact, I asked the IPCC people why there hasn't been a component of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports on the sociology of the issue — in other words, how people absorb this kind of risk and act on it … But I think people are catching up with the reality of that - that the soft science on this matters almost more than the hard science."

Fortunately, Revkin is not alone in his attempts to improve climate journalism. Readers may not find many stories like his in print, but online sources of science-oriented media analysis have proliferated. In addition to The Observatory, useful Web sites include the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, the Yale Climate & Media Forum, and Framing Science.

I was just watching a female reporter on MSNBC reporting about about the earthquake that has apparently just struck the Los Angeles area. Suddenly, she was interrupted by that Serious Breaking News From NBC music and there was Brian Williams -- from London, on his way back from reporting in Tehran the Obama World Tour -- reporting on the earthquake. And then Brian Williams was talking to the same MSNBC anchor whom he moments earlier interrupted and an LA-based NBC News reporter. And then Williams was gone.

More to come on how this story is being covered in the early minutes and hours...

Here is TVNewser's summary of initial TV reporting.

Someone's still willing to pay for (or, at least willing to lend a platform for) "advice" from Mark J. Penn.

In Politico, in a piece headlined, "'Active grannies' the new socer moms," Penn writes:

With 18 percent of seniors undecided and polls very close in the battleground states, my advice would be to take a serious look at these new active senior voters, whose voices just may turn out to decide this election. After all, they have been picking [popular vote] winners since 1964.

You mean....old people vote? Yes, but it's the active ones to keep an eye on. And, of course, standard caveats apply. "Today's seniors are hardly monolithic in their outlook," Penn admits, before adding that "Men have gotten increasingly grumpy..."

And MSNBC, loving the hunt for the Swing Voter as the media do, helped spread the word this afternoon: "Clinton Advisor Says "Active Grannies" Are The New Soccer Moms."

A Laurel to the Akron Beacon Journal and reporter David Knox for a well-done piece showing that, healthwise, the Buckeye State compares disfavorably to its neighbors 60 miles across Lake Erie. It’s the kind of story that contradicts the sort of rhetoric we heard in the primaries, when Republican presidential candidates went around saying that the U.S. had the best health care in the world. We at CJR had been urging the press to consider data that showed otherwise. The Beacon Journal took an interesting approach in doing so.

The paper looked across the lake to the province of Ontario, an area similar to Ohio in population, median age, average household and family size, and education. (Ontario has a larger minority population—23 percent compared to 17 percent in Ohio.) Their economies are also similar, with almost the same percentage of residents employed in manufacturing, wholesale, and retail trades. Wages and salaries are comparable, too. The main thing that is not comparable is the health care system. In Ontario, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, or OHIP, pays the bills for all basic hospital and doctor care. In Ohio, private insurance pays the bills; that is, if people have it. If not, they go without care, hope they can find some charity to help, or use the state’s overburdened safety net.


Starting with some macro statistics, theBeacon Journal quoted from a congressional study showing that, among the thirty countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the U.S. ranks third to last in infant mortality rates, ahead of only Mexico and Turkey, the two other OECD countries that don’t have some form of universal coverage. Americans also have shorter-than-average life spans. Since these gross numbers don’t say much about the cost and quality of care in Ohio, the Beacon Journal looked at its own state and how it stacked up against Ontario. Citing statistic after statistic, the paper clearly and fairly showed that Ontarians fared better than Ohioans on many measures.

Sixty-five-year-olds in Ontario can expect to live three years longer than their counterparts in Ohio. The life expectancy of a newborn in Ontario is 80.7 years; in Ohio, 76.4 years; 5.5 newborns per 1,000 die each year compared to eight per 1,000 in Ohio. Ontarians also have lower death rates from heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and emphysema.

Lest you think health care is perfect in Canada, the Beacon Journal showed that it is not. Sometimes there are long waiting lists for non-life-threatening illnesses and high-tech procedures. So, yes, someone with a sports injury might have to wait for an MRI. People with a suspected brain tumor, however, don’t wait. And it’s wise to remember that increasingly long waits are developing for services here—visits to primary care doctors and for mammograms, to take a couple of examples. The article showed that, per capita, Canada spends less on health care than does the U.S. —$3,768 per person (10 percent of GDP) in Canada, compared with $7,026 per person in the U.S. (nearly 16 percent of GDP).

New statistics from The Commonwealth Fund, a New York City philanthropic organization, reinforce the points made by the Beacon Journal. Earlier this month, The Fund released its latest study comparing U.S. health care with other countries’ care. Finding that the nation’s performance deteriorated over the past two years, it concluded that the U.S. health system “continues to perform far below what is achievable.” An example: the U.S. ranks last out of nineteen countries in preventable deaths, slipping from fifteenth place two years ago. France scored the best.

Even though the U.S. made some improvements to its system, other countries did better—they simply worked harder, and their centralized systems make it easier. In the United Kingdom, that bastion of socialized medicine, hospitals that had been the least successful at treating heart disease got better.

If British hospitals have improved their cardiac care, what are U.S. hospitals doing? The Fund’s survey did find that the public reporting of hospital data was one of the few bright spots for the U.S. Hospitals account for one-third of the more than $2 trillion health care bill. Much of that money has been spent competing with other hospitals and erecting new buildings to house more and bigger technology.

People are beginning to realize that the U.S. spends the most money in the world on health care while getting far less than other nations. But the media haven’t yet connected all the dots. Reporters should take to the trail laid by the Beacon Journal and The Commonwealth Fund. CJR will be watching to throw out some Laurels for stories that do.

No More Scrabulous?!

| No Comments

This just in: "Scrabulous is disabled for US and Canadian users until further notice. " For those in the dark, Scrabulous is the insanely popular Scrabble application on Facebook, whose copyright is owned by Hasbro. It's responsible for eating up hours of valuable work time. For those in the know, this means newsrooms are about to get a whole lot more productive. Sigh.

Slow Claps for David Brooks

| No Comments

You know that classic, climactic moment in movies, when someone gives a controversial-yet-rousing speech, and the audience, silent at first, slowly begins clapping? And the clapping builds and builds, until suddenly the speaker is bathed in thunderous applause?

I ask because I, myself, had a Slow Clap Moment (well, a mental one, as an audience member) this morning while reading David Brooks's latest column, "The Biggest Issue." Because "the biggest issue" in the 2008 campaign, Brooks writes, is...education.

Oh, clap! Right on, David Brooks! Clap! Clap...Clap...Clapclapclap!

Seriously, this is good stuff. And, to clarify, it's not that education on its own is the biggest issue in the campaign, Brooks says; it's that education as a determinant of economic prosperity should be. Brooks gives us a short summary of education's historical decline, from its height in the 1950s to its stagnation since the 1970s, in the form of Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz's book, The Race Between Education and Technology. But he focuses his discussion on Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman's May 2008 report on the determinative role of (worsening) family environments in that decline. All of this comes in the service of Brooks's overall argument about our faltering education system: that "this slow-moving problem, more than any other, will shape the destiny of the nation."

The findings Brooks discusses, Heckman's in particular, are more controversial than he lets on—if we agree that poor student achievement is linked to poor home environments, schools can, to some extent, wash their hands of accountability when it comes to their own poor performance—but that makes them no less worthy of Brooks's NYT megaphone. Particularly since that megaphone is aimed at voters still deciding between McCain and Obama:

If you look at Barack Obama’s education proposals—especially his emphasis on early childhood—you see that they flow naturally and persuasively from this research. (It probably helps that Obama and Heckman are nearly neighbors in Chicago). McCain’s policies seem largely oblivious to these findings. There’s some vague talk about school choice, but Republicans are inept when talking about human capital policies.

This is, granted, reductive—particularly, in Obama's case, anyway, in light of Brooks's own column from last month, in which the columnist chided the presumptive Democratic nominee to choose which Democratic education-policy camp, status quo or reformist, he'd occupy. Also reductive is Brooks's premise that "a ferocious belief that people have the power to transform their own lives gave Americans an unparalleled commitment to education, hard work and economic freedom" is what led the U.S. to become "the leading economic power of the 20th century." As Ezra Klein points out, it was a rare confluence of circumstances, both natural and political, that allowed that "commitment to education"—and, thus, that economic freedom—in the first place.

But my Slow Claps for Brooks were of a more general variety. Brooks is, above all, reminding us of an obvious point that we easily forget during campaigns: that the areas we break out into "campaign issues," for the sake of rhetorical simplicity and, perhaps, reportorial convenience, before elections—"foreign policy," "health care," "the economy," "education"—are, in fact, not separate at all. They are, of course, inextricably entwined. "It’s not globalization or immigration or computers per se that widen inequality," Brooks writes. "It’s the skills gap. Boosting educational attainment at the bottom is more promising than trying to reorganize the global economy."

Put more simply, what we invest in education today will have profound effects on the economy—and, thus, the foreign policy and health care and gas prices—of tomorrow. Which is good to be reminded of—whether you're a voter in the presidential election, or a candidate.

Parting Thoughts: Todd Engdahl

| 2 Comments

I thought hard before sitting down to tap this out, because I didn’t want to seem insensitive about changes that have so severely disrupted the careers, finances, and self-esteem of so many.

But, after years of reading Romenesko, countless other blogs, and endless articles on high-minded media Web sites, I’ve heard enough complaining, enough nostalgia for a golden age of journalism that never really was. So, here are some insensitive thoughts.

Your employer, loathsome and inept as that corporation may be, does not owe you a job.

Only university professors have tenure, and they probably shouldn’t.

Past performance - prizes, exclusives, clean copy, all that overtime you didn’t claim - does not count. Newspapers have always been a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately business. In more than thirty-one years at The Denver Post, I worked under twelve editors. Not one of them cared about the great work I and other people did for his predecessors; we all had to reinvent ourselves for the new guy. (Truth to tell, many of those front-office transitions were more traumatic than being laid off.)

Newspapers are not struggling just because of greedy corporate owners. We are in the middle of a structural change that is caused primarily by the fact that the Internet offers cheaper, more effective ways to advertise for the people who used to be captive to daily newspapers—car dealers, real estate agents, and human resources recruiters. Structural changes in retailing didn’t help newspapers either. And, on the content side, the Internet (and cable TV) provides readers with wider, faster access to everything from foreign news to sports stats. (Yes, owners have clung too long to double-digit profit margins. But slashing margins to supermarket-industry levels won’t stop those structural changes.)

It’s not just the owners’ fault that newspapers didn’t respond quickly enough to the ’Net. I launched denverpost.com in 1995, part of the first wave of metro papers to tiptoe onto the Web. My eight years running the Web site were the best years of my career, but also some of the most frustrating. For most of the ’90s, the suits in the front office just didn’t get it—but neither did my former pals back in the newsroom. I suspect many of the same people who lost their jobs in 2007 and ’08 were telling Web editors like me a decade earlier that they had more important things to do than help build their paper’s site. (And smart people have written good books about how legacy industries almost never have been technological innovators or even good adaptors.)

Newspapers aren’t (and weren’t) as good as we’d like to think. There’s lots of hand-wringing about how current changes are threatening newspapers’ civic and watchdog roles. Nobody ever mentions that, in terms of column inches, that type of coverage is (and was) a small part of what newspapers provide. Much more ink is used, overall, for everything else, from ads to comics to crime news to weather to features to sports. (Ever compare the column inches in your paper’s sports section to the total in your metro section?) Don’t get me started on investigations, series, and special sections produced for contest judges, not readers.

Democracy will not die if the 1980s-style metro newspaper we pine for goes away. American democracy has more or less survived wildly partisan newspapers full of false stories, bribery, voter intimidation, ballot-box stuffing, robo calls, push polls, cable “talk” shows, and even TV ads. Democracy probably will stumble along in a world of different kinds of newspapers, blogs, and niche news Web sites like the one I now happily help run.

Your job is not your identity. This really is veering into insensitive territory, but think about it. Change, even involuntary, can be liberating.

There. I said it. Call me insensitive.




_________________________________






The steady drip of layoffs and buyouts, slowly desiccating once-vibrant newsrooms around the country, has also produced a reservoir of anger, sadness, fear, uncertainty—even some cautious optimism here and there—among reporters and editors who invested years, decades in some cases, of their lives to print journalism. We’ve asked anyone so inclined to channel these emotions, not into rant—although there will be a bit of that—but rather into reflection on what went wrong, and where we might go from here. We will publish one per day, under the headline “Parting Thoughts.” All of the letters we publish will be collected here.

The Economy: No One "Pouncing"

| No Comments

In his New York Times column today Bob Herbert writes that the economy "is the issue on which the Obama people should long since have pounced." (If not because so many Americans are experiencing "pervasive anxiety" from our troubled economy, as Herbert describes it, then because because of this, the economy is, as Herbert argues, "the key to defeating McCain.")

As we all know, if a candidate doesn't "pounce" on an issue, the political press isn't going to do it for him. And so, it's The Dog Days of campaign coverage (passing time 'til the conventions, speculating about VP Short Lists, chasing this year's Swing Voter --per MSNBC just now that's "Active Grannies") while, as my colleague Dean noted, on the business pages, The End Is Nigh. It's sort of a bizarre disconnect that Dean will explore further over at The Audit in some capacity.

Another argument, perhaps, for having business reporters (and education reporters, science reporters, etc.) more involved, as a matter of course, in campaign coverage. Maybe these reporters would feel, unfamiliar as they may be with the conventions of campaign coverage, free to "pounce" on issues critical to the country... even if the candidates are not?

Location! Location! Location!

Sometimes, stories about blogging and bloggers make the New York Times' front-page. A-1. Juxtaposed with the critical stories of the day. Other times, they can be found among articles about brides Botoxing their bridesmaids and advice on "awkward social situations." In the F section.

Such was the case for the Times' coverage of the annual BlogHer conference, for which a thousand mostly female bloggers gathered recently in San Francisco. "Blogging's Glass Ceiling," was the headline. Sunday Styles was the section.

Erin Kotecki Vest, BlogHer's Political Director, blasts the Times for the way it handled the story:

Perhaps, with all the talk of us being "...a corporate-sponsored Oprah-inflected version of a '60s consciousness-raising group" [the Times] missed the part about 36 million of us taking over as power-users of the web while raising our children and supporting our families.

UPDATE: After reading his Styles section Sunday, Greg Pollowitz wrote on National Review's Media Blog:

Oh, and one question for the uber-liberal, p.c. NY Times. Why are you covering a story on female citizen journalists in the "Fashion & Style" section? Sexism, thy name is Grey Lady.

UPDATE II: I am reminded of this:

An article about women in science and engineering from the New York Times, "Diversity Isn't Rocket Science, Is It?" seems like it ought to go in the news or business section. It ran in fashion and style instead. Why? Because white lab coats and Tyvek cleanroom jumpsuits are totes the hot look this summer!

Politics With Drawl

| No Comments

On the March 4, 2007, commemoration of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, an animated Hillary Clinton spoke from the pulpit of the First Baptist Church, borrowing lines from a James Cleveland hymn. “Ah don’t feel noways tahred!” the senator declared, her drawl booming out to the crowd. The same day found Barack Obama y’alling to his own Selma audience: “Don’t tell me I’m not coming home when I come to Selma, Alabama,” he said. “I’m here because somebody marched for our freedom; I’m here because y’all sacrificed for me.”

The southern-spiced speeches, not surprisingly, soon made it to YouTube—the former, as “Kentucky Fried Hillary”; the latter, as “Barack Obama, Man of 1,000 Voices”—from which they were, in another fairly predictable development, picked up and roundly mocked by the media. “Well, I don’t feel noways tired, neither,” scoffed E. D. Hill on Fox News Live, after re-airing “KF(HR)C” for her audience. Wonkette, the tongue-in-cheek political blog, created a “Pride Goeth Before the Drawl Dept.” to mark—and mock—Obama’s speech. (One reader comment: “I’m from Hawaii and I live in the South now, so I guess I can’t really hear either of his ‘blackcents.’ ”) The syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker wrote an op-ed about Clinton’s speech, likening the senator’s performance to “Granny Clampett auditioning on American Idol.” Bill Moyers observed that Obama used an “inflection…of the southern dialect that you don’t hear in the rest of his speeches,” while the author Shelby Steele, speaking with him on Bill Moyers Journal, argued that Obama is sometimes “John F. Kennedy. Sometimes he’s Martin Luther King. Sometimes he’s Stokely Carmichael…one cannot help but wonder who’s the real [Obama]—what’s his voice?”

It’s a good question. What is his voice? And what’s Clinton’s? “It did seem sort of strange to hear a Yankee affecting a southern drawl,” Fox’s Hill said of the New York senator, by way of explaining the fun she’d had at her expense. But Clinton, though raised in Chicago and educated in the Northeast, spent eighteen years in Arkansas—longer than she’s lived anywhere else. (While campaigning in South Carolina, Clinton joked about the criticism of her Selma performance, explaining to the New York Daily News that her geographical movement has made her “multilingual.”) And Obama’s “blackcent,” such as it is, is tempered by a childhood spent in Indonesia and Hawaii, by an immediate family from the Midwest (“I got my name from Kenya and my accent from Kansas,” he’s fond of saying), and by a young adulthood spent in California, New York, Boston, and Chicago. As the candidates’ brand of peripatetic existence becomes increasingly customary, regional accents are becoming increasingly rare. As they do, however, their mystique, for better or worse, seems to grow. And the Henry Higginses in the media seem to find increasing meaning in accents—particularly when politicians are the ones affecting them.

Steele, for his part, sees accents, he told Moyers, as “masks” that conceal a politician’s true identity. The linguist George Lakoff, however, who, “has been paying attention to Obama’s language in great detail,” hears in Obama’s speech not disguise, but diversity. Lakoff detects three voices in Obama’s tones: the “inspirational,” religious Obama is influenced by the cadences of Dr. King and black churches. The “professional” Obama conveys a tone of frank seriousness. Obama’s “street” accent comes from his days as a community organizer and activist in Chicago. The idea that we all have one “natural,” authentic way of speaking, Lakoff adds, is a “folk theory.”

Perhaps. But, if so, it’s a theory perpetuated by the press. Consider that Steele and Moyers conducted their conversation about the Selma speeches and the candidates’ accents in January 2008—more than ten months after the speeches were given. (That’s about ten years in political time.) Consider as well that, when the media assess candidates via their accents, more often than not, they pan those accents as phony and pandering.

Even native southerner John Edwards hasn’t been immune to the accusation that his drawl is inauthentic. Before the former senator’s departure from the presidential race back in January, the late William F. Buckley Jr.—himself no stranger to accusations of accent cultivation—wrote a column entitled “Edwards Hate-Talk,” in which he confessed that his dislike of Edwards is not “entirely ideological”; it’s “personal,” a bad reaction to “the carefully maintained Southern accent, which you can hear him practicing before his lucrative appearances before the juries who listened to him and believed they were listening to a brother, a good old Southerner, with all the right instincts for justice.”

But Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson have strong southern accents, as well; why aren’t their accents accused of being “carefully maintained”? The latter’s drawl is particularly strong—yet, according to The New York Times’s Susan Saulny, Thompson’s “drawl, small-town roots and conservative themes play well in the Bible Belt South.” Rich Galen, at the time Thompson’s political director, told Saulny that the former Tennessee senator’s audiences “understand his accent. There’s a connection between Southerners that we Northerners don’t understand.” But what was the candidate saying to his Bible Belt constituency that a Thompson supporter from Seattle or Cleveland couldn’t understand? (And when Buckley imagines “a brother, a good old Southerner,” does he imagine Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana and first-generation son of Indian immigrants?) Put Al Gore, Katherine Harris, and Jesse Jackson—drawlers all—in Thompson’s audience. Would there still be a harmonious convergence? There may very well be some shared southern history among this group, but that they all share a vision for the future of this country is unlikely. There are as many kinds of southern accents as there are regions of the South, and there is, of course, more than one kind of southerner. Thompson’s supporters didn’t go to hear him drawl; they went to hear him speak because they already endorsed his political agenda.

And yet in Saulny’s assessment, the drawl was an essential element of Thompson’s political identity—and of his supporters’ reaction to that identity. Which is a common theme in the media: the accent, in many ways, has become a mirror of the political reality in the South, embodying the region’s shift from a Democratic stronghold—bastion of populism’s Huey Longs and George Wallaces—to a Republican one. That shift has been on a slow-burn build since Barry Goldwater, after voting against the Civil Rights Act, won a series of southern states in the 1964 election, and since Richard Nixon implemented his Southern Strategy to capture the segregationist bloc of the Democratic party. Because of that shift, a politician’s accent—in starkest terms, southern or not—is, in some ways, not just an indicator of electability, but a determinant. As the columnist Victor Davis Hanson observed, “No Democratic presidential candidate has been elected without a Southern accent in the half-century since 1960.” And the South, Hanson went on to argue, is emblematic of the conservative shift in the nation at large.

“If politics were static,” the political reporter Matt Bai wrote in The New York Times Magazine in January, “you would assume that Edwards would have the best profile for campaigning in the South; like Johnson, Carter and Bill Clinton he is a native Southerner with a healthy drawl and a populist bent.” But politics, Bai noted, is dynamic—like the South itself.

The accent, played out in the press, has less to do with authenticity—John Edwards’s drawl is as real as it gets—and more to do with politics: in short, we in the media allow GOP candidates to have accents because the South is, politically, “theirs”; Democratic candidates, who have ceded the South to their rivals, don’t have the same permission. Given that construct, even the Democrats’ authentic accents are inauthentic.

Speaking on Hardball with Chris Matthews before the Iowa caucuses, John Edwards remarked that he was feeling good about his chances to become the Democratic nominee because the last two Democrats elected president “tahlk like thee-us.” He smiled and pointed to his mouth. A week later, in New Hampshire, Edwards again told Matthews that he had the best chance of beating a Republican in the national election because “people in rural America…respond” to him—and “in the South, a place [where] the Democrats traditionally have trouble,” voters will respond, as well.

It didn’t work out too well for Edwards, in no small part because the media portrayed him—and his accent—as phony. Which has to do with Edwards himself, to be sure, but also with the region that made him. In a 2004 article in CJR, Jacob Levenson noted that “nobody seems to know exactly what to make of the South anymore.” And that four-year-old assessment is just as true today. The drawl embodies a region that still holds a certain mystique for the country at large, a region often shorthanded by stereotype in the press rather than explored. It’s worth examining why the South still confounds so many—and why we allow only select politicians to give it voice.

From a (Harrisburg, PA) Patriot-News profile of Chris Matthews packed with will-he-or-won't-he-run-for-Senate speculation:

A Senate run would demand discipline, said Chris Borick, a political analyst at Muhlenberg College.

"It would be interesting to see if he could control himself under the spotlight of a senatorial campaign," Borick said.

At times, he can show great restraint. When syndicated columnist Robert Novak struck a pedestrian with his car last week, Matthews resisted his initial thoughts of having fun with the story and played it straight.

Just like Stephen Colbert on last night's The Colbert Report, when after reporting that Novak had been hospitalized for a brain tumor Colbert surprised himself by abruptly tabling a planned segment on all the recent Robert Novak news ("I'm not doing something I'd planned on doing just because of how it might affect someone else. I'm pretty impressed with myself right now.") Within minutes Colbert was promoting his upcoming "Special Report," "Silent Night: Stephen Colbert's Heroic Refusal To Discuss Robert Novak."

More from that Patriot-News profile: "one person familiar with Matthews' deliberations" actually points to Matthews' recent appearance on The Colbert Report (during which Matthews told Colbert he's wanted to "be a senator" since he was a kid and Colbert announced, "That's an announcement!") as having "hit a nerve" and, according to this "one person," made Matthews "focus" on the idea of a senate run "and think, 'That would be really interesting.'"

Twenty-two cents. We now know the price of those collateralized debt obligations backed by loans foisted by Ameriquest and other boiler rooms on unsophisticated, financially shaky American homebuyers, packaged by Wall Street, rated AAA by Moody’s and its ilk, and sold to yield-hungry pension funds far and wide.

Wow. Twenty-cents on the dollar.

Merrill Lynch yesterday announced it agreed to sell at a steep loss what are widely referred to on Wall Street and in the financial press simply as “toxic securities” to a private equity firm that is either very brave or very foolish. The securities had a face value of more than $30 billion, and the buyer, an affiliate of Lone Star, is paying $6.7 billion. It sounds cheap, but who knows.

The debate rages over whether accounting rules that force firms to mark their securities “to market,” based on some reasonable estimate of what they would bring in a sale, are helping or hurting the financial crisis. Well, no need for for that argument at Merrill. Sam Zell (once considered a wise man) always said that the only appraisal that counts is a cancelled check. Now we have a big one.

And while the news is stunning enough, business press readers should probably pause a moment this morning to admire the work of The Wall Street Journal, which utterly crushes the Merrill story with a team of Susanne Craig, Randall Smith and Serena Ng, with reporting help from Peter McKay and Jason Leow.

This is not to disrespect other accounts from The New York Times or The Financial Times, which are fine, or Bloomberg, which submits a strong entry. (No screaming over there, please.)

It is only to acknowledge the journalistic power the Journal can bring to bear when it feels a story is in its wheelhouse. Reading the WSJ on Merrill this morning is like watching Albert Pujols take batting practice. Point after point of an important story is methodically anticipated and whacked out of the yard.

After affirming the significance of the pricing point, and noting the obvious troubles of John Thain, formerly of Goldman Sach now running Merrill, has getting a handle on Merrill’s problems, the paper includes nice perspective with quotes:

"This is a financial crisis in slow motion," said Nicholas Bohnsack, operating partner at research firm Strategas Research Partners.

Reminds readers that Thain reversed himself from only a couple weeks ago:

When Merrill posted a $4.65 billion second-quarter loss on July 17, one of the worst in Merrill's history, Mr. Thain appeared resistant to calls by Wall Street analysts for a fire sale to pare down the firm's mortgage-related holdings. "I don't think we want to do dumb things," Mr. Thain said. "We have not simply liquidated stuff at any price we could get."

Discusses an obscure deal with a bond insurer.

Meanwhile, New York's top insurance regulator, Eric Dinallo, helped broker a deal between troubled bond insurer Security Capital Assurance Ltd. and Merrill that would allow the insurer to terminate $3.74 billion of bond-insurance policies it has written by paying $500 million to Merrill.

Includes this stunner of a fact:

Of around 30 CDOs totaling $32 billion that Merrill underwrote in 2007, 27 have seen their top triple-A ratings downgraded to "junk," according to data compiled by Janet Tavakoli, a structured-finance consultant in Chicago.

That's twenty-seven of thirty.

And checks in on the buyer:

Lone Star, a Texas private-equity firm, has been buying assets at discounted prices in recent weeks. Earlier this month it agreed to purchase the home-lending business of commercial finance company CIT Group Inc. for $1.5 billion. CIT had also been under pressure to unload poorly performing assets to raise cash.

If that’s not worth $1.50, I don’t know what is.


Meanwhile...

The WSJ, Bloomberg, and The Associated Press are reporting that British Airways is in merger talks. Followed closely by the Times. (Man, the competition on deal stories is just brutal.)

No longer in service


All papers play up the resignations of the leaders who engineered the 2006 merger that created Alcatel-Lucent. The WSJ says:


Since the merger, Alcatel-Lucent has reported six consecutive quarters of losses, and its market capitalization has been cut in half.


So, I guess we can count that one among the mergers that didn’t work out.


IndyMac, unlamented


The New York Times revisits the collapse of IndyMac and at least makes this important point, if only in passing:


Analysts say the boom perpetuated an insatiable hunger for mortgages and a complacency about the risks they posed.

“The sales culture took over, and the sales division really drove the company,” said Paul J. Miller Jr., an analyst at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey.

For a much fuller account of what went on inside IndyMac, I recommend a report by the Center for Responsible Lending, which we discussed here:


Finally...


The Los Angeles Times business page continues its good reporting on Iraq contracting. And The Washington Post has interesting story on a reality show hit by the real reality of the housing market.

As Liz reported last week, the LA Times Book Review has become the latest victim of the LA Times's bottom-line-eyed streamlining. The storied book review will now be replaced with "a smaller number of pages appended to the Calendar section."

Steve Wasserman, a former LAT Book Review editor and a passionate advocate of thoughtful, longform book reviews, will be a guest on tonight's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Wasserman will discuss, with Jeff Brown and BookSquare.com founder Kassia Krozser, the state of the modern book review—both in print and online.

Read Wasserman's September/October cover story, "Goodbye to All That," here.

Leading up to Barack Obama’s speech yesterday at the Unity convention in Chicago, there was some media speculation about how ethically problematic it would be if reporters attending the conference—the largest gathering of black, Hispanic, Native American and Asian journalists in the country—were to break into cheers when Obama took the stage.

It was a legitimate ethical question. (Check out one point of view, from Poynter’s blog.) Yet, in the media, it was discussed not so much as a what-if as a how-could-they-not. The headline of a widely picked-up AP article asked, a day prior to the speech: “Can minority journalists resist applauding Obama?” A graf-and-a-half in, reporter Jesse Washington wrote:

“But many at the quadrennial gathering differ on whether the underlying current of enthusiasm for Obama's historic candidacy should be constrained or allowed to spill forth on live television.

In addition to race, the issue boils down to questions of human emotion, empathy versus ethics, and whether a group that has experienced its own share of prejudice can resist responding to Obama's powerful oratory and potent symbolism.”

By framing the response to his headline as a possibly irresistible visceral reaction, Washington, who started covering the AP’s race and ethnicity beat just over a week ago, spotlighted a topic that wouldn’t have been much of an issue had the media (and admittedly,the convention’s organizers) not honed in on it.

Too bad that the organizers, themselves journalists, felt the need to remind the attending journalists to act with restraint during Obama’s speech. Their worry, impelled by the age-old question of advocacy vs. objectivity, is understandable. But it’s also condescending to those present, many of them veteran members of the press, to ask for “professional decorum during the event, especially since it will be broadcast to millions of people" (as an e-mail sent out to conference attendees reportedly implored).

It also seems as though Washington was a bit too hasty. The Unity audience gave Obama a standing ovation, but most reports admit that the scene fell short of speculated levels of frenzy and fervor. Post-speech coverage (NYT here, and WaPo here) gives some space to audience reactions, but focuses more on Obama’s answers to questions from CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux and Time’s Ramesh Ratnesar (some humorous, like how black he is, and some didactic, like his support for “properly structured” affirmative action). Washington must be relieved…or is it disappointed?

Did Obama Snub the Troops?

| 12 Comments

Did you hear the one about Barack Obama not caring about our troops? About being so obsessed with his image that he snubbed a group of injured American heroes when he learned that there wouldn’t be cameras around to capture his act of patriotic empathy?

Yeah, so did we. The story started last week, when Obama cancelled a planned trip to visit injured American soldiers convalescing at Landstuhl, an Army medical center in Germany. It gained steam when John McCain’s campaign released an ad—to be aired in Swing State Set Colorado and Pennsylvania and, via the Web, everywhere—that frames Obama as caring more about his own image than he does about the welfare of our military.

“He made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops,” the ad’s announcer intones, as, ironically, that now-famous footage of Obama shooting-hoops-with-the-troops flashes onscreen.

“Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras,” the announcer continues.

And then, the kicker: “John McCain is always there for our troops.”

The ad’s content has been a matter of controversy since it first aired. Particularly that middle phrase: the McCain campaign’s “strong implication,” to paraphrase today’s New York Times, that Obama cancelled the troop visit once he learned it couldn’t involve cameras—once he learned, in other words, that it wouldn’t be a photo op.

But as TPM’s Greg Sargent points out, that claim isn’t true. Yes, Obama cancelled his visit, but that had nothing to do with the Pentagon’s refusal to let him “bring cameras.” The Obama campaign had never planned for the media to accompany him there in the first place; the visit was cancelled when the DOD reminded Obama of its 2006 directive against campaigning on military premises. Since the campaign had planned that Obama would make the Landstuhl visit with retired Air Force General Scott Gration, one of his military advisers, the visit could therefore be construed as a campaign stop—rather than an official visit between a senator and soldiers. "Sen. Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go," Gration said in a statement Thursday night. As Sargent puts it, “This was a screw-up, but it certainly doesn't prove inconsistency.”

We’ve known all that for a while—or the blogs have, anyway. Sargent verified the specifics of the Pentagon’s statement to the Obama campaign on early Friday afternoon. On Saturday, ABC News’s Jake Tapper noted on Political Punch that “the McCain campaign provides no evidence for the assertion that being told he couldn't bring media had anything to do with the trip's cancellation.” And Time’s Karen Tumulty, on the magazine’s Swampland blog, follows that up with her own declaration that “there is absolutely no evidence” for McCain’s assertion. “The campaign insists that the plan had been to leave us at the airport,” Tumulty notes, “and the military has confirmed that arrangements were being made to hold media and staff there at a passenger terminal.”

The point being: the inaccuracy of McCain’s no-cameras-no-go claim about the Landstuhl cancellation is, at this point, well documented.

Which makes it surprising—baffling, really—that the MSM coverage of the ongoing tussle tends to gloss over that inaccuracy. Reports about SnubOurHeroes-Gate have generally failed to note that the facts, in this case, work against McCain’s assessment. They frame l’affaire Landstuhl as yet another he said/he said, yet another bit of verbal sparring whose winner cannot be determined. (Hey, we’re just the press; who are we to say who’s accurate?)

Take The New York Times’s coverage of the tussle:

Over the last two days, [McCain’s] campaign has strongly implied that Mr. Obama declined to meet with wounded American troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany after he learned that he could not bring television cameras along.

“I know of no Pentagon regulation that would have prevented him from going there, without the media and the press and all of the associated people,” Mr. McCain said in the ABC interview.

Mr. Obama, who visited wounded troops in Iraq without notifying the news media, and has visited injured soldiers in the United States, said he was not traveling with an official delegation and did not want to politicize the visit.

And The Washington Post’s:

Sen. John McCain lashed out at his Democratic rival in a tough new television ad Saturday, accusing him of "going to the gym" while in Germany instead of visiting wounded soldiers, and of doing so because the hospitals would not let television cameras film the visits….

During his trip to Germany, Obama was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl, but cancelled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate.

And Reuters’s:

McCain's campaign…needled Obama about canceling a visit to see injured American troops at a base in Germany last week, implying that he did so because he could not bring the media along.

And the AP’s (in a piece headlined, by the way, “McCain campaign: Obama shortchanged injured troops”):

Republican John McCain's campaign on Saturday sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for canceling a visit to wounded troops in Germany, contending Obama chose foreign leaders and cheering Europeans over "injured American heroes."

The outlets tacitly acknowledge the fact that Obama’s cancellation was about more than cameras. But why only tacitly? Why didn’t they just come out and say that McCain’s claims, in this case, were inaccurate? Readers deserve more than stenography; mainstream outlets, as well as blogs, would do well to remember that.

Poor Tartuffe

| No Comments

While minority journalists stretched themselves into a soul-searching pretzel debating whether they should applaud Barack Obama when he spoke at the Unity ’08 Convention yesterday, someone thought he was getting no love from the mainstream media. That someone was not John “A Little Left Out” McCain; it was Barack “Too Good to Be True” Obama. When TIME’s Romesh Ratnesar asked Obama whether he may have been wrong to oppose the surge - both before and during - Obama got a little prickly, pointing his finger back at the media - “you guys” - for not holding John “Didn’t See That There Applesauce Shelf” McCain to the same standard:

RATNESAR: Senator, I want to ask you about a subject you've had to address repeatedly on this trip, which is the situation in Iraq and the question of whether the surge has helped improve conditions there.

During the primaries, you criticized Senator Clinton for failing to say that her vote authorizing the war was a mistake. Now we have commanders on the ground pretty much saying that the surge has succeeded, and yet you've said that, if you had to do it all over again, you still would have voted against the surge. We're not going to ask you whether to -- you know, to change your position here.

OBAMA: You're not going to ask me, but go ahead.

(LAUGHTER)

RATNESAR: But I would like to know whether you feel that, after the last five years, haven't we learned that a commander-in-chief needs to be willing to acknowledge mistakes or errors in judgment when circumstances change?

OBAMA: You know, I mean, I have to say, it is fascinating to me to hear you guys re-emphasize this over and over again. I have not heard yet somebody ask John McCain whether his vote to go into Iraq was a mistake. I haven't, during the entire week that we were having this conversation.

(APPLAUSE)

That’s right. You heard me. This entire week no one—no one—was asking John McCain about his Iraq vote because you guys were all overseas trailing me, cooing over my every move instead of focusing on John McCain’s ridiculous golf cart ride (with these gas prices!). Not fair, you guys. Not. Fair.

Washington Post ombudswoman Deborah Howell declares her paper's Chandra Levy series "not worth 13 days, all on page 1," adding that "the new information wasn't highlighted sufficiently."

In Howell's column about readers' reactions to the series ("All but two of the approximately 75 readers who called or wrote to me were critical of the project"), she writes:

Readers pointed to other murder and missing-persons cases and wondered why The Post focused on Levy. I think it's clear that it was because there was a media frenzy over her affair with Rep. Gary Condit (D-Calif.), who was driven from office...

And if there's one thing any years-old "media frenzy" needs, it's additional frenzied media treatment.

Howell quotes Jeff Leen, the Post's assistant managing editor for investigations, in defense of the series:

It is a good reader and it is D.C.'s most famous unsolved murder, but more importantly it is an accountability piece about egregious District and Park Police screw-ups. It is also a tale of the tabloid and mainstream press pack journalism that helped derail the investigation. The series was conceived as both an ongoing evolution of the way we do projects and an attempt to experiment with new forms on the Web. From the beginning, the motivation and purpose was police accountability as well as trying to get to the bottom of why a famous murder remained unsolved.

How many times did he say "famous" in that paragraph? Only twice?

The Editor and the Architect

| No Comments

A splashy new show at the Museum of Modern Art puts a spotlight on a three-year-old story in Time and the issue of covering one's relatives.

Last week, MOMA opened with much fanfare an exhibit of new designs in prefabricated homes that featuring five full-sized homes erected on a vacant lot adjoining the museum, including one by Jeremy Edmiston, a New York architect, who, with a partner, designed “Burst*008,” a dwelling made of woven plywood employing a unique computer-aided design system.

As it happens, the pair and their design were featured in the December 4, 2005, issue of Time as part of the magazine’s “Innovators” series in a display that featured full-length photos of the architects and a mockup of the building. (Edmiston is on the right.)

At the time, Edmiston’s wife, Belinda Luscombe, was Time’s arts editor and oversaw architectural coverage. The relationship between architect and editor was not disclosed to readers.










The author of the story, Bill Saporito, then a section editor in charge of business coverage, says he proposed and reported the story and made the selection “on the merits.” He said Edmiston's wife may have suggested he look at her husband's firm's work, she had nothing otherwise to do with the story.

Issues surrounding a publication’s writing about employees’ businesses and relatives come up from time to time. Just last week, as Gawker noted, The Wall Street Journal published a feature story on yoga practice on Wall Street that quotes an employee of a WSJ editor, Tina Gaudoin, who co-owns a small yoga-studio chain in London.

The Audit earlier this year pointed out that Gaudoin, while a columnist for the Times of London, had quoted her business partner and employees and had otherwise mentioned the chain, Triyoga.


Bob Christie, a Journal spokesman, says the recent quote from the yoga instructor was a “total coincidence” and that Gaudoin didn’t even know about the story before it ran. He adds that, as is often the case in the yoga business, the instructor quoted in the story was not technically an employee of Gaudoin’s studio, works at other studios, and is well-known in London. "It's like lightning striking the same place twice," he says.

The practice of writing about or quoting employees' related parties, if not banned outright, is rare at most U.S. news organizations and doing so without disclosure is rarer still. Standards, however, do vary from place to place—they seem looser in the U.K. and Australia, for instance.

Time’s “Innovators” series spotlights leading thinkers all fields, including the arts. Saporito’s 332-word text, under the headline “The Newest Cut at Prefab,” discusses “kit,” or prefabricated, homes and says that Edmiston and his partner were “among the most recent” to take “a crack at improving on the kit concept.”

Saporito says that after he decided to look into prefabricated housing designers, Luscombe may have mentioned her husband’s work, but that afterwards normal editorial judgments applied. He said he discussed the propriety of writing about a colleague’s husband with top editors, including the managing editor at the time, Jim Kelly.

“We were totally upfront about it,” Saporito says.

Kelly, now managing editor of Time Inc., says that while "reasonable minds could disagree," he decided that disclosure wasn't required, mainly because of the piece was so short. He says disclosure is a must when staffers' own work is mentioned in news pages, "but when it becomes a spouse, a boyfriend, a girlfriend, a parent, a son, a daughter, it's more of a case-to-case basis."

Earlier this year, Time ran an interview with Charla Krupp, author of How Not to Look Old: Fast and Effortless Ways to Look 10 Years Younger, 10 Pounds Lighter, 10 Times Better, and disclosed that she is married to a senior editor at the magazine, Richard Zoglin. The piece ran more than 1,900 words.

Luscombe, who recently stepped aside as arts editor to become an editor-at-large, says she suggested that Saporito look at her husband’s firm’s work when the subject of the upcoming Innovators feature came up at a news meeting.

But she says she told him, “If it’s not appropriate, don’t do it,” and had nothing to do with the story afterwards.

Edmiston, for his part, says he doesn’t know how he and his firm were selected but says he only dealt with Saporito and another editor, and not his wife.

He says the feature had “zero” impact in terms of winning new business. He adds: “The only thing press gets us is more press.”

De Gall!

| No Comments

Christiane Amanpour's question for President Nicolas Sarkozy during a Paris press conference with Barack Obama late last week: (h/t TVNewser):

Parting Thoughts: John Biemer

| 1 Comment

If you had told me a few years ago that I’d be applying to medical school in 2008, I would’ve said you’re nuts.

By then, I had worked as a journalist for a decade. I had interviewed presidential candidates campaigning through Iowa, Kosovar Albanians in a refugee camp in the Balkans, and survivors of a deadly tornado hours after it struck a rural Illinois town. I had covered hearings on Capitol Hill and murder trials in farm communities. I went searching for bald eagles on the Mississippi River at the crack of dawn.

No, this is not your typical path to medical school. But that is exactly what I’m trying to do, one year after voluntarily stepping out of the Chicago Tribune newsroom.

Already, I have completed post-baccalaureate pre-med courses in biology, chemistry, and physics. I’m most of the way through an intensive summer course in the dreaded organic chemistry prerequisite. I’ve taken the MCAT. I’ve applied to ten medical schools. My fingers are crossed.

I certainly didn’t plan it this way. Not when I was writing for my high school newspaper or majoring in English in college. Not when I took an entry-level job in the CNN Headline News newsroom, or when I moved to Bosnia as part of an effort to start an English-language newspaper after the war. Not when I was filing copy for The Associated Press in Des Moines, Baltimore, and Annapolis, or through most of my four years as a Metro reporter for the Tribune.

I suppose journalism is no longer the way any of us pictured it. I sent my first e-mail and first surfed the Internet just after I graduated college in 1995. Who knew what a profound impact that technology would have on my budding career? A decade later, I feel like the Chesapeake Bay watermen I covered for the AP who have been forced to build new lives as the blue crabs disappeared—only for us, classified ads are the endangered species.

Reading Romenesko was a daily depressant, but also a reality check. For a while, it seemed other papers were being hit harder than the Tribune. Then came Sam Zell and his deal, which left us, the “employee-owners,” so deeply in debt. Despite his insistence otherwise, there was little doubt that massive layoffs would follow.

Even if you survived the cuts, what’s next? More frenzied filing of unfinished stories to the Web site. Shorter, shallower, press-release stories. More hyperlocal focus on fires and crime, more wire copy and pop culture. Taking notes in the field while balancing a video camera. None of this appealed to me. Unless something dramatic comes along to shift the paradigm—public financing, nonprofit newspapers—I can’t imagine this job getting better because of these changes.

And as all this is happening, life for me has been moving on. I got married, had a son, and my wife was expecting again when Zell entered my life. Suddenly, a career choice that had seemed stimulating and romantic as a young, single man had become risky, and, frankly, self-indulgent. There are two main ways to pull your weight as a parent—through your time or your resources—and with a newspaper reporter’s salary and work schedule, I was not contributing enough of either. Nobody expects to get rich as a journalist, but at a certain point you realize that for your family’s sake you might’ve been better off becoming a plumber.

Odds were, I concluded, that the industry woes or the salary would force me out of journalism within a decade. So, I could wait for that breaking point or take action on my own. I’m thirty-four, so I have more options than I will later on. However, to make such a jump, you are forced to think as if you’re eighteen again: What do I want to be when I grow up? What would my fifty-year-old self want me to have done at this juncture? And what am I, as a longtime journalist, even qualified for?

I had to consider what I did best. At AP and the Tribune, I had been assigned beats covering politics, but about half my reporting time was open to general assignment—and often I could pursue whatever interested me. Over time, I found myself repeatedly gravitating to science stories, eventually reaching a point where it eclipsed any of the other subjects I covered. And when you are fascinated by a subject on a personal level, you work harder at it because you are more motivated and your curiosity drives you further.

The subjects I interviewed for these stories—biologists, doctors, geologists, meteorologists, and more—often complimented me for quickly grasping fairly complicated scientific topics and explaining them in simple and objective terms that a reader could understand. In the end, of all my stories in journalism, my work on the sciences shined the most.

There are aspects of a career in medicine that cross over with the appeal of journalism—the lifelong learning, the intellectual challenge, and the feeling that through your work you may be helping others and perhaps making the world a better place. Ethics, objectivity, and accuracy are crucial in both, as well as the ability to communicate clearly. It may be an unorthodox path to becoming a doctor, but I think my journalism skills will serve me well.

Still, this was the hardest decision I’ve ever made. When all my college friends rushed off to law school, I chose journalism. I love reporting and writing good stories. I wanted to be a witness to history. I wanted to see the world. I wanted life to be constantly fascinating. You only live once.

Just writing this piece reminds me of all that—and in some ways, I’m still torn. But this is not the same field I entered and I am not the same person.

To a young, aspiring journalist, particularly if he or she is unattached, I still say: go for it. Reporting will exist on some level, for some people. It’s still one of the most interesting jobs in the world. But watch your back. Constantly reassess your situation. The people who pay your salary are far more concerned about your byline count than the person behind the byline.

The road ahead for me won’t be easy, but I am fortunate. I have a knack for science—and my post-bac classes have confirmed that. I also have a patient and encouraging ex-journalist wife with a stable enough job that I can make this leap of faith. If it works, I will be thirty-nine when I graduate from medical school—undoubtedly, among the oldest students in my class. Too old? I hope not. The train may be leaving the station, but if I sprint, I think I can still jump on board.

You only live twice.




_________________________________






The steady drip of layoffs and buyouts, slowly desiccating once-vibrant newsrooms around the country, has also produced a reservoir of anger, sadness, fear, uncertainty—even some cautious optimism here and there—among reporters and editors who invested years, decades in some cases, of their lives to print journalism. We’ve asked anyone so inclined to channel these emotions, not into rant—although there will be a bit of that—but rather into reflection on what went wrong, and where we might go from here. We will publish one per day, under the headline “Parting Thoughts.” All of the letters we publish will be collected here.

Embracing "Dr. No"

| No Comments

Speaking of reading body language, both the Washington Post and the New York Times put on their front pages today pieces about Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla) and, specifically, per the Times, Democrats' efforts to "break grip of the Senate's Flinty Dr. No" (Coburn). Both accounts include the detail that Senators Coburn and Obama recently hugged on the Senate floor (presumably to point out that every now and then Coburn embraces compromise).

Times: "And [Coburn] has worked with Senator Barack Obama of Illinois...The two even shared a hug when Mr. Obama returned to the floor recently."

The Washington Post gives a little more specificity on how Coburn "worked with" Obama (beyond working the hug): "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who greeted Coburn with a hug on the Senate floor earlier this month, co-authored government spending transparency legislation with the Oklahoman."

"It's a body language investigation!"

The IRE should have an award for this. Granted, no shoe leather was harmed (not a scuff!) during this investigation. It doesn't require the resources of, say, a year-long re-reporting of "Washington's most famous unsolved crime" or even some Gitmo series. What's needed is a certain... in-studio gesticulation-judging ability.

We've commented before on Bill O'Reilly's use of a body language "expert," but until this morning I hadn't seen O'Reilly's show promote, specifically, a "body language investigation" ("Is this missing toddler's grandmother telling the truth? It's a body language investigation.")


On MSNBC -- not one to ignore, particularly when it comes to presidential candidates, the language of the body -- Chuck Todd performed his own such investigation this morning, translating the language spoken by Barack's body on yesterday's Meet the Press (as Tom Brokaw worked to get Obama to talk Veepstakes-- specifically, Brokaw asked, "Is [Hillary Clinton] on your list?"):

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: [Obama] did not rule out Hillary Clinton.

CHUCK TODD: [Long pause]. Well, no, but that's one where if you watch the -- I'm sorry, if you watch his body language, he certainly did eliminate Hillary Clinton.

BRZEZINSKI: Did he recoil?

TODD: Recoil wasn't the right word. He flinched a little. It was a weird body language. I sat there and said, okaaaay. He hesitated...

Is Obama telling the truth? It's a body language investigation...

Sunday Watch 7-27-08

| 2 Comments

Several of McCain’s utterances in his first interview with George Stephanopoulos since April deserve, as they say, to “make news”—to be emblazoned all week on front pages and reprised in TV clips—though, being substantial utterances, almost surely they will not.

Stephanopoulos led by noting that, on Friday, McCain said that Obama’s sixteen-month timetable for leaving Iraq was “a pretty good timetable.” McCain responded that by “timetable” he didn’t mean “timetable,” but rather something “dictated by conditions on the ground,” whatever exactly that might be. At this point in his campaign, he is trying to smudge differences with Obama on Iraq on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, in order to blur his earlier resemblance to a hundred-year-warmaker. On Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, he accuses Obama of surrender lust. On Sundays, he plays both sides.

An on-message McCain tried to characterize the surge decision as the decisive question of our time:

Senator Obama…says that the surge has not worked. He said it couldn't work. There's a fundamental difference between myself and Senator Obama….When the decision had to be made whether to adopt the strategy of the surge, he said it wouldn't work, it would increase sectarian violence. He said all those things that made it acceptable to the left of his party.

Three weeks ago in this space, I wondered when interviewers were going to remind the country of McCain’s early statements on the wisdom of the war. This week, it was a delight to see Stephanopoulos nudge McCain over into this subject, getting at what is arguably the most fundamental difference between the two candidates—the grown-up test of judgment, experience, and intellectual readiness, and of independence from the Bush worldview (one of whose architects, Randy Scheunemann, is McCain’s chief foreign policy maven). Stephanopoulos brought up

a fundamental difference about the original decision to go to war. [Obama] said it would inflame the Muslim world, it would become a recruitment tool for Al Qaida. You said, and you wrote, that it would lessen antipathy in the Muslim world and that we'd be greeted as liberators. Wasn't Senator Obama right about that?

McCain:

I don't believe so. We were greeted as liberators.

Possibly realizing he might be digging himself into a black hole, McCain quickly pivoted to reestablish himself as the far-sighted maverick:

We mishandled the war for nearly four years. We mishandled it in a way that was so harmful that I stood up against it. I said it wouldn't work. I said we had to have a new strategy, and I was criticized for being disloyal, disloyal to Republicans.

Stephanopoulos came back, accurately: “You also said many times that the strategy was the right strategy.”

“Many times” is quite right. Thanks to Greg Sargent, for example, for the following little item from March 18, 2003. Who’ll be the first to quote this on-air?

Bill O'Reilly: "All right, Senator, if you were president, what would you have done differently in the run-up to this war?"

McCain: "Nothing."

O'Reilly: "Nothing?"

McCain: "The president has handled this, in my view, skillfully."

But back to “This Week.” The original question of whether to go to war was, McCain said, “a job for the historians.” The “crucial”—the only “crucial”—question in his eyes was and is the surge. Despite interruptions, Stephanopoulos asked: “And you don't...accept that he was right and you were wrong...on the original decision?

McCain: “Of course not. Of course not. Of course not.” The historians had completed their job in record time.

A bracing precedent here—Stephanopoulous’s refusal to take for granted that, because McCain fancies himself the wise man, the ready man, the man who knows, the man we know, therefore this man who will say anything to be President knows enough about the limits of American power, and rectitude, and in other respects, understands the essentials of how the world works.


“This Week’s” round table was something else again. With the more blinded-than-blinding perception he has put on display for years, Sam Donaldson found the day’s McCain “appealing,” then rehashed some conventionally untrue wisdom about the senator from Arizona and the environment, declaring (as if it was the most obvious thing in the world) that McCain “is an environmentalist. That’s one thing you’ve got to credit John McCain for, if you agree with that, which I do.” Teflon ahoy!

In truth, McCain voted against the toughest CAFE mileage standards in 2002, 2003, and 2005, before he went to Detroit last fall and called for…higher standards (whereupon he could pat himself on the back for bucking the tide). Unnoted by Donaldson (or anyone else): McCain, unique in all the Senate and House, missed all fifteen votes last year that the League of Conservation Voters, no bunch of ravers, thought crucial—including votes where a “yes” vote from him would have passed the bills. His lifetime score, by the League’s criterion, is twenty-four.

George Will, no slouch with metaphorical references, labeled Obama’s Berlin speech “no metaphor left behind.” This was a widespread opinion among pundits last week, who seemed disappointed—some cynically, some not—that Obama had not raised Lazarus from his grave before two hundred thousand German onlookers. Will neglected Obama’s quite nonmetaphorical call for reducing nuclear arsenals and his urging Germany to provide more troops in Afghanistan. But who cares?

Donaldson later tasked Obama with overreaching because Nicolas Sarkozy shared the spotlight with him, a mere senator, in Paris. Imagine! Obama isn’t even president yet! Did anyone raise such a complaint when McCain was zooming through Latin America? Isn’t it plain that the “presumption” trope directed at Obama is perilously close to “uppity”?

The rest of the roundtable scuttlebutt about the reception of Obama’s speech in Europe was a quarter-inch thickness of froth. Can the roundtable do some homework for a change?

Check Your Herring

| No Comments

Many language lovers’ favorite time is when a dictionary is updated, because they can see what new words make the cut as being “real” English. Merriam-Webster is releasing an updated Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary this fall, and has already posted some of the changes on its Web site.

One new word is “mondegreen.” M-W defines it as “a word or phrase that results from a mishearing of something said or sung,” and gives among the examples “’scuse me while I kiss this guy” as a mondegreen of the Jimi Hendrix lyrics “’scuse me while I kiss the sky.” A mondegreen is different from a malaprop, where the word is spoken incorrectly.

According to M-W and the Oxford English Dictionary, which already includes “mondegreen,” the author Sylvia Wright coined the term in a November 1954 article in Harper’s. As a child, she wrote, she misheard a line from an old English ballad, “The Bonnie Earl O’ Murray.” As she heard it, the last lines were “They hae slain the Earl Amurray / And Lady Mondegreen.” (In reality, they had slain the Earl of Murray, “And laid him on the green.”) Wright wrote: “The point about what I shall hereafter call mondegreens, since no one else has thought up a word for them, is that they are better than the original.”

While mondegreens are often associated with song lyrics, they also appear a lot in journalism. In 2002, The New York Times published a book entitled Kill Duck Before Serving, a collection of errors the newspaper had printed. The collection featured more than its fair share of mondegreens. Here are a few:

April 28, 1991: “A report about Myrna Hollinger, a designer of wearable art, rendered a word incorrectly in quoting her. She said, ‘Detritus is what interests me’; she did not say ‘the tritest.’”

August 16, 2000: “A transcript of President Clinton’s speech to the Democratic National Convention rendered his concluding passage incorrectly. Mr. Clinton said, ‘And, remember, whenever you think about me, keep putting people first.’ (He did not say ‘whatever you think about me.’)”

September 17, 1995: “A quotation by the late civil rights lawyer William M. Kunstler was rendered incorrectly in some copies. He wrote, ‘The Kennedys’ real immorality has to do with their lack of ethics as political leaders rather than their sexual exploits’; he did not say ‘immortality.’”

May 30, 1993: “Because of a transmission error, an interview with Mary Matalin, a former deputy manager of the Bush campaign who is a co-host of a new talk show on CNBC, quoted her incorrectly on the talk show host Rush Limbaugh. She said he was “sui generis,” not ‘sweet, generous.’”

April 7, 1995: “Because of a transcription error, an article about Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato’s remarks about Judge Lance A. Ito misquoted the Senator at one point. In his conversation with the radio host Don Imus, he said: ‘I mean this is a disgrace. Judge Ito will be well known.’ He did not say ‘Judge Ito with the wet nose.’”

Be careful out there. People are listing.

Ten For 2010?

| No Comments

Earlier this month, worried about the effect that newsroom cuts were having on minority journalists’ working numbers, the National Association for Black Journalists released an industry-wide memo stating that “this is no time to treat diversity like a disposable commodity,” and calling diversity a quality that “enriches the news product.”

That was also the biggest topic on people’s minds at Unity 2008, the quadrennial convention for journalists of color, which started last Wednesday in Chicago and ran through Sunday. (It was organized jointly by the National Association of Black Journalists, the Asian American Journalists Association, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and the Native American Journalists Association.) The top topic, aside from the buzz surrounding Sen. Obama’s address to the convention on Sunday: Is the evergreen issue of newsroom diversity destined to take a backseat as long as layoffs and buyouts are such regular occurrences in the industry?

Unity’s response (a resounding “no”) is a new initiative called “Ten by 2010.” The idea is to get ten major media companies to commit to training and promoting a person of color to a senior management position by mid-year 2010.

Reports from the convention, however, have held back on any assessment of how feasible that initiative is. (We get, instead, an ample number of quotes from Unity president Karen Lincoln Michel.) On Wednesday, as Unity started, the Chicago Tribune’s Susan Chandler wrote about why, despite newsroom hardships, it’s probably not the time for diversity concerns to get pushed to the backburner: “The fear is that minorities will bear a disproportionate share of the ongoing job losses because they are more heavily represented among the recently hired.” The point is valid, but it largely echoes NABJ’s memo.

Likewise, at Editor & Publisher Thursday, Mark Fitzgerald noted the tenor of the convention, where diversity is habitually the top item on the agenda: “But there is a special edge to the conversations because of the pervasive feeling that the economy has pushed diversity goals not just to the back burner, but off the stove altogether.”

Both go on to mention the initiative, but fail to analyze it in the context of these earlier statements. Where is the assessment? The New York Times Co. and Gannett have reportedly both signed on already, giving the initiative some feet; even so, it seems important to address whether or not this might be an empty gesture. As is often the case with issues of race and representation, reporters seem to be glossing over practical questions of feasibility in favor of an easy report of “Industry Agrees: Diversity Still Important.”

Coverage could address any number of things: whether a fast track training program actually works; whether participating companies’ commitments might falter, given the overarching economic situation; or whether affirmative action, in either newsroom or management situations, is effective.

On that last note, there has been a productive shift away from deeming diversity in news organizations primarily an affirmative action issue. In 1998, the Unity convention was almost derailed because of internal dispute as to whether Washington state, which had just introduced an initiative to ban affirmative action in hiring practice, was a fitting location for a large gathering of minority journalists. (See the NYT’s account here.)

Ten years later, racial (and other) diversity in news organizations is talked about less defensively, because, hey, it’s an asset in attracting wider audiences. Tribune public editor Timothy McNulty’s column Thursday takes that tack, writing that “the number of minority journalists is not really the main issue, but more a reflection of how slow the media have been to recognize the communities they should be serving.” Though he cites the “serious efforts, and endless conversations” that have traditionally had little impact, he mentions the Tribune’s numbers, which are pretty good:

In terms of minority hiring, the news industry average is about 131⁄2 percent, compared with the U.S. minority population of about 34 percent. Minority representation at the Tribune is nearly 23 percent of newsroom professionals, but the number in management positions is another issue.

Still, his open-endedness at the end (“another issue”?) reads like a tacit admission that it’s difficult to judge how well such initiatives like Unity’s, which is funded in part by the Poynter Institute and certainly should be counted a “serious effort,” will work.

There’s a tad of healthy cynicism here, and there should be more. After its 2003 convention in Washington, D.C., Unity released a five-year strategic plan that called for “people of color to make up no less than 20 percent of newsroom staffs and at least 15 percent of newsroom managers,” and made it a goal to “sponsor a presidential campaign debate in 2008.” (The latter attempt was derailed by Sen. McCain’s decision not to speak at Unity.) Unveiling an initiative is a dime a dozen act, and journalists should sound each out individually. Probing the rainbow-colored hoopla at the well-intentioned Unity with some skepticism would be more helpful than serving it up with an instinctively sympathetic gloss.

Easy "Breezy"

| No Comments

"Breathtakingly inappropriate," is how Eric Boehlert describes Ron Fournier's email exchanges with Karl Rove from 2004 (Fournier was an AP political reporter at the time; he is now the Washington bureau chief). Writes Boehlert, in a piece titled "The AP Has A Ron Fournier Problem:"

That kind of correspondence ("Keep up the fight" [wrote Fournier]) between a reporter and a partisan White House aide during a campaign year lands way outside the boundaries of acceptable newsroom practices.

Fournier's official reaction to the emails, which happened to come to light last week when the House Oversight Committee released a report on Pat Tillman's death of which the emails were a part, was: "I regret the breezy nature of the correspondence." To which Boehlert says: "Of course, Fournier wasn't simply being breezy. 'Have a great weekend' -- that's 'breezy.' Instead, Fournier was declaring sides."

Or maybe "Keep up the fight" is part of Fournier's standard email signature? You know:

Keep up the fight. Cheers! --Ron Fournier

Opening Bell: Summer Break

| 2 Comments

A nice slow start to the week, financial disaster-wise, as no big investment bank announced a major writedown, no bad housing numbers were released and no emergency action was needed by Treasury and the Federal Reserve over the weekend.

An ‘80s star, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. returns to the spotlight as it strategically leaks that it will sell shares in itself to the public, a deal that will value the buyout firm at $15 to $19 billion, according to The Financial Times, or $12 to $15 billion, according to The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, or $15 billion, according to Bloomberg.

I’d go with the lower estimates on this one.

Under the deal, the KKR will buy a struggling, publicly traded European affiliate, a move that helps shore up the unit and at the same time makes about 21 percent of the mother ship available to the public.

The move wins polite applause from the Journal:

From KKR's perspective, the move is an elegant solution to shoring up the affiliate while also giving KKR access to the public markets. The firm has argued for months that the affiliate, KPE, was undervalued relative to its asset values. By that standard, KKR is buying KPE at a discount -- which long-term could prove to be a wise purchase.

But the paper does remind readers that other private equity companies have faltered once they came public and that this is a “dark time” for companies that rely on debt to do their deals, indeed for all things financial.

Several big-name competitors, including Blackstone Group and Fortress Investment Group, have seen their shares hammered as financial-market turmoil makes it tougher for them to pull off big corporate buyouts, their bread and butter.

Andrew Ross Sorkin at the Times (who, puzzlingly, appears to have a statement released by founding cousins Henry R. Kravis and George Roberts that other media don't) reminds us that a public private equity firm is a bit of a contradiction.

Of course, the great paradox of private equity firms’ pursuit of public offerings has not been lost on investors, with some questioning whether the firms are undermining the very model that they have said makes their investments so successful. Firms like Blackstone and Kohlberg Kravis have said that they will benefit by being public because they can use the currency of their shares to expand their business and attract and retain executives.


Otherwise, the papers reflect summer’s dog days. The Journal reveals that federal highway funds, which rely on a gas tax, are suffering because motorists are driving less. This may appear to be unsurprising—and it is—but the paper does have exclusively a new Department of Transportation report that shows driving in May was off 3.7 percent from the previous May. And there is good use of action verbs and adverbs:

An unprecedented cutback in driving is slashing the funds available ... [etc.]


The FT leads its “Companies & Markets” section with thin gruel, word that Reed Elsevier is offering $330 million in financing to help the previously known sale of its publishing and information group. Yes, it is a sign that credit is hard to come by, but we knew that, and a $330 million financing deal is pretty small.

Essentially, the story offers a good example of how the short-staffed FT makes a little go a long way by putting smart spin on a nothing event.

Rooting through all the news—even the WSJ editorial page fails to provide a good yuck, except for a letter writer, one Philip D. Grant of Rowayton, Conn., who quotes Friedrich Hayek and sees in Fannie Mae “the road to serfdom.”

That crowd is big on Central European philosophers [Audit Correction: a previous version identified Hayek as German; he was Austrian, as the commenter below points out.]

If all you read were Forbes andWSJ’s opinion pages, you would think the government crashed the global financial system. But then, that is all some people read.

Myself, I worry about the future of news media financially and their ability to support news gathering and opinion blathering.

The FT tells us that weakness in ad spending in spreading to other media. So that’s bad.

The Times, though, is looking around corners and sees the future in a mobile reading device, Verve Wireless.

A cool breeze of hope.

Barack's Beefcake

| No Comments

Ben Smith links this hot-'n-heavy behind the scenes report from Bild, a German tabloid, wherein writer Judith Bonesky describes the workout she shared yesterday in a Berlin hotel gym with Barack Obama. Some samples from the article:

Barack Obama is wearing a grey t-shirt, black tracksuit bottoms - and a great smile!

"Hi, how’s it going?“ asks Obama in his deep voice. My heart beats.

Obama (with toned arms and a strong back) puts on his headphones…

[He] puts his arm across my shoulder. I put my arm around his hip - wow, he didn’t even sweat! WHAT A MAN!

Now that’s fawning coverage from Germany's top selling paper. (In a country of just 80 million people, Bild boasts a circulation of over 3.5 million, almost as much as the New York Post, Daily News and USA Today combined.)

Maybe it’s Friday afternoon nostalgia speaking, but Bild’s crush-note reminds me of a little piece from my college paper by a student who, one day during the 2004 New Hampshire primary, did his morning swim team practice alongside Wesley Clark. As far as I know, it’s the only reportorial (and I use that word very loosely) account of that candidate’s regular workout routine. Clark turned down actual media requests to observe his swims with one of my favorite politician quotes of all time: “No beefcake.”

Funny thing is, reading our old Clark item for the first time in over four years, there’s at least one obvious difference. I seem to remember editing out the nitty-gritty about the candidate’s physique and precise regimen, thinking that information was unbecoming or invasive or something—especially in the pre-CitJo days when our author was just an uncredentialed guy who happened to be there. Bild’s correspondent too seems to have been more a lucky bystander than an declared reporter.

And her editor left all the good stuff in. No wonder they have all those readers.

Chris Matthews likes Tom Ridge. Like, a lot. As in, really, really thinks he's great.

At least, one can't help but draw that conclusion after witnessing the following exchange, which took place during yesterday's episode of Hardball. Emphasis mine; I dare you not to wince.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: With just two weeks now until the Olympics begin, and politics takes a slowdown, Senators McCain and Obama have little time to grab headlines by announcing their running mates, of course. Who is it going to be?

Could it be this man in front of me now you see on camera, Republican Tom Ridge, the former governor of Pennsylvania, the former U.S. secretary of homeland security? You have been the man who‘s gone into the breach for this administration and for this country. You took the responsibility to defend us against enemy attack. You succeeded. You did a great job. You were a combat veteran who fought in Vietnam. You went to Harvard on a scholarship. You‘re a working guy from a working background, working-class background, who has succeeded in American life. You‘re a great man. You‘re a great man. Why are you not going to be on the ticket with—with John McCain? He‘s a guy like you.

TOM RIDGE, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY CHIEF: Yes. Well, you know, first of all, I think it‘s very flattering....And, actually, I have had a few people come on shows and say, hey, not a bad choice. But I don‘t know if I have been vetted. I certainly have had—not had a conversation with my friend about it. So, we will just see what transpires over the next couple weeks.

MATTHEWS: Well, you would have gotten it back in 2000, I‘m told. You were already to get it, except Cheney boxed you out. Cheney wanted the job.

Here's video of the exchange.







Now, to be fair, perhaps Matthews's fawning questioning of Ridge was part of a flattery-may-get-me-everywhere strategy for finding The Holy Grail of the Political Reporter in the Weeks Leading up to the Conventions: a Veep-worthy pol admitting, "Yes, I am being vetted." Or perhaps, if rumors of his planned Senate run are true, kissing up to Ridge was part of an effort to build up his Everyday Guy cred with Pennsylvania viewers and voters. Or perhaps Matthews was simply, as he's wont to do, "reporting all senses."

But, still: "You're a great man. You're a great man." Seriously? There's a fine line, after all, between reporting all senses and losing them.

When everyone’s talking about something, it can be hard to find new ways to describe it. But fear not, dear readers: our media are a literary lot, and their descriptions of Obama’s Berlin speech were chock full of exciting analogies. (Obama’s speech is “a tone poem”? Riveting!)

So, in the spirit of our previous Primary Night Metaphor-o-rama (and, yes, in the spirit of a summer Friday afternoon), we bring you our Heal the World Through Words/You May Say I’m a Dreamer, But I’m Not the Only One/Ich Bin Ein Metaphor list—some of the classic analogies with which members of the media described the Transcendent Moment of History/Overrated Spectacle that the world witnessed yesterday. Enjoy. And may your reading be bathed, like the tableau of Obama’s speech, in a glow of golden, gossamer light.


TWENTIETH CENTURY HISTORY

Obama = John F. Kennedy (TIME, CNN, NYT, The Nation, TPM)

Obama = Ronald Reagan (TIME, ABC News)

Obama = “Kennedy and Reagan rolled into one” (The Economist, TIME)

Obama = neither Kennedy nor Reagan (NRO)

Obama = Harry Truman (NRO)

Obama = Jimmy Carter (NRO)

Obama = John Lennon (TIME)

Obama = Hitler (The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart, Fox & Friends’s Steve Doocey)

Obama ≠ Hitler (The Atlantic)


MUSIC, CINEMA, AND THEATRE

Speech = “the usual rock-star stuff” (NRO)

Obama’s reception = “a rock star welcome” (UK Guardian)

Speech = “Elvis-like hope and change” (NRO)

Speech = “Beatlemania-style rally” (The Atlantic)

Berlin = “the world stage” (WaPo’s The Fix)

Speech = “a tone poem” (NYT)

Speech’s setting = a picture (Newsweek: “a picture like that is worth a thousand words or, in this case, tens of millions of dollars worth of free campaign advertising”)

Speech = “a general picture of this moment's defining challenges and the changes required to meet them” (TPM)

Television images of speech = “a curious tableau” (NYT)

Speech = “an audition on the world stage for Obama” (TIME)

Obama = “Super Star” (Der Spiegel)

Speech’s setting = “a professional outdoor concert” (Vanity Fair)

Crowd = “a sweaty mosh pit” (Vanity Fair)

Speech = “the operatic piece of political theater”
(Newsweek)

Story of the day = “the scene and stagecraft” (WaPo)

Speech’s spirit of human togetherness = spirit of human togetherness in any alien-invasion movie (TNR’s Michael Crowley)


RELIGION AND MYSTICISM

Speech = “Obama messianic sermonizing” (NRO)

Visit = spiritual coming (Times of London: “The Germans had endowed the visit with almost supernatural significance”)

Speech = resurrection (The Economist: “new life to the idea of the American century”)

Speech = Sermon on the Mount (Newsweek: “If Obama wins the election in November, this moment will be remembered as prophetic, a 21st-century Sermon on the Mount moving enough to sway even the most dedicated political agnostics.”)

Speech = “sermon to Germans” (Townhall)

Speech = “the Obama mission” (Times of London)


MYTHICAL AND LITERARY FIGURES

Obama = “a gladiator standing his ground against the media hordes” (WaPo)

Obama = the “mysterious stranger” (TNR)

Obama ≠ the “American Adam” (TNR)


SPORTS AND RECREATION

Speech = “a real grand slam” (TIME)

Speech = “a slam-dunk success” (Salon’s Joan Walsh, on MSNBC)

Trip = “premature victory lap” (NYO)

Speech = a poker game (NYT: “Eberhard Sandschneider of the German Council on Foreign Relations said, ‘The Obama who spoke tonight did not put all his cards on the table.’”)

Tour = Obama’s vacation (John Feheery, CNN)


CIRCUSES AND SPECTACLES

Speech = “a veritable carnival” (Times of London)

Trip = “a political high-wire” act (NYT)

Speech = “public spectacle” (NRO)

Speech = “a stupendous ride through world history” (Der Spiegel)


NATURE AND THE ELEMENTS

German attitudes = “Teutonic reservoir of icy cool” (Newsweek)

Crowd = a sea of people (NYT)

Speech = “an unalloyed triumph” (WaPo’s Howard Kurtz)

Images of speech = gold (WaPo: “The pictures have dominated. . . . In a campaign, that's as good as gold.”)

Setting = a gold-washed tableau (TAP: “The setting sun threw a brilliant wash of gold over the whole tableau. It made Thomas Kincaid look like a hack (well, a bigger hack), and must have required some serious juicing of whoever's in charge of the sun.”)


ROMANCE, PARTNERSHIP, AND TOGETHERNESS

Speech = “a chance to make partnership seem the most patriotic thing in the world” (The Economist)

Berlin = “a symbol of what cooperation in the transatlantic alliance can do” (WaPo)

Media covering Obama = gigantic horde (WaPo: “The gigantic media horde accompanying Obama”)

Obama = seducer (Germany’s Stern magazine)

Speech = green light (Carpetbagger Report: message “that our allies are ready for the United States to lead again, and they’re captivated and inspired by one of the candidates seeking the job of leader of the free world.”)


LIGHT, HEIGHT, AND HOPE

Speech’s setting = “a picture-perfect summer evening that was washed in diaphanous light” (TIME)

Berlin = "a shining beacon of hope to the world" (The Atlantic)

Media fixation on Obama = “a spotlight so bright that their own people were left in the shadows” (WaPo)

Speech = “a soaring address” (TIME)

Obama = “the new leader of a lofty democracy that loves those big nice words—words that warm our hearts and alarm our minds” (Der Spiegel)

Obama = “the best hope for America's salvation from the perceived catastrophic policies of its current president”(Newsweek)


LANGUAGE AND RHETORIC

Speech = “how we-were-, -are-, and -will-be-friends boilerplate” (NRO)

Speech = reclamation of the word “freedom” (The Nation)

Speech = “a manifesto for the planet” (Politico)


GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Obama = unambiguous nationalist (TNR)

Speech = movement toward perfection (TPM: “movement in the direction of that perfection that stubbornly continues to elude us”)

Obama = candidate for “president of the world” (Der Spiegel)

Obama = “the 44th president of the United States” (Der Spiegel)

anchors covering Obama = “Big Three anchor regime” (Politico)

Obama = “President of the future” (Times of London)

Oh, New Yorker, how you vex and puzzle me. One day, you insist on punctuating the word “cooperate” with a diaeresis, and the next day, you get all street on me.

The New Yorker’s David Samuels immersed himself in the community of medical marijuana growers in California for a piece in the July 28 issue. Before he started writing, he must have rolled a doobie, pulled up a list of euphemisms for pot, and then let it rip.

I honestly never thought I’d live to see the day when the New Yorker would un-self-consciously print the words “ganja,” “weed,” “dope,” and “bud.” I understand that all writers hate repeating a single word 10,000 times in one story, but the slangy looseness reads more like Rolling Stone than the New Yorker, or maybe the stoner bible High Times.

Ironically, one scene in the piece speaks to the silliness of using the vernacular thesaurus.

Michael, a sixty-year-old man with a gray ponytail, was wearing jeans, a faded navy T-shirt, a yellow flannel shirt, and a battered fleece vest. Shifting impatiently from one foot to the other, he read from a poster on the wall stating that words and phrases like “weed,” “dope,” and “getting stoned” were used to “devalue, disempower, and criminalize people who choose to use medical cannabis.”

Turns out, Mr. Samuels got up close and personal with his subject matter. First, he obtains a letter from a doctor to allow him to use marijuana to treat anxiety and depression and then he goes at it.

On the fridge, someone had posted a handwritten sign with the motto “Today is the day we manifest heaven on earth and godly bliss.” Water pipes were passed around, and everyone got high. After four hits on Nick’s bong, the slogans on the refrigerator started to vibrate with uncommon significance.

Yikes. Let’s just say I hope they don’t let David Samuels cover the inner-city meth epidemic.

"Most people" not pundits

| No Comments

Over at The New Republic Noam Scheiber writes this of recent Mitt Romney as veep nominee speculation:

What I don't understand is this idea that Romney helps McCain on the economy, which everyone concedes will be the nominee's greatest vulnerability. The basis for this claim is that Romney was a very successful consultant and private-equity fund manager. And there's no question that this would help him make economic policy. But that's hardly the same as winning over voters who are struggling financially, which is what most people have in mind when they say the economy will be a challenge for McCain.

Get that? “Most people,” when they say that the economy will be a challenge for McCain, actually mean that his real challenge is whether or not economically struggling voters pick McCain.

This is so obtuse that I want to think that Scheiber has made an error of wording. Anything but to acknowledge that he actually revealed the worst that beltway horseracism can be.

But just in case, let’s slowly say this all together: “Most people” are actually concerned about McCain (and his future running mate’s) economic plans and skills.

“Most people” think Obama will be "better able to improve economic conditions" by a 20% margin over McCain (51%-31%) according to a new CBS/NYTimes poll. Maybe that’s why 60% of voters (“most people”!) thought it most important that McCain name a running mate with economic expertise, according to a recent NBC/WSJ poll.

Maybe “most” horserace watchers, well equipped with blinders, see it Scheiber’s way. And to be fair, the post would be fine if he'd just swapped in the word "pundit"; it makes a good data driven point about Romney's limited electoral appeal.

But it reads like Scheiber's forgotten that there's a world of voters outside of the VP specularium, one where “most people” still think about how a candidate’s positions on issues will effect them—not how it will effect that candidate’s chance of winning.

Battle For the Grassroots

| No Comments

Timothy Noah over at Slate succinctly summed up the impending war over health reform. The lines of battle will be drawn between the insurance industry’s proposals and those advanced by Health Care for America Now, a newly-formed conglomerate of progressive non-profits and labor unions—which for the record, have never been enthusiastic about any change that hurts their leverage at the bargaining table. Health Care for America Now’s mixed approach to reform gives people the option of having commercial insurance, perhaps as a way to gather financial support from the SEIU and AFSCME unions, which still see health insurance as a bargaining chip at contract time. (University of Pennsylvania professor Marie Gottschalk explains all this in her book, The Shadow Welfare State, which I recommend to any reporter digging into labor’s role in the coming battles.)

A few weeks ago, Health Care for America Now launched a $60 million ad campaign hoping to enlist the grassroots in fighting for change. For them, this involves letting people keep their private insurance, buy new policies from commercial insurers, or buy into a public plan that is run by the government. The government plan, which will compete with private insurance companies, is a Medicare for All approach that is likely to be cheaper than commercial insurance and available to everyone, whether they are sick or well. And that scares the bejesus out of private insurers.

If (and it’s a big if) a public plan does indeed undercut commercial insurers, it could send the country down a path toward a single-payer system—or toward a truly national health insurance system, like the ones utilized by the rest of the world. And that’s why a donnybrook is brewing. The industry’s survival is at stake. Insurers have been lying low these many months, listing a set of blah blah principles, keeping their ears to the ground, and letting some of their friends in conservative think tanks write op-eds that support their positions. One, by Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute, appearing in The Washington Times, supported high-risk pools, a similar approach to the industry’s proposed Guarantee Access Plan.

The industry’s first skirmish came this week in Columbus, Ohio, where its trade association, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), launched a listening tour, along with print and online advertisements gently reassuring the public that the industry understands its pain and agrees there is a problem. AHIP also began a drive to muster an army of 100,000 grassroots activists who are happy with their private health insurance and, presumably, will contact their local congressional delegations to support whatever the insurance industry is promoting. AHIP is good at this. A year ago, it activated its own sham consumer group, the Coalition for Medicare Choices, now 400,000 strong, formed years ago and run by a public relations consulting firm in Virginia. The group bombarded members of Congress with letters and eventually helped prevent lawmakers from reducing the (large) sums paid to insurers for providing a Medicare option called a Medicare Advantage Plan.

This year AHIP wasn’t so lucky. Again its Coalition tried to gin up letters to keep the excess payments flowing its way. But the organization was outflanked by doctors who conducted their own PR campaign to make sure that their fees for treating Medicare patients wouldn’t be cut. It was a trade-off for Congress, as payments for the docs had to come out of the extra money paid for Medicare Advantage plans. But don’t count AHIP out. It has undoubtedly learned from the loss; who knows what new battlefield strategies and tactics it will invent?

Health Care for America Now is following a similar route, using its ad to plant doubts in voters’ minds about the insurance companies while enlisting the grassroots to write letters, contact Congress, and be available for demonstrations in Congressional districts when the fight gets tough. It also wants money for future advertising. The group says it is not endorsing any particular plan, but I’d wager that they will push for a public program that leaves insurers out. Clearly, Health Care for America Now wants to be a player when the hardball politics begin.

Of course, any group has the right to lobby or organize as it sees fit. But the potential is enormous for voter confusion. The similar names, tactics, and buzz words deployed by both groups—likely shorthand for very different proposals—will boggle the mind of the average Joe. Journalists must explain who these groups are, identify their members, and illuminate what’s at stake for each of them. The “what’s at stake part” has so far been missing.

Neither The Columbus Dispatch nor the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which ran stories about AHIP’s listening tour, got to the nub of AHIP’s survival plan. The Dispatch story offered plenty of color—union members shaking water bottles filled with unpopped popcorn and Ohio residents airing their gripes about the health system. It quoted AHIP CEO Karen Ignani saying: “We plan to have a policy proposal and push for its enactment.” As I pointed out yesterday, AHIP’s web site offers plenty of clues about what it will push for, but the Dispatch story didn’t offer any of this information to readers.

The Plain Dealer did a bit better, but not much. It said that insurers want to build on the current system (whatever that means to the reader) and favor tax credits as the best way to extend coverage to the uninsured. Instead of delving deeper into what insurers specifically want, the article used six paragraphs for boilerplate explanations of the candidate’s proposals—and then blew it describing McCain’s. The PD quoted McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin as saying that Obama’s plan would, among other things, “encourage employers to cut workers’ coverage and put them on the government plan.” McCain would also encourage employers to cut coverage, but he would send workers to private insurers. Surely readers would like to know that.

There’s a war about to start, and the press should remember that, in war, the first casualty is truth.

I thought I loved journalism. The excitement of being in the middle of a fast-paced newsroom, the responsibility of shaping the daily paper, the camaraderie I shared with my co-workers. But I was wrong; I only liked journalism. And, sadly, that isn’t enough anymore.

My newspaper career started a decade ago with my realization that being an engineering major was a nightmare, and ended with the thought that maybe I should have given that 8 a.m. chemistry class a second chance. In my decade of reporting and editing I’ve covered local theater, helped edit an English-language newspaper in Cambodia, and worked with hundreds of wonderful people throughout California. But decisions made many pay grades above mine, and a radically changing media landscape, made the idea of continuing to work at a newspaper a depressing proposition. So I decided to take a buyout from The Modesto Bee and try my luck with law school. The decision to leave wasn’t easy but is looking better by the day. In the two months since I left, there have been layoffs at McClatchy Newspapers and talk of printing the Bee in Sacramento to save money. I can’t help but worry that more layoffs and further radical changes are in store for my friends who still toil away in the industry.

This year’s dramatic changes are the result of a slow-moving storm that has been gathering strength for years. During my almost four years at the Bee, innovation and change were painfully slow. The Bee, and many papers like it, had been a local monopoly for so long that it had a hard time figuring out how to meet the challenges presented by innovative online competitors. Craigslist barely existed in the area several years ago, but by the time of my buyout it had come to completely dwarf anything we offered. While we were still figuring out how to post Google maps, Yelp was establishing a fairly useful Modesto site. And even as our Web traffic grew, it seemed like nobody had a handle on how to make much money off of those thousands of eyeballs.

None of this was any single person’s fault. I respect every person I worked with and think most of them had a good grasp of what needed to be done. The problem was making anything happen. The cliché about trying to turn a battleship around seems particularly apt. Simply getting the bureaucracy in place to respond to the changing environment took years, and it still probably isn’t exactly right.

And now that real change is finally coming, I’m not sure the journalists who remain are going like it. It is going to mean more work with fewer people. It is going to mean that journalists are expected to have more skills. It is going to mean that the job you came to love will likely change in drastic and sometimes unexpected ways. It is going to mean that the company may decide it no longer needs you. I am confident that the Bee will survive, but what it will look like in five years isn’t entirely clear.

Despite all the uncertainty, I think a few things about the future of daily newspapers are likely: most will continue to produce a print product, but some will not publish it every day. They all will become much leaner. The Bee employs several hundred people, and I expect that number will settle somewhere around a hundred, maybe fewer. And if you’re one of those employees, watch out. If you don’t produce content or bring in advertising, expect to be out of work. Centralized finance, human resources, circulation, editing, IT, and printing are the future. If it can be done somewhere else, it will be. And if they can cut it, they will. Reporters will be expected to do most of their job with little or no supervision. And high-quality editing will be something that only the largest newspapers and magazines do.

So, those of you who remain have to ask yourselves this question: Do you love journalism? If you do and you think you can handle all the changes that are coming, hunker down, get some online skills, and prepare to ride out the storm. I am positive there will be jobs for the skilled and determined among you. But if you don’t love it, get out now. The longer you wait the less time you’ll have to prepare for your next career. I spent eighteen months preparing to go to law school. If I had waited another year, I might not have been able to make the transition as smoothly as I did. And if you wait too long, someone in human resources could make the decision for you.




_________________________________






The steady drip of layoffs and buyouts, slowly desiccating once-vibrant newsrooms around the country, has also produced a reservoir of anger, sadness, fear, uncertainty—even some cautious optimism here and there—among reporters and editors who invested years, decades in some cases, of their lives to print journalism. We’ve asked anyone so inclined to channel these emotions, not into rant—although there will be a bit of that—but rather into reflection on what went wrong, and where we might go from here. We will publish one per day, under the headline “Parting Thoughts.” All of the letters we publish will be collected here.

Study Abroad

| No Comments

The trope in the American media seems to be that Obama is beloved in Europe and the globe around. So in the spirit of the Illinois senator’s grand tour, here’s a sampling of what the foreign press really thinks. And the results aren’t all glowing.

You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away

The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland writes that Europeans should curb their enthusiasm for the Democratic presidential candidate, in order to help him win at home:

“If Europeans really want to help Barack Obama next week they should repress their enthusiasm for him - and stay home. Ensure those crowds are thin and lethargic; maybe even offer the odd heckle, perhaps while brandishing a hostile placard. Let the travelling US press report that Obama is not so popular with foreigners after all: nothing will endear him more to the American public.
If it helps, bear all that in mind when Obama hits your neighbourhood. Remember, if you want him to win in November, do your duty - and do nothing.”

With A Little Help From My Friends...or Not

The Spanish news outlet ABC offers a pointed critique
of Obama’s foreign policy advisors:

The problem with the Democratic presidential candidate is that he has very poorly chosen his primary advisors. They add much experience, but of the wrong kind.
In foreign policy, one of his gurus, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was the security advisor for Jimmy Carter, during a time when policy blunders brought the Islamic Revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the growing Russian presence in Africa, and the growth of communist guerillas in Central America, among other events.
His second greatest advisor, another brilliant intellectual, Anthony Lake, had major luck serving Clinton in the same position. Marginalizing himself in the Balkans, for example, he made possible the bloody civil war in the ancient Yugoslavia, not to mention other fiascos. This is the true problem that candidate Barack Obama represents for the world: He does not have experience, and his people are a group of fervent partisans that have accumulated a curriculum of dangerous failures. Now, America is in danger, and so are all of us.

Baby, It’s You

When Outlook India Magazine editors asked a reporter to secure an interview with Barack Obama, they couldn’t have expected how hard he’d fall for the senator. They also could’ve edited out the lovefest:

What began as a shot in the dark was to soon become an obsession for me. Perhaps it was because I was witness to the Obama mania sweeping America. To watch him campaign during those months was akin to experiencing a rock star inspire millions to dance to his tunes of hope. "Yes, we can"—his campaign slogan read. These simple words, transposed to my very specific situation, suddenly started making a lot of sense.
As you read the interview with Obama, I should tell you about my new goal: should he become the president, I wish to have him speak to Outlook in the White House. To think that I too started out as a doubter.

You Like Him Too Much

Israel’s YNet News accuses Obama of being a style-over-substance candidate:

Despite his relatively meager experience and the absence of any substantial achievements during his Senate career, the Democratic candidate has been able to take America by storm thanks to his explosive charisma, catchy messages, and promises of “change.”
Yet more than this teaches us about Obama’s nature, it mostly serves to inform us about the nature of our present-day world, where a flashy image and proper “branding” are the key to victory.

Practically Perfect

The Spanish paper El Mundo quoted Israeli publication Yair Lapid as saying that, if elected, Obama “will be the first neutral and objective president.” Yes, and also, when he sneezes, gold coins will come out of his ears. Seriously?

Got to Get You Into My Life

Germany’s Financial Times Deutschland suggests that enthusiasm for Obama is akin to a hot new trend:

However, this question must be asked: how much political savvy do those who celebrate Obama, a man who hasn’t yet had to accept any great responsibilities, really have? Obama is often praised for rekindling enthusiasm in democracy in people due to his drawing power. But mass obeisance to a charismatic leader really has little to do with democracy. On the contrary, the sociologist Max Weber describes charismatic domination as a condition that gains no legitimacy either through elections or tradition. The Obama-hype is similar to the month-long dance around the iPhone, except that the Apple cell phone will still have to submit to field trials.

Words of Snark

Agence France-Presse posted a particularly
tongue-in-cheek article about Obama’s press conference in Jordan. It’s uncharacteristically saucy for the wire service:

Barack Obama strode onto the world stage on Tuesday with trademark audacity, or as his political enemies would have it, a dearth of humility, in the symbolic shadow of Jordan's Temple of Hercules.
As he tries to convince Americans he will keep them safe, the White House hopeful held his first major press conference abroad as presumptive Democratic nominee near ancient Roman ruins and a shrine to the mighty Greek mythic hero.
Overlooking sun-bleached homes and minarets of the Jordanian capital, Obama spoke about his stealth mission to Iraq, against a backdrop seemingly chosen to suggest a young dynamic potential president, at home and abroad.

Drum's Rim Shot ... It's Good!

| No Comments

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum predicted last Friday that either the National Review or The Weekly Standard would headline their Obama coverage "The Innocent Abroad."

And what's the headline on ex-National Review and Weekly Standard staffer David Brooks's column today?

"Playing Innocent Abroad"

Close enough for me. Well done, Kevin.

Fox News has conducted a poll, promisingly entitled, "Does Obama Get Better Treatment by the Press?"

Well, we were, of course, in all our media monitor-iness, intrigued. Do people think he does he get better treatment, Fox News?

Things start off well. "When asked to rate the objectivity of media coverage of the campaigns," Fox's summary notes, "Americans feel Obama gets more of a positive spin by a better than 7-to-1 margin (46 percent more positive toward Obama; 6 percent more positive toward McCain). Just under 4 Americans in 10 (36 percent) says both campaigns are being covered objectively."

Not too surprising--particularly in a week when the media themselves have been talking about media fixation on Obama. But then. This. Below.

Have you heard any of your friends and neighbors say there is something about Barack Obama that scares them?
Yes 49%
No 50%

Have you heard any of your friends and neighbors say there is something about John McCain that scares them?
Yes 36%
No 62%

Some people believe Barack Obama, despite his professed Christianity, is secretly a Muslim. Others say that is just a rumor and Obama really is a Christian as he says, and point out he's attended a Christian church for years. What do you believe -- is Obama a Muslim or a Christian?
Muslim 10%
Christian 57%

John McCain was held captive for five years in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp. Do you think that experience would make McCain a better president or a worse president?
Better 49%
Worse 11%
No Difference (voluntary) 33%

Do you think Barack Obama's trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East is better described as a fact-finding trip or as a campaign event?
Fact-finding 19%
Campaign event 47%
Both (voluntary) 25%

Sigh.

[h/t: TPM's Eric Kleefeld]

This from National Review Online' s Jim Geraghty:

'There comes a time when we heed a certain call.'

There was not a ton to object to, and indeed a lot to like, in Obama's speech in Berlin. Although I think I preferred it the first time I heard it, when it was sung by all those celebrities and rock stars back in the mid-80s.

Oh, wait, that was "We Are The World."

Geraghty goes on to issue a pop quiz to readers: "Pick out the "We Are The World" lyrics vs. Obama speech lines."

Take the quiz here. It's actually harder than you'd think...

Are the media in the tank for Herr Obama? Jon Stewart says "Ja."





Outside Agitators

| 2 Comments

Last Thursday, Rex Smith, executive editor of the Albany Times Union, got a phone call. On the other end was Steve Engelberg, the managing editor of ProPublica, the new independent investigative journalism non-profit.

Engelberg, who left his perch as managing editor of The Oregonian around the first of the year, was on the other side of the country, standing in his old yard alongside a loading moving truck. And he was making an offer Smith felt he couldn’t refuse.

ProPublica, in conjunction with WNYC, New York City’s major public radio station, had conducted a month-long investigation into the lax regulatory framework behind a booming natural gas drilling industry in rural New York. The extraction process uses chemicals that raise serious health and environmental concerns both for upstate residents and for the city’s drinking water. Would Smith be interested in running the story?

“It’s almost an editor’s dream,” says Smith. “Here’s a great story on a matter of public interest that no one’s heard of, and it’s thoroughly edited. And it’s yours. Free.”

There was just one catch. ProPublica wanted to run the piece early in the week—Monday, July 21, probably—and this was the first time Smith had been in touch with ProPublica in any way, let alone told of this particular investigation. The paper asked for more time.

But the clock was ticking. A bill clearing the way for expanded drilling sat on the governor’s desk, awaiting his signature within the week. ProPublica’s Abrahm Lustgarten and Ilya Marritz of WNYC had been working together since late June, and had discovered that briefings given by regulators to legislators before the bill’s passage contained at-best-incomplete information. When they questioned New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation about steps the state was taking to monitor and mitigate the drilling’s impact, the answers implied that regulators were ill-informed and far from ready for such an undertaking.

It was a good—and so far uncovered story—and while the Times Union wasn’t brought in until the eleventh hour, the collaboration between WNYC and ProPublica originated in April, when the station’s political director and de facto investigations editor, Andrea Bernstein, emailed Engelberg to say that they were "very, very interested" in pairing. After an initial meeting, they promised to stay in touch.

“Our basic motive is to try to make an impact,” says Engelberg. One part of that model—to get ProPublica’s work a wide audience—is to partner, cost free, with traditional outlets in both investigations and in the publication and dissemination of the work. (ProPublica’s first big investigation—into the operations of Al-Hurra, the U.S.-backed Arabic news channel—found a home on 60 Minutes.)

When Lustgarten proposed a version of the gas story to Engelberg after starting at ProPublica, the editor saw an opportunity to work with WNYC. Although Marritz had already done a basic piece on upstate gas exploration, he felt there were many environmental questions that had yet to be answered. He was excited to be assigned to work with Lustgarten.

After a few phone calls, the pair met for lunch, and, on July 7, headed up to Albany to conduct a round of interviews. There were few points of friction between the two.

“I had done a couple of weeks work and I had great solid leads and sources and I wasn’t enthusiastic about sharing it all,” says Lustgarten, who was working on his first ProPublica story. “I kept being reminded by my editors that the mission was to get the story out, not necessarily for me to get the best clip.”

Radio reporter Marritz had a different concern: “I was certainly worried that Abrahm would have a great conversation and I wouldn’t be there to record it.”

That technical issue forced them to work very closely together—conducting many interviews side by side, planning their days together, and, until they reached the writing and production phase, often speaking several times a day. In the end, ProPublica and WNYC fact-checked each other’s pieces.

“Once we got going, it was like we were two reporters from the same organization,” says Lustgarten, who, like everyone else involved, regards the project, the collaboration, and the results as a whopping success.

Part of the reason everyone’s pleased is that they feel like their strengths matched well. WNYC knows New York state government and regulatory agencies, and ProPublica, via Lustgarten, has expertise in how similar drilling schemes had played out in western states.

“Even though our newsroom is expanding, we still have a relatively small staff,” says Bernstein. “Sometimes our ambitions exceed our resources.” Since ProPublica was picking up Lustgarten’s tab, the story didn’t tax the station’s news budget as much as it might have had it been an independent investigation.

As work wrapped up, the team worried that events might outpace their story. Their news peg—the governor’s signing deadline—was looming along with their opportunity to make an impact. And to do that, it seemed wise to further expand the story’s reach.

“WNYC has us covered down in New York City, with the well-educated sophisticated audience,” says Engelberg. But most of the story’s action was upstate and around the capital, and the Times Union seemed a natural choice given its location and governmental focus.

“I would have preferred, in a perfect world, to have given Rex more time,” says Engelberg. But with Engelberg being mid-move, and Lustgarten still settling into his new NYC digs, things were hectic enough that finishing the story got more attention than its final distribution plan.

Along the way, the release date was pushed to Tuesday, July 22. Lustgarten submitted something of a draft late Friday, one partially prepared on an upstate bus trip after Susan White, his ProPublica editor, gave him motion sickness pills. He got the edit back late on Sunday, and the Times Union didn’t get a version until late Monday afternoon. It came in at 3,500 words, which the paper hastily cut to 1,500 for the next day’s front page.

With that timeline, Smith says, “we didn’t have as much of a comfort level as I would have liked to have had.” Next time, he’d like to have some of his staff join during a late stage of the investigation, or, at least, have more time to edit the story and compile photos and Web video.

When ProPublica launched, some press critics were concerned that the liberal record of the organization’s major funders, Marion and Herbert Sandler, would taint the project’s journalism and hamper its efforts by dissuading collaborating editors.

While Smith is a ProPublica fan, and has even praised the initiative on a public radio media show he co-hosts, he admits to having some mild “concern” about the fairness of a presumption against the powerful that he sees in ProPublica’s mission statement. As published, the article was accompanied by a box explaining ProPublica, disclosing the Sandlers’ backing alongside a reassuring mention that former Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul Steiger was heading the operation.

“We put that in because we though that readers who wanted to know that information should have it in front of them. But I don’t see it as any different than an advertiser in our paper, or an underwriter on public television,” says Smith of the Sandlers. “I don’t think our journalists can be bought anymore than I think the journalists at ProPublica can be bought.”

“It’s a group of serious journalists,” he says. “I’m just tickled that they picked the Times Union to do it with.”

Marritz’s piece aired on Tuesday, July 21. Lustgarten joined him for an interview on a WNYC local talk show, and on The Takeaway, the station’s nationally syndicated morning program. Upstate, Times Union readers woke to see the story as their paper’s lead; they could hear Marritz’s piece on their local public station, WAMC, at noon. In the evening, ProPublica posted the full investigation on its Web site.

Later in the day, New York’s cabinet-level environmental official told WNYC that the state would demand disclosure of the chemical mixes used in the gas extraction—a new requirement. On Wednesday, the governor signed the bill, but not before committing to an overhaul of enforcement plans.

That’s impact.

CNN = Cosmo

| No Comments

CNN = Politics, but CNN sometimes = Cosmo.

Because sex sells page views in a way that muckraking doesn’t, the fourth most-viewed article on CNN.com today is titled “Ladies: 5 Ways to Get Your Sex Life Going,” which sounds a bit like a glossy’s tired drumbeat of 142 Hot New Sex Tips Sure to Send Him Over the Edge!

Surprisingly (or not surprisingly), the article reads like a Cosmo piece, too: “Where's that convenient, little blue pill for women?” it wonders. “That's what Joanne wanted to know. This isn't her real name, but she's a 26-year-old nurse at the Cleveland Clinic who felt no sex drive—nothing, nada, zilch—for eight years. She wasn't happy, and neither was her boyfriend.”
The Saga of “Joanne” continues for five more wonderful paragraphs, trailing “Joanne” as she switches anti-depressants, rediscovers her lustful side, is frustrated by her continuing inability to climax, discovers Cialis, has doubts, decides to give it a try anyway, still isn’t quite successful, and, when we leave her, she is still hopeful, still “trying.”

In case you’re wondering why “Joanne” is newsworthy, you’ll have to clamber down the page to discover that this story is actually kind of about the implications of a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association about women on anti-depressants whose sex lives can be improved with that magical “little blue pill.”

Of course, there are many ways to cover a story like this. One could, say, write about it from the “explain!” angle or even, say, the news angle. But what am I saying? One should probably watch a hard-hitting video by clicking on “Watch more on how women can get their groove back.”

Worst. Years. Ever.

| 9 Comments

Revenues shrinking to MicroMachine proportions, newsroom jobs disappearing like sand under a rising tide, "They'll Do It Every Time" discontinued: Is this, as the New York Observer asks, the worst year ever for the modern newspaper business? Here are five other contenders:

1931: The New York World, acclaimed as "the best-informed, best-informing paper in the country," closes after Joseph Pulitzer's sons defy their father's will and sell the paper to Scripps-Howard for $5 million. The World's dissolution presaged the coming era of newspaper consolidation. Although nominally amalgamated into a new entity called the New York World-Telegram, the independent editorial spirit that defined the old World did not carry. Columnist Frank Sullivan: "When I die I want to go wherever the World has gone, and work on it again."

1957: Paul Miller succeeds Frank Gannett as president of the Gannett chain of newspapers. By the time he retired in 1978, Miller had transformed Gannett from a relatively small family-owned business into a nationwide chain of nearly eighty newspapers. Miller was the standard-bearer of what A.J. Liebling would call "the march to private monopoly and its inevitable, because profitable, consequences--newspapers newsless or filled with synthetic "news." This is an economic process like the displacement of oranges from "orange drink."

1963: Seven million Americans find out what it would be like to get along without newspapers—and, from most reports, they get along fine. The production staffers for New York's daily newspapers waged a 114-day strike, which shut down all of the city’s dailies, cost nearly $200 million and put the New York Mirror out of business. "There was inconvenience for the readers and the merchants lost money—but there was nothing like fear; and that was because citizens, by radio if by no other means, could still discern the broad outline of what was going on," wrote Carl Lindstrom in 1964's The Fading American Newspaper.

1982: USA Today launches under the following motto: “An economy of words, a wealth of information.” A decent newspaper that is unfairly maligned, USA Today—the brainchild of Paul Miller's successor, Al Neuharth—nonetheless came to emblematize a news ethic that emphasized gloss and presentation over depth and thought that all regions of the country were, essentially, interested in the same things. There’s nothing wrong with presenting a wealth of information—but as soon as the public becomes able to access that information itself, via the Internet and other means, all that’s left for newspapers is an economy of words.

1999: Craigslist.org, the free online classified-ad service founded as a free email list by entrepreneur Craig Newmark, incorporates. At the vanguard of the Internet ad revolution, Craiglist was and is a prime example of how online outlets can offer advertisers a better, cheaper way to reach their clientele. Who buys classified ads in newspapers any more?

Any anni horribiles that I'm missing?

Robert Novak is feeling a bit glum today. Not, mind you, because of yesterday’s hit-(a pedestrian)-and-(try to)-run accident—“He’s not dead, that’s the main thing,” Novak noted, with characteristic aplomb—but rather because his good friends at Camp McCain have, apparently, used him (grievously) and abused him (egregiously).

The tale is a sad one. Remember how this week was going to be the week when John McCain, to steal Obama’s thunder, was going to announce his prom date running mate? And remember how today was going to be, you know, The Day? But, alas, poor Novak. No announcement has come. He was wrong. And, apparently, wronged.

Wronged, because the whole Veep Rumor was started by Novak. Via his high-level sources in the McCain campaign. Thus wrote the Prince, Monday evening, on the Human Events Web site:

Sources close to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign are suggesting he will reveal the name of his vice presidential selection this week while Sen. Barack Obama is getting the headlines on his foreign trip. The name of McCain's running mate has not been disclosed, but Mitt Romney has led the speculation recently.

From there, the tip moved along Campaign Gossip’s predictable trajectory: from Human Events to Drudge to The Page (where “***NOVAK BOMBSHELL***” was Halperin’s headline) to the wires to the newspapers to cable TV to…everywhere. Soon, everyone was talking about The Big Announcement.

The McCain campaign, not unsurprisingly, did what it could to stoke the rumors…by playing coy about them. When asking about the Running Mate Scuttlebutt on the Straight Talk Express, the WSJ's Elizabeth Holmes notes, reporters were replied to as follows:

“Go away!” laughed Mark Salter, a senior aide.

“What do you want you little jerks?” McCain said.

"A reporter asked the candidate outright if he would be announcing his running mate in New Hampshire on Tuesday," Holmes reports. "McCain responded with a mischievous grin and silently backed away."

And "Salter later offered this dance: ‘I’m not denying, I’m not confirming.’"

Which was, in retrospect, it seems, merely the McCain campaign’s clever ploy to get attention (through Novak)—while revealing precisely zero new information (through Novak). Good politics; bad juju. Particularly because, in their move, they’ve officially Pissed Off the Prince of Darkness. "I got a suggestion from a very senior McCain aide . . . that he was going to announce it this week," Novak tells the WSJ today (in a piece called "Veep Hoax"), and the campaign "suggested I put it out." He now suspects, he says, that Camp McCain was "trying to get a little publicity to rain on Obama's campaign. That's pretty reprehensible if it's true."

But true it seems to be. And now, today, on top of everything else, Novak is feasting on crow.

Per the WSJ:

Barack Obama may be grabbing headlines overseas, but John McCain's campaign knew exactly how to grab a few of its own this week. His staff apparently encouraged a report that the Arizona senator was on the verge of stealing a march on Mr. Obama by announcing the name of his vice presidential running mate. Columnist Robert Novak reported that Mitt Romney was the most likely front-runner…. Mr. McCain used to be lionized by the national media before Barack Obama came around and became the new, new thing. Now the Arizona senator is reduced to fighting for attention any which way he can. On the issue of his VP choice, chalk up one slightly ugly media victory for Team McCain.

And here’s the Houston Chronicle:

A reporter is only as good as his sources, and columnist Robert Novak is feeling dirty. The prince of darkness stirred up a frenzy when he reported that McCain may be making a veep announcement this week. Novak now believes he was intentionally misled by sources in the campaign, who were trying to steal some focus from Obama. That's just wrong!

Alas, poor Novak.

Talking Shop: Johanna Neuman

| No Comments

Johanna Neuman, along with James Gerstenzang, writes Countdown to Crawford, a one-month-old blog on latimes.com that follows the Bush administration’s last few months in office.

1. Was Countdown to Crawford originally your conception?

It was the conception of a group of editors in L.A. and Washington that there was a great deal of material about the Bush administration that was getting ignored by the tsunami of campaign coverage. That offered us an opportunity both to rescue items that were falling between the cracks and to remind readers that the Bush administration has several months left on the watch and is doing things that affect us as citizens—things that might be important to blog about and make note of.

This week is a good example. The coverage of Obama in Europe is overwhelming, almost everything. And yet the president reneged on a housing bill. That was kind of interesting.There just doesn’t seem to be any lack of information or behavior that is of interest to people. Dick Cheney seems relentlessly interesting no matter what we post about him. He seems to draw a lot of attention. Certain committees on the hill that are Bush-centric, if you will, the judiciary committees and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are regularly churning through the controversies of the last seven-and-a-half years, trying to pin down culpability and do post-mortems. Those topics are not only of import, but also of interest.

2. Have there been any frustrations in covering the White House in the midst of such frenzied campaign coverage?

We are actually quite pleased. It’s early—the blog is about a month old—but for a baby blog it’s had considerable traffic. We think there’s actually an audience of people who are interested in what the Bush administration is doing as it goes out the door, that think it’s important for someone to put a spotlight on that.

3. How has it been to write this blog alongside the L.A. TimesTop of the Ticket campaign blog, which, for obvious reasons, must be getting a good deal of traffic?

Top of the Ticket is an inspiration to all of us that blog at the L.A. Times. They are usually at the top of our internal count in terms of hits or page views. They’re hustlers. Those two guys [Andrew Malcolm and Don Frederick] are always working and posting and are usually ahead of the curve. So in that sense we’ve just tried to follow their example. Theirs is somewhat different in that theirs has an edge to it, I think. There’s a little bit of an attitude that comes through. And because ours is tethered to an institution of government, we’ve tried to stay closer to the news and further from opinion. We tend not to put in commentary about the subject at hand.

We also have the resources of the entire Washington bureau to help us, and we welcome their contributions. We have a stellar team at the Pentagon that provides items; we have a fabulous Justice Department reporter, a great Supreme Court reporter, and all of those people have items that involve the Bush administration in its last days. And so part of the instinct for this blog was to corral a lot of the material that we already have in-house that was maybe falling through the cracks.

4. What were you doing in terms of political reporting prior to this?

For the primary season, I was the Web reporter for politics on the campaign—I watched the raw feeds of the candidates talking, I took in their e-mails, I got feeds from the reporters that we had traveling, and I would cobble together a news story for latimes.com that on most days did not end up in the newspaper (which I now refer to as the dead tree edition). Our chief mission now is to get the news out quickly, or to blog something quickly; that has become the ruling ethos. It’s not what the topic is, but the purpose. And the purpose is to put it in context, to do the best you can as quickly as you can, crafting it with some style, but then sharing it with the readers.

5. How does Countdown to Crawford fits into the spectrum of coverage priorities at the L.A. Times right now?

I think the context we see this in is more about extending our reach on the Internet. There’s a wide perception that print journalism is shrinking while Internet journalism is growing. If we’re to have a future, this newspaper with a very proud past needs to embrace that thought while still maintaining our standards of journalism—that quality that Otis Chandler stood for that we try to emulate.

6. Campaign reporters are often accused of covering the politics more than they do the issues. But beyond the election, there are policy decisions going down in Washington that sometimes get swept under the carpet by more exciting campaign news. Is the blog a counterpoint to that?

I remember other campaign years where this has happened, where there’s a rush to the door and everyone forgets about the president incumbent. And I guess you could say that we saw it as an opening. And the response that we’ve gotten from the public suggests that the editors were right about that. Even the people who don’t much like the Bush administration want to know what the White House is up to, and they want to know what Congress is doing to hold the White House to account.

I suppose this is an opportunity for them to vent their feelings about it. I remember one day I posted an item about Bush sort of switching positions and suggesting that we should lift the ban on offshore drilling, and I was surprised by the reactions in the comments. There were quite a number of people who were having second thoughts, who were saying, “I’ve always been a Democrat” or “I’ve always been an environmentalist, but gosh, I’m having trouble filling my gas tank.” There was a lively debate in the comments about this policy shift, and I thought,this is cool, people are talking amongst themselves about something that matters to all of them. And that’s a good thing.

7. How culpable is the press for rushing straight to the campaign bus?

Well, I think it’s what we always do, and it’s understandable. There’s an excitement about the new and whoever is coming next. It’s just inevitable. And also, because reporters tend to be more driven by the horserace than by policy.

Jake Tapper authors the latest episode of the investigative newsmagazine-meets-serial soap opera that is The Media and Obama: Totally in the Tank?. Obama, Tapper writes, before giving his Speech of Hope in the Symbolic Setting of a Unified Berlin, confided to reporters that he wasn't sure how many people might, in the end, come out to see his speech in person. Tens of thousands (Obama's conservative guess)? Some two hundred thousand (the final estimate)?

"We really have no idea what's going to happen," the candidate/potential president/Beacon of Hope and Light told reporters. "Sort of a crapshoot. I'm happy with the speech though."

And then, per Tapper:

A reporter noted that the campaign has been distributing fliers to Berliners to drum up attendance.

"Why don't you guys go out and distribute some fliers?" Obama asked. "Is that a conflict for you guys?"

Joked a cable news correspondent: "We have been. It's called television."

And...scene.

Parting Thoughts: Bob Carey

| 14 Comments

I'm being laid off after twenty-four years at the L.A. Times and after thirty-eight years in the business. I spent most of my career as a staff photographer, but I've also been an editor now and then.

The decline of the L.A. Times is due mostly to the failure of the members of the Chandler family to exercise even a vestigial shred of stewardship. They should be guiding the Times through an orderly transition to the Internet. They just wanted their money, and now that Sam Zell has given it to them, the wheels are coming off the cart. Zell invented the financial quicksand we're in at the moment, but our circulation loss is a self-inflicted wound: we stopped covering Southern California.

The old Times Mirror bosses were keenly aware that The New York Times drew half its circulation from outside New York City, but the Los Angeles Times got almost all of its circulation in Southern California. From about 1980 to 2000, the L.A. Times built bureaus in Orange County, the San Fernando Valley, Ventura County, and San Diego. I think we had about 500 reporters and photographers in those zones when Tribune took over.

Those of us who laid awake nights, worrying about whether Mark Willis would wreck the Times during the final Times Mirror years, welcomed the Tribune guys with guarded optimism. Right from the start, they said they didn't care about circulation the way Times Mirror did. They had some other metric, whatever that meant. No one dared criticize them when they shut down the zones and redeployed those 500 people elsewhere. We simply abandoned the suburbs, and there are a lot of those in Southern California.

The new California section focused on the City of Los Angeles. We covered the L.A. city council and the mayor, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the LAPD, and acted like, by doing so, we were covering politics, schools, and crime in the region. We won fifteen Pulitzer Prizes while we lost a third of our circulation. To be fair, we won Pulitzers on the mess at King Drew Medical Center and massive fires in the region. But, in general, we stopped covering the zones. One day, I pointed out that Antonio Villaraigosa was not, in fact, the mayor of the city I live in and that I really didn't care about him. It wasn't appreciated.

No one seemed to care that we stopped covering city council meetings in Oxnard. No one listened when I told them that I was being barraged by complaints from friends that we weren't covering their high-school sports any more. The steady loss of about 450,000 subscribers was blamed on "do not call" and the Internet. Hardly a soul said that we might be hemorrhaging readers because we stopped covering things they cared about. Our feature sections were urban hip. Nearly a half a million readers weren't.

This may be just be spitting in the wind. The Internet is killing newspapers. I think the Los Angeles Times could be in a much stronger position to survive if it had been managed better during the last fifteen years, but it may not matter in the end.

I think the answer is something else. Something else will be invented. I suspect that that something else will be on the Internet, or maybe it will be a little community paper, like the one that has sprouted in my town. It's called The Acorn (honest). I think that something else will involve people covering what the L.A. Times stopped covering: communities. Something else on the Internet will be better designed than the Web site we were saddled with, which isn't saying much. Something else will cover community opposition to a new big box store.

It's not my problem any more. I'm not going to lay awake at night worrying about Mark Willis or Sam Zell any more. I gave it my best. I've damn near been killed a half dozen times for the By God Los Angeles Times. Whatever compact I thought I'd made with this paper that I love—that I'd risk my life in exchange for the privilege of spending all of my working years here—has been buried in an avalanche of debt. It's been a lot of fun. The late Times columnist Jack Smith once said that the purpose of life is to hang around and see what happens next. I just won't be doing it here. I'll be doing something else.




_________________________________






The steady drip of layoffs and buyouts, slowly desiccating once-vibrant newsrooms around the country, has also produced a reservoir of anger, sadness, fear, uncertainty—even some cautious optimism here and there—among reporters and editors who invested years, decades in some cases, of their lives to print journalism. We’ve asked anyone so inclined to channel these emotions, not into rant—although there will be a bit of that—but rather into reflection on what went wrong, and where we might go from here. We will publish one per day, under the headline “Parting Thoughts.” All of the letters we publish will be collected here.

This is the third entry in a series examining John McCain’s health proposals and how they have been covered in the press. Part I is found here, and Part II is found here.

Most people are finally beginning to realize that if they have even the most minor of preexisting health problems, they probably won’t qualify for health insurance; if they do qualify, the insurer won’t cover them for the ailments they already have. That’s right: in America, if you need insurance to cover a particular illness, you might not get coverage. Perverse, isn’t it? That’s because private insurance companies run the show, and their sine qua non is risk selection—choosing to cover only the healthiest people, those who are unlikely to file claims and cost companies money. Risk selection is most important in the so-called individual market, where those without employer insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid must buy their coverage. That’s the market where McCain wants to send more people when his proposals for weaning workers from the boss’s insurance policy take root.

Earlier this year, Elizabeth Edwards attacked McCain, saying that neither he nor she would qualify for insurance under McCain’s plan. Both have had cancer, which makes them persona non grata at the House of Aetna. McCain responded on ABC’s This Week: “We’re not leaving anybody behind.” So it’s worth examining McCain’s plans for bringing everyone on board. He has proposed something called a Guaranteed Access Plan (GAP), which most closely resembles the high-risk pools that have become dumping grounds in thirty-four states for sick people insurers don’t want. High risk pools originated in the 1970s as the industry’s answer to national health insurance. Then, like now, health reform was high on the public agenda. While the number of enrollees has grown from 55,500 in 1990 to 207,000 today, the number of uninsured tops 47 million, so pool coverage is the proverbial drop in the bucket.

“They haven’t been very successful,” says Mila Kofman, Maine’s superintendent of insurance. “They are certainly not the starting point. If the goal is to provide coverage that works and is affordable, there’s no evidence that risk pools have done that. They’ve done just the opposite.” Coverage tends to be expensive—twice as high as standard rates in some states. Deductibles may be high; in Arkansas, they can reach $10,000. Some states limit enrollment, so there may be waiting lists; more than 600 people are currently waiting in California. Once in, participants may face another waiting period, from ninety days to one year for pre-existing conditions—ironically, the very health problems that qualify them for pool coverage in the first place. A few years ago, Kofman studied how diabetics fall through cracks in the insurance system. She and her colleagues discovered that, of 340 diabetic patients who lived in states with a high risk pool, only seven patients actually enrolled. The rest found coverage unavailable, unaffordable, or inadequate for their needs.

With the number of diabetics growing, easy access to health insurance is a real concern. Premiums paid by those in the pool don’t cover the costs of providing the care, so states have to make up the difference, either through state funds or assessments on employers, hospitals, or insurers. In 2002, the federal government made matching payments available to expand coverage through high risk pools. But eighteen of the nineteen states that received grants in 2003 used the money to pay for existing programs instead of to finance coverage for new enrollees.

Like most of McCain’s health proposals, the GAP hasn’t received much press. The Wall Street Journal offered readers a pretty fair assessment of the problems currently facing risk pools and raised the $64 question: How much will McCain spend to subsidize coverage?

The New York Times approached the story anecdotally, telling readers about a man who turned down pool coverage in Maryland because it was too expensive, and a couple who said the Maryland pool was a godsend—the ying and the yang of the risk pool business. The Times also raised the cost issue, giving the impression that the McCain camp was no longer sure how much their high-risk proposal would cost. In April, McCain’s domestic policy adviser said it would cost between $7 and $10 billion, but he told the Times that projections “could change dramatically” depending on how the program was structured. In other words, who will be left out and how much of the cost those in the pool will shoulder in the form of waiting periods, deductibles, and lifetime caps on payouts. These are details about which voters should have some clue as they weigh the candidate’s proposals.

Maybe they will take a hint from the insurance industry trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), which, as it did in the 1970s, is advocating a risk pool solution—albeit with variations on the theme. AHIP’s Web site gives a head-spinning description of its proposal—one that could become a bureaucratic nightmare for consumers while keeping insurers in the risk selection game.

Diagrams show that consumers must first apply to an insurer’s health plan that gets an initial shot at insuring them if they are healthy. (The insurer gets the business if it’s good business.) If the insurer turns consumers down, or offers coverage at substandard (very high) rates, the consumers apply to the state guaranteed access plan, which determines how much a person’s ailments will cost the plan. If the state access plan finds that a consumer’s expected claims are 200 percent below the statewide average, the state plan denies coverage and sends the person back to the insurance company, which will then issue a policy with higher premiums. But if the claims are expected to exceed 200 percent of the state average, the guarantee access plan assumes the coverage. Whew!

The insurer is home free; it doesn’t have to cover someone on whom it might lose money. (A pretty sweet deal!) The industry palms the bad risks onto the state and keeps the good ones for itself. Apparently that’s how AHIP expects to achieve universal access to coverage. It wouldn’t be surprising if McCain, whose own plan seems vague, will look to AHIP for advice. All in all, a pretty good story.

Cut No Slack

| No Comments

James Rainey in today's LA Times (emphasis mine):

It seems like just about everybody has spent the last week beating up on the media for showering too much love on Barack Obama, during what John McCain's camp derides as the Obama World Tour.

True, statistics show broadcast networks have devoted more than twice as much airtime in recent weeks to the Democrat than to the Republican.

But don't assume that more coverage is always good coverage. Reports from the Mideast and back home in recent days have revealed that reporters were determined not to cut Obama any slack.

That's only right.

I guess it's good to spell it out, if only just to remind ourselves that, you know, it's not a campaign reporter's job to "cut" a presidential candidate "slack." Some of us might need the reminder.

But Rainey's real point is, as he makes clear in the next sentence, that this "cut-no-slack" approach now apparently taken by some Obama-covering reporters has, at least on Obama's Overseas Trip, sometimes led to "shallow analysis." Like, for instance, being "too fixated on ruminations about Obama's presidential timbre." What might be more worthy "analysis?" Rainey points to Katie Couric pressing Obama on why he appears, in Rainey's words, "loath to admit the surge has helped" and suggests reporters should similarly press McCain to address "the complex reasons behind Iraq's retreat from chaos" (complex as in not-just-surge-related).

Say What, Shafer?*

| No Comments

I often enjoy (and often agree with) Jack Shafer's stuff. But, what's up with this?

Shafer wonders "why hasn't the press commented" on a recent National Enquirer story involving John Edwards supposedly visiting a supposed love child. "Is it because it broke too late yesterday afternoon, and news organizations want to investigate it for themselves before writing about it? Or are they observing a double standard that says homo-hypocrisy is indefensible but that hetero-hypocrisy deserves an automatic bye?" Shafer writes.

More Shafer: "[I]f Edwards had an affair and lied about it, shouldn't he suffer scrutiny akin to that of [Larry] Craig? At least three-dozen daily newspapers in the United States published the Craig news the day after the Roll Call scoop, according to Nexis, but this morning not a single U.S. daily mentioned the Enquirer piece."

And then Shafer goes ahead and answers his own question:

A cop charged Craig with a misdemeanor, and he pleaded guilty. There's no denying the police blotter is always news, and there's no denying that Craig deserved the hypocrisy scrutiny. Edwards, as far as we know, is guilty of nothing beyond running away from tabloid reporters in a Beverly Hills hotel stairway in the wee a.m. after visiting a female friend in her room. Also, all of the Enquirer's published 'evidence' of an Edwards affair comes from unnamed sources. And I should mention that an Edwards political operative, Andrew Young, claims that he is the father of Hunter's child. (Young is married with children of his own.)"

But still Shafer argues: "[I]f the press craves consistency, it owes its readers some sort of assessment of Edwards. Is he, like Craig, a public hypocrite?" The press "owes readers" no "assessment of Edwards" based on an Enquirer story.

Shafer says the Enquirer story has Edwards "hiding in a hotel bathroom for fifteen minutes." Had an undercover cop arrested Edwards in that bathroom and charged Edwards with doing something unlawful (but a heterosexual-seeming something) and many weeks later Edwards pleaded guilty and the Enquirer got that scoop and "according to Nexis not a single U.S. daily mentioned" all that, Shafer might have something.

*UPDATE:My original headline was: "Maybe Shafer Mostly Wanted A Reason To Write "Homo-Hypocrisy." With a few seconds' additional thought, I changed it to this shorter and less snarky one. Also because I'm not sure I entirely disagree with Shafer's sense that "homo-hypocrisy" among politicians might receive more scrutiny (or, at least, ridicule) by the press than does "hetero-hypocrisy." I just don't find the Edwards situation, such as it stands today, a good test case.

Russert's Road (And Runway?)

| No Comments

The Buffalo News reports that

President Bush today signed a bill renaming part of Route 20A near Ralph Wilson Stadium [in Buffalo] after Tim Russert.

The bill, which Congress passed overwhelmingly, renames the section of the highway between Abbott Road and California Road "Timothy J. Russert Highway."

And:

The renamed highway won't be the last tribute to Russert if a group of his local admirers gets its way. More than 400 people have signed an online petition calling for Buffalo-Niagara International Airport to be renamed "Tim Russert Buffalo International Airport."

Also: the New York Post's Page Six "hears" that "Luke Russert made such a good impression on TV viewers after his father Tim's funeral, insiders say NBC is recruiting him for its team covering the presidential election."

Novak in the News

| No Comments

There's the Bob Novak-and-his-black-Corvette-hit-a-guy-yesterday story on Politico (according to a witness, "a black Corvette convertible with top closed plows into the guy. The guy is sort of splayed into the windshield.")

And Novak's name also appears in another (arguably more interesting) Politico piece today headlined, "GOP losing the new-media war." Writes Jonathan Martin:

Republicans have no lack of would-be George F. Wills.

But what they really need are some more Robert D. Novaks.

The distinction between the two prominent conservative journalists isn't always obvious, but it's nevertheless important to understand: One almost exclusively writes opinion pieces, while the other offers reportage with a point of view.

The same might be said of the emerging differences between the conservative presence on the Internet and the liberal one: The right is engaged in the business of opining while the left features sites that offer a more reportorial model.

Martin points to Talkingpoints Memo and The Huffington Post and argues "the absence of any websites on the right devoted to reporting—as opposed to just commenting on the news—is proving politically costly to Republicans," indeed putting them at a "severe disadvantage in the high-stakes business of distributing information about favored candidates and the opposition."

Interesting stuff. True, left-leaning sites like Talkingpoints Memo and HuffPost have uniquely impacted election coverage this season, but these sites are not entirely "devoted to reporting" or even distributing original information. And there are right-leaning sites that "distribute information about favored candidates and the opposition" (Hotair.com?)

Flickring Out

| 3 Comments

Clichés are sometimes true. Here’s one—photographers don’t like to give speeches. At a recent event, photographer Antonin Kratochvil screened slideshows of his work: American soldiers coolly observing the Iraqi distressed and dead; Lebanese militant youths standing restlessly near decaying walls; American evangelicals speaking in tongues. The photographer then clambered onstage, ruddy and scarf-wrapped (“The Bedoins wear them!”) for his talk, but he was no Christopher Hitchens. He hated talking about himself—as uncomfortable in the role of sage as the rest of us would be in a war zone—and he left the stage with half the time for his “speech” unused, encouraging his audience to spend it smoking cigarettes instead. Kratochvil is not alone in his taciturnity. When I recently asked one of the greats of the form for his thoughts, he e-mailed the aphorism: “To live happy, live hidden.”

Perhaps this distrust in the verbal complaint—so loved by windy print journalists—is why we don’t hear so much about the difficulties facing photojournalism, from street corner news photographers to the deans of the eminent agencies Magnum and vii. They’ve been struggling with downsizing, the rise of the amateur, the ubiquity of camera phones, sound-bite-ization, failing magazines (so fewer commissions), and a lack of money in general for the big photo essays that have long been the love of the metaphoric children of Walker Evans. Like print journalists, photographers are scrambling not only to make sense of the new world, but to survive in it intact.

Yet, paradoxically, visual culture is ever more important. It seems that everyone now takes photos and saves them and distributes them, and that all these rivulets supply a great sea of images for editors to use. This carries certain risks. If they are taking snapshots, amateur photographers are likely not developing a story, or developing the kind of intimacy with their subjects that brings revelation. So what’s the actual photojournalistic value of all of these millions of images now available on Flickr and other photo-sharing archives—so many that they can seem like dead souls? And what about the fate of photographers like Kratochvil, whose ashily stylish images honor Modernist photography? He will clearly continue shooting—and avoiding public speeches—but what of his tradition?

At photo agencies, or in private conversations with newspaper and magazine photographers and editors, you hear the same end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it dirge that plays in the print world. But these worries don’t tend to go public in speeches about The State of Photography. There are few deathbed panel discussions about the genre, unlike all the discussions about in-depth reporters shuffling to the graveyard. Maybe part of it is that while photojournalism may be harder to practice, there is no shortage of photos—we are deluged by images. I am optimistic about the future of photojournalism, but not of the photojournalism I most admire.

Yet events like the one where Kratochvil showed his images—a four-day photography festival in Brooklyn where the magi of photojournalism appeared—inevitably raise the question of whether these super talents will soon be supplanted. Photographic storytellers are competing with the millions-strong army of amateur photographers whose work is housed on Flickr, which editors cull for cheap or free images, and the rise of amateur-supplied agencies, including iStockphoto—owned by the largest stock agency of them all, Getty Images. There are also outlets that claim to separate the digital wheat from the chaff, like PhotoShelter, a “global stock marketplace,” or the jpg Magazine, which threshes out a few hundred images submitted by Web amateurs and publishes them on paper. As Magnum photographer Chris Anderson glumly puts it, he and other professionals are “watching the decline of editorial sales of images, both what we are assigned to produce and the buying of editorial images—and I am waiting for that moment when that decline drops straight off a cliff.”

Meanwhile, local newspapers, while featuring photography much more prominently than they did in the past, are increasingly limiting their payments and their hiring of shooters. At The Record, in Bergen County, New Jersey, a paper known for quality photography until now, for instance, staff photographers are struggling with the paper’s decision to fire them all and then allow them to reapply for their jobs. (Those who are fortunate enough to be rehired will likely receive lower salaries and fewer benefits than before.) Like so many others, photojournalists are also facing the ugly downsizing euphemism—“mojo,” or mobile journalist, for print journalists who are given autofocus digital cameras to do the work that they once did. A photographer at the Baltimore Sun tells a less extreme story but also notes that there is no new hiring at his paper. When someone retires, his or her job line ends. Some (but not all) photographers also complain about the insistence that they go “multimedia” and that their still images are sometimes getting overwhelmed and undone (although also sometimes improved) by the sound and moving images that accompany them. The most salient critique of this practice is not the rise of the slideshow, but how it is replacing the still image. Movies and television may light up and flicker but they disappear, while photos, even photos in magazines and newspapers, are objects and, unconsciously or not, often feel more personal to the observer. After all, we tend to remember still images, not moving ones.

Photojournalists also question the journalistic reliability of the images of their amateur rivals. Photographers like Anderson, a thirty-eight-year-old well known for his conflict photography, wonder about the lack of “vetting” of the millions of images that are supposed to be carrying the truth to readers. “There’s a case already of an iReporter whose photos were bullshit,” says Anderson, speaking of media companies publishing the work of amateur photographers. “News organizations will get burned by photographers they don’t know and blur the lines between what is credible information and what isn’t.” (Of course, there have been pros who have faked images as well, but they are rare.)

What Magnum is selling “is the story aspect of the craft,” says Mark Lubell, the agency’s New York bureau chief. Anyone can take a decent photo, as the bromide goes, through talent or luck, but few can extend it into masterful narratives. There’s still a special recipe to be a “real” photojournalist, and it’s not just the “trained” or “expert” eye but rather the sheer hours put into each assignment and the ability to sustain a thought, image, or impulse through a number of images, not just a single snapshot. This brings to mind the art photographer Steven Shore’s remark that photography is like fly-fishing. It takes extreme patience—a sort of intelligence about time.

But is the rise of still-photos-as-films and “citizen photojournalism” only a big nightmare? Or is it also a liberation?

Some would say yes. There are bright spots to the amateur-image revolution. Lots of photos of “my girlfriend’s feet,” true, but bystanders also now often shoot the most crucial events of our day. Amid the chaff are photos of oil flares in West Africa and of the 2005 London bombings. Combat in Iraq is often shot by the soldiers themselves. The photos from Abu Ghraib, of course, are the most striking and horribly spectacular case for the new power and impact of amateur photography-of-fact. The photographs that define a war gone wrong are amateur ones: the amateur snappers’ presence altered and also helped create the scenes of violence and humiliation. Abu Ghraib’s most iconic image was of the hooded prisoner: an occult pantomime of the suffering that was actually going on elsewhere in the same facility. It was evidence of what Susan Sontag called “picture-taking . . . as an event unto itself.” There will, for better or worse, be many more occasions of image-making by participants in news events in the future.

While professional photographers are suffering, news photography and photography of all kinds is flourishing. Citizens around the world can cheaply photograph and distribute images of their own countries and cities, places like Dhaka and Freetown. Citizen journalism projects like Rising Voices teach photography in Africa and elsewhere. Local image-makers challenge both the valor and necessity of the American or European photographer shooting in a foreign clime, a model that has a certain amount of voyeuristic baggage, as the critic W. J. T. Mitchell has written—a dynamic where a “damaged, victimized, and powerless individual” is “taken” by a photographer who is a “relatively privileged observer, often acting as the ‘eye of power.’ ” Instead, we will have amateur photographers—some lucky people at the right awful place at the right awful time (Nigerians who are at the next explosion of a pipeline, say). And I hope that innately gifted photographers will emerge as well—a Chinese Kratochvil, a Nigerian Gilles Peress.

According to some, the rise of the amateur news image itself is a thing of value. “What distinguishes the icon is not professionalism,” says Robert Hariman, a professor of communications and co-founder of No Caption Needed, a blog about photojournalism as a public art. “The Challenger photo was a screen grab. All the photos at Tiananmen Square were not good photos—they were too far away.”

There are also some bright spots for the professional photojournalists, though they aren’t the predictable ones. Right now, as its value on the open market of news magazines falls, photojournalism’s prestige, paradoxically, rises: a Dorothea Lange bread line photo from 1932 sold for $720,000 a couple of years ago; a dozen New York City galleries showed Magnum photographers’ work in 2007. Magnum’s enormous back catalog of everything from Castro in a paroxysm to Paul McCartney as a pre-tabloidal Beatle to Cambodian refugees will soon be for sale. (Some already line the walls of a boutique hotel in Manhattan, although most likely none is of famine victims.) In a sense, following all genres and fields whose commercial power has faded or is evaporatinge—what they lose in income and the more ineffable “heat,” they gain in the rarified status of art object.

Yet this status of photojournalism as art, or even as an accessory in a new waterfront condo/loft apartment, won’t necessarily help photojournalists as they try to conceive, shoot, distribute, and get paid for complicated images of difficult places.

We’re all journalists, but writers—scarf-free and spell-checked as we are—know deep down that photographers are different. Despite all the critics who have claimed photos are “a grammar,” images are more like a half-language (as John Berger, the critic who wrote Ways of Seeing, said), always both objective and freighted with meanings that even the photographer and her audience only sometimes understand. Good photography somehow can tell more, with its pulp and its present-ness.

That combination of directness and mysteriousness that is part of being a half-language must be preserved into the future. Despite the fact that amateurs have made iconic images in the past—the famed 1970 image The Picture From Kent State was taken by a student working in the college’s photo lab—there have been many more iconic images that are actually extremely professional: Robert Capa’s Death of a Loyalist Soldier, from the Spanish Civil War, or Eddie Addams’s General Nguyn Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon, from Vietnam.

If we are to keep this history alive, we need to find ways to support professional photojournalists outside of the magazine and newspaper industry. Some of the future Kratochvils of the world—those not capturing the moment but capturing the context—will in twenty years be seen primarily as artists of fact, their images bought for a pretty euro in London and Berlin. But meanwhile, they must live and work. And perhaps those of us who “paint with words,” or what have you, and have gotten good at complaining about our own fate, should start to speak up on photojournalists’ behalf as well. 

The Wall Street Journal leads its front page with a report saying that states are getting “slammed” with budget problems as tax receipts dry up.

The poor economy, with the housing bust leading the way, is causing state budgets to come up $40 billion short and forcing them to cut spending. The paper says revenue from income, corporate, and sales taxes has fallen. Cities are also getting hit hard by falling tax collections.

Unlike the federal government, most states are required to balance their budgets. Most have so far resisted tax increases, instead opting for raising prices on things like tolls and college tuition, and cutting back on services like education and health care. Some chose one-time measures such as tapping rainy-day funds that were built up in flusher times. That could lead to future cutbacks if the economy doesn't bounce back in coming months.

States are cutting back on services and jobs, which will in turn hurt the economy further. States with the weakest housing markets, like California, Nevada, and Florida, are getting hit the hardest.

Bush tax rebate did little to spur spending

The Federal Reserve’s beige-book report from its twelve regional banks was bleak, with economic activity slowing across most regions and consumer spending poor almost everywhere despite the federal governments big tax rebate. The New York Times puts the news on C2 and the Journal on A16.

Manufacturing fell in most places, as did home markets, and prices rose with signs of more to come—something that usually doesn’t happen in recessions. The Times says the pullback in consumer spending could signal a sharp slowdown is coming once the tax breaks dissipate.

“Perhaps most troubling is that the massive tax rebates that were sent out during the April/mid-July period are having only a very limited effect on consumer spending,” wrote Brian Bethune, an economist at Global Insight, a research firm.

Costco shares were hit hard by a weak earnings report, saying its costs were rising sharply, but Amazon reported strong results, something the Times says may be because consumers are driving less.

Mortgage bailout moving through Congress

The House of Representatives passed a bill intended to shore up the battered housing market, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Times and Journal report on A1.

Bush said he would sign the bill in order to speed assistance to the economy. It would back up to $300 billion in home-loan refinancing and open the federal checkbook wide to backstop Fannie and Freddie, the mortgage giants. Congressmen and industry called it “the most important piece of housing legislation to come along in a generation.”

Lawmakers and experts described the legislation as a landmark shift in the government’s role in the housing market, extending a helping hand to both Wall Street and Main Street. They said it would rank in importance with the creation of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to prevent foreclosures in the 1930s as part of the New Deal, and legislation in 1989 responding to the savings and loan crisis.

The Senate is expected to pass the bill, which will raise the national-debt ceiling $800 billion to $10.6 trillion, in the next several days. Both papers question whether it will be effective.

Oil prices fall further, but don’t get too excited

The price of oil continued its recent slide, giving some much-needed relief to the economy, the Financial Times says on page one and the Journal on A3.

Oil prices have plunged 16 percent in the last two weeks, from $147 a barrel to $124. The Journal says the drop is easing pressure on the Fed to raise interest rates at its next meeting in order to put a damper on inflation, which is being driven in large part by energy costs. Still:

Officials aren't taking great comfort yet in the latest pullback in oil prices. The oil market has been extremely volatile in recent years, sometimes showing false signs of stabilization.

The FT says the oil decline has led to decreases in other commodity prices, including food, as well, helping push stocks higher recently. The Standard & Poor’s 500 is up 5.5 percent in the last eight days.

The Times on C1 says a new survey says there’s lots of energy in the Arctic—maybe some 90 billion barrels of oil, enough to supply total world demand for three years, and even more natural gas.

Anbar Awakening, MSM Sleeping

| 7 Comments

There are gaffes, and then there are Gaffes. And yesterday, John McCain made a Gaffe. Speaking with Katie Couric about Iraq on the CBS Evening News, McCain questioned the way Obama credited the Iraqis for some of the positive outcomes of the surge:

Katie Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as—such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.

Except—Gaffe!—no, that’s not a matter of history. In fact, the Anbar Awakening predated the U.S. troop surge. The surge began in February 2007; the Awakening began in the summer…of 2006. That’s just a matter of history.

Here’s Colin Kahl (h/t: Democracy Arsenal), writing in Foreign Affairs (emphasis ours):

The Awakening began in Anbar Province more than a year before the surge and took off in the summer and fall of 2006 in Ramadi and elsewhere, long before extra U.S. forces started flowing into Iraq in February and March of 2007. Throughout the war, enemy-of-my-enemy logic has driven Sunni decision-making. The Sunnis have seen three "occupiers" as threats: the United States, the Shiites (and their presumed Iranian patrons), and the foreigners and extremists in AQI. Crucial to the Awakening was the reordering of these threats.

And here’s The New York Times, writing about the Anbar Awakening on March 3, 2007 (emphasis ours):

Sheik Abdul Sattar and the Anbar Salvation Council, the group of 25 tribes that the sheik said he had helped pull together to fight Al Qaeda, would be central to any such move by the Americans.

The sheik said he and his allies, who also call themselves the Anbar Awakening, had recruited 6,000 fighters from the tribes into the Anbar police, helped appoint a new provincial police chief and formed a 2,500-member “emergency brigade” answering to him.

A United States Army civil affairs officer in Ramadi, Capt. Travis L. Patriquin, said in an e-mail message shortly before he was killed by a roadside bomb in Ramadi in December that the tribal fighters in the Iraqi police constituted “the first successful, large force of men we’ve had since the start of the war.”

And here’s another Times piece about the Awakening, also published March 3, 2007 (emphasis, again, ours):

The formation of the group in September shocked many Sunni Arabs. It was the most public stand anyone in Anbar had taken against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which was founded by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

And here’s Kevin Drum, writing about the Awakening in The Washington Monthly in August 2007:

The Anbar Awakening is genuinely good news, but (a) it had nothing to do with the surge, (b) it's happening only in homogeneous Sunni areas, and (c) it involves arming and training Sunni forces who are almost certain to turn against both us and the Shiite central government as soon as they've finished off AQI. Pretending otherwise is simply fraudulent.

Anyway. You get the idea. Anbar Awakening™, Iraqi owned and operated since September 2006; Surge™, American owned and operated since February 2007. McCain had the events’ timing—and thus his post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc reasoning about their relationship—backwards.

It was the proto-blogger Spencer Ackerman who, yesterday evening, first identified McCain’s error. The Colonel MacFarland to whom McCain referred in the Couric interview “is now a one-star general, and his name is Sean MacFarland,” Ackerman writes. “He was commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, based in Ramadi in 2006 and early 2007 and is a key figure in embracing the Anbar Awakening before it even had that name.”

Ackerman goes on to quote MacFarland’s explanation of the surge, which he gave in a press conference to Pam Hess, then of UPI, on September 29, 2006—which was, Ackerman notes, “at least two months before Bush decided upon the surge, and about three before he announced it to the public”:

With respect to the violence between the Sunnis and the al Qaeda—actually, I would disagree with the assessment that the al Qaeda have the upper hand. That was true earlier this year when some of the sheikhs began to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda. The insurgent groups, the nationalist groups, were pretty well beaten by al Qaeda.

This is a different phenomena [sic] that's going on right now. I think that it's not so much the insurgent groups that are fighting al Qaeda, it's the—well, it used to be the fence-sitters, the tribal leaders, are stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda, and it's had a very different result. I think al Qaeda has been pushed up against the ropes by this, and now they're finding themselves trapped between the coalition and ISF on the one side, and the people on the other.

“For McCain to say that the Anbar Awakening is the product of the surge,” Ackerman concludes, “is either a lie or professional malpractice for a presidential candidate who is staking his election on his allegedly superior Iraq judgment.”

Ackerman’s either/or is apt. One wants to give McCain the benefit of the doubt here, but it’s hard even to know what that would be. The kindest scenario is that McCain was suffering from faulty memory—or that he was just, à la Hillary Clinton and her Boznia recollections, fatigued. But one wonders: could his comment, like his Sunni/Shi’a confusion earlier, have belied a fundamental misconception of the timeline of recent events in Iraq? Was McCain revealing miseducation about the surge, or the Awakening, or both?

I don’t know. Because, so far as I’ve seen, no one in the MSM has asked.

And that’s, perhaps, what’s most disturbing in all of this: the silence on the matter from the MSM. It started with CBS itself, which didn’t air the footage of McCain’s mistake in its prime-time news hour; it edited that part out. In a statement emailed to Politico, spokesperson Jennifer Farley defended CBS’s actions:

As all news organizations do with extended interviews, last night’s Obama and McCain interviews were edited to fit the available time and to give viewers a fair expression of the candidates' major differences. The full transcript and video were and still are available at cbsnews.com.

They are. Yet Couric’s question was left intact in the primetime version; CBS edited in a different response to the same question. Which is, put as charitably as possible, misleading to audiences.

But this is bigger than CBS. Now that Ackerman and other bloggers—Andrew Sullivan, Political Animal’s Kevin Drum, Politico’s Ben Smith, The Huffington Post’s Seth Colter Walls—have shed light on McCain’s mistake, where’s the MSM follow-up? Where are the “Breaking News” announcements on cable, the updates on newspaper Web sites? Keith Olbermann aired a segment about the matter on last night’s Countdown…but where’s the commentary from the nonpartisan newspeople? The AP briefly mentioned it in a short piece about Obama’s and McCain’s back-and-forth on Iraq; but it buried it in the sixth graf of a story whose lede was, “Republican presidential candidate John McCain says Democrat Barack Obama is wrong about the Iraq war”—and which ended with McCain’s quote about Obama’s stance on the war: “He was wrong then, he is wrong now.”

But don’t voters deserve more than he said/he said stenography here? Shouldn’t the press be looking more deeply into McCain’s statement? This wasn’t a minor gaffe, after all. It was a fundamental, factual error about the surge—which is, politically speaking, McCain’s baby. This isn’t forgetting your kid’s birthday; it’s forgetting how old he is in the first place.

In his interview with Couric yesterday, McCain declared of Obama’s take on the surge, “I don't know how you respond to something that is…such a false depiction of what actually happened.”

I’d direct that back to McCain. And I’d argue that the best way for us to respond to McCain’s own false depiction is to, you know, ask him about it. We owe it to ourselves—and to Iraqis—to do so. McCain might well become our president. His understanding of the situation in Iraq might well, come January 20, be determining American policy in that country. So why would he misspeak about it? Why would he err about the surge? And why isn’t our press doing more to find out?

David Carr's Spud Missiles

| No Comments

Who knew? Starchy root vegetables make brilliant literary devices!

Well, apparently, David Carr—Times media reporter and, currently, everyone's favorite rehabilitated drug addict—did! The NY Press's David Blum has uncovered a strange pattern of spud-slinging in Carr's writing—and specifically, a pattern of using the potato as a quirky descriptor of the face. As when, for example, Carr describes Tim Russert (“He had a face that seemed to be carved out of potatoes, but he worked on television by working harder than your average talking head…”) or when he depicts his own distinctive visage: “Far from clinically handsome, I have a face that looks like it could have been carved out of mashed potatoes, and my idea of exercise was running the length of my body.”

Brilliant! My broccoli-like brain is beguiled!

Below, some of Carr's spud-tastic metaphors, as curated by Gawker's Hamilton Nolan:

Describing himself:

“….with a face made out of potatoes, the Photoshopped picture will have to go a long way to make me any uglier than I actually am.”

“With a face that looks as if it were crafted out of mashed potatoes and a voice that sounds like a trash compactor that needs oil, I’m not a natural for television…”

Describing actors:

“To the Bagger’s eye, [Daniel Craig] has a face made out of potatoes—although the rest of him seems to be made out of titanium…”

“Directors tend to focus on [Steve] Buscemi’s visage, shooting his face so it looks something like what might happen to a bowl of mashed potatoes if it were sculptured [sic] by an ax.”

“And Detective Sipowicz [Dennis Franz], with a face that looks as if it were carved out of potatoes and the body style of a greeter at Home Depot, was an unlikely hero.”

Describing author Joe McGinniss:

“[McGinniss] had an old cap set against the Sunday morning sun, a handsome Irish face that could have been carved out of potatoes, and a glint of tragedy in his eyes.”

Good lord...talk about a potato trip. Thanks a lat(ke) for the metaphors!

Ohama? Versus...Cheney?

| No Comments

Among coverage of Obama's Overseas Trip on the Jerusalem Post's web site was the video below, in which The Media Line ("The MidEast News Source") asks "shoppers at a Jerusalem supermarket" to identify photos of Barack Obama and John McCain.

Barely anyone can ID McCain (one woman thinks he's "maybe Cheney") and although many people seem to recognize Obama's picture (well, he was in their city at the time), the getting-the-name-right part proved tricky for several shoppers (Ohama, Umbasa, Berk Omaba, Farak Obama) though not in That Way that is so familiar stateside.

I'll leave it to cable news (c'mon, there's video and everything!) to decide What This Means.

Talking Shop: Chris Drew

| No Comments

New York Times investigative reporter Chris Drew has covered Barack Obama’s candidacy, including pieces on his fundraising practices, voting record in the Illinois State Senate, and time in Chicago.

1. Most of the campaign coverage we see is on-the-bus stuff. What’s the value of doing off-the-trail coverage?

Some of the most valuable stuff comes from what’s off the trail because on the trail the campaigns are trying to stage everything they can. The stump speeches are the same. You’re trying to fight through covering the pageantry, but if you want to know where the candidate really stands on things what his or her background is, what they’ve really done on issues in the past, who they’re getting their money from, who’s got influence with them, any questions about their character, you’ve got to do your own digging.

I’ve been covering Obama for a year, and I’ve never met the man, never spoken to him. That’s a tactical decision on the part of the campaign. I’ve done seven or eight front page stories on Obama, and they’ve never put him on the phone to answer any questions.

It’s fairly standard for these campaigns to shield the principal, as they call him, because anything the candidate says can be used against him, and they try to run interference by having other people answer those questions, so their words can’t be used against him later.

But, it surprised me early on in March 2007, when he was still the longer shot upstart that we couldn’t even get him on the phone to respond.

2. Talk about using the investigative approach to cover a candidate.

You’re looking at where the candidate came from and who has been around him, and what that tells you about his essence. That’s often more revealing than what they’re saying. Often the public positions are carefully worked out by their advisors as to what will appeal to the most people, and sometimes they’re at odds with what they’ve done in the past.

With Obama, we started looking at his financial disclosure records. When he got a lot of money from his book deal, one of the things he invested in was a $100,000 in a few odd little stocks that it turned out had been bought after he consulted with a big campaign contributor who was a hedge fund manager who had invested in those stocks. It was surprising b/c the rest of his investments were more conservative.

And he said he supposed to have set up a blind trust, but he did it afterward. This raised a lot of initial questions, because he’s a very careful guy, he’s a lawyer, and yet.

He’s had a longtime relationship with Tony Rezko, who was recently convicted of some influence peddling that didn’t involve Obama, but there’s the question of why he was hanging out with him for 17 years.

Maybe the biggest thing is that he’s portrayed himself as a different kind of politician and a lot of people believe that he represents a different kind of politics and so it was pretty interesting when we took a look at how he navigated the rough and tumble world of Chicago politics.

He’s always coming up with fairly nuanced positions and in the Illinois senate he was trying to compromise, and it was an interesting look at what he would be like as president. He might not be as liberal as he appears, as partisan as people can be and he might be somebody who is trying to work out deals with both sides.

3. How does this relate to the narratives that the campaign is putting forward and also that the media is constructing.

Every campaign is trying to come up with a narrative to represent the candidate and we’re trying to examine the story they’re telling and trying to find what the meaning of the differences is.

One of the things that is just the recognition that he’s raised extraordinary amounts of money in conventional ways, not just on the Internet, which is all the more amazing for a guy who portrays himself as a new kind of politician.

The common theme of all these stories is looking at where he is like other politicians and coming to the conclusion that while he is very charismatic and very smart, he’s also a very deft politician and that’s how he got where he is. It’s funny, but for all politicians it would be a fairly obvious thing to say, but for him, it’s actually significant.

4. Do you think that the media’s construct of Obama is affected by the stories you’ve done?

By peeling back the layers, and story by story, certain adjustments gradually get made in the sense of who he is, and over time that filters into everyday coverage.

One example is when Obama opted out of public financing. He’d always backed public financing, and he said that if the Republican candidate did it, he would do it. But he’s raising such incredible sums of money, and for the first time the Democrats can really out-raise the Repub. That’s a good example where he can put aside some of the ideals that he’s espoused and be very pragmatic. And I noticed that there were a lot of newspaper editorials that were criticizing him for that, and that’s an example of where it’s starting to filter in, this sense of his pragmaticism.

5. A lot of your bylines are shared. How does that work?

This is such a high profile fascinating race, and it’s competitive in terms of coverage. If you have a couple of people, you can cover the ground twice as fast, it’s easy to get beat on these stories if you’re not moving quickly.

We try to divide up the reporting in ways that make sense, and depending on who is freer, they might take the lead writing on it, it varies.

The good thing is the editors at the Times are still wiling to give us the time we need to dig into these things, always with the sense that there’s only a few of us.

Even with as many people as we have on the campaign and digging into the candidates background, there’s always the sense that we’re moving as fast as we could. If you’re looking at something that’s possibly negative, the campaigns aren’t shy about jumping in and dealing with the issue before you even finished your story.

I’m worried about journalism in general, because so many papers around the country covering gubernatorial races and mayoral races, as the staffs get cut back, and the emphasis gets place on the quicker and shorter pieces, I’m not sure how much digging will done.

6. How did your most recent piece about the bundlers come about?

Obama had a published list on his Web site with 328 bundlers, and we set out to take a look at who they were and what their interests were and what they raised, and where they lived and what companies they worked for, and just put together a picture of his financing operation

When we were talking to his biggest fundraisers around the country and we were asking who in their areas raised a lot of money, they started giving us names of people who weren’t on the list of major fundraisers.

Then there was a list of his national financing committee, and several dozen names weren’t published on his Web site, and once we found that there were some who had raised enough money, and it seemed that they hadn’t updated the site in months.

Obama here wasn’t different than Clinton or McCain, but given the emphasis he’s put on transparency, for example, one of the bills that he passed to disclose bundlers who were lobbyists, it seemed important. And McCain too has a long history of working on campaign finance reform.

These two have some of the strongest track records and that they had fallen behind was pretty interesting.

7.What do you think is missing from the Obama story?

It is stunning think how quickly this guy got to where he is. Just eight years ago he lost by 30 percentage points in a senate race on the South Side of Chicago, and they never thought he’d past the state senate seat. Just to think in eight years, he’s dusted himself off from that and is the presidential nominee is pretty amazing.

People forget how lucky he is: In the 2004 senate race, he was still running third in the primary, when the leading candidate was forced to drop out because of a scandal, and then Obama won that primary. Then, his Republican opponent got knocked out in the general election because of a sex scandal. Who knows if it wasn’t for those two scandals coming up on his opponents that we wouldn’t even be talking about him right now.

8. Do you sometimes wish you were on the campaign bus?

I think it would be interesting to see what’s it like, but I couldn’t do the kind of stuff I could do there. When Jo Becker and I did the story about how he rose in Chicago, we both spent a week or more in Chicago and two or three on the phone, and we talked to dozens of people who knew him from when he first showed up and through every step of his life there, and that’s how you figure out what the guy is really like.

We talked to not only obvious people, but we found people who worked for him, and other people who hadn’t talked to the press before so the only real way to peel back the truth about somebody is to get on the street where they’re from.

9. How do you feel about campaign coverage with the way the play-by-play minutia sometimes becomes a big story?

Sometimes it can seem like noise, but this cycle has been so fascinating with the first black presidential nominee dueling with Hillary Clinton, and the possibility of the first female nominee. And all the turmoil on the McCain side, when his campaign almost collapsed last summer. Even the horse race has been interesting to watch.

10. Do you work with the on-the trail reporters?

As an investigative reporter, you might have time and the investigative skills, but you go into the situation with no contacts and having to start from scratch. We have people on the staff who know a lot of people, and I’ll call Adam [Nagourney] and get a list of people to call and find out what he’s thinking. And Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg, I’ve done stories with both of them: I might be doing some of the stuff calling people on the outside, and then they’re talking to the campaign people.

After Obama announced that he wasn’t going to take public financing, the editors wanted us to do a story about how he was going to spend this incredible amount of money that he’d been raising. So I was assigned, and Jim Rutenberg was assigned. And Jim started talking to some people, and Jeff Zeleny was traveling with Obama and he was able to get the main campaign to go over everything with him. And the three of us could put together a better story much more quickly than one of us could.

Guilt Trip

| No Comments

What with Barack Obama jetting about the world, buddying up to King Abdullah and all, it has been especially difficult for the McCain campaign to attract media coverage this week. So the GOP candidate’s campaign took a cue from Hillary Clinton and decided it was time to attack the media head on. Its latest salvo is an invitation for visitors to JohnMcCain.com to vote between two soundtracks for a video lampooning the media's "love affair" with Barack Obama. Yesterday, the campaign issued fake press passes designating reporters on McCain's campaign bus as the "JV Squad" (that means "Junior Varsity," presumably), who had been "Left Behind to Report in America."

It is ironic that John McCain, who has enjoyed some of the coziest press relations of any modern politician, is now positioning himself as a victim of media bias. There may be a kernel of truth to McCain's complaint, as Campaign Desk noted yesterday in our post about the New York Times rejecting his op-ed about the Iraq War. But Campaign Desk has also noted that McCain got a relative pass for his shifts and ambiguities on Social Security, economic issues, and the environment earlier this month while Obama was frantically defending himself against "flip-flop" charges on Iraq.

But McCain is partially to blame for being overshadowed by his Democratic rival this week—McCain goaded Obama into taking a Middle East trip, Obama made the risky decision to take the bait, and now the media is focusing its coverage on Obama's travels. The New York Times's Alessandra Stanley got it right when she wrote, "it’s not pro-Obama bias in the news media that’s driving the effusion of coverage, it’s the news." Her story’s headline showed why McCain's visit to George H. W. Bush's Kennebunkport retreat lost the battle for coverage: "Obama Overseas! In Presidential Mode! Back Home, It’s McCain in a Golf Cart."

This extra scrutiny would not be advantageous for Obama, of course, if he were not performing so well on his trip. Indeed, even the supposedly liberal New York Times seemed disappointed that Obama made no major mistakes: "After a day spent meeting Iraqi leaders and American military commanders, Mr. Obama seemed to have navigated one of the riskiest parts of a weeklong international trip without a noticeable hitch," concluded a Times analysis piece headlined "For Obama, First Step Is Not a Misstep." That’s a nice way of saying this: "Obama Manages Not to Screw Up in Iraq."

Since the Obama trip is going so well, attacking the media is one of the few options left for the McCain campaign—and it is having some success. The Tampa Tribune, LA Times, and Chicago Tribune were among the papers that ran stories about Obama bias today. US News and World Report's website posted "The Media's Bias Toward Barack Obama Will Hurt Him" at 11:15 AM, followed five minutes later by < a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/mashek/2008/7/23/the-myth-of-the-media-bias-toward-barack-obama.html" target=_blank>"The Myth of Media Bias Toward Barack Obama." Both Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd gave voice to McCain's complaints even as they wrote pieces that reflected positively on his opponent. Even Jon Stewart parodied Obama's positive press by beginning last night's coverage of the senator's trip with an image of the "Not-Yet-President"’s jet trailing rainbows and flowers.

If the McCain communications apparatus can't use the media to communicate effectively with voters about the economy, Iraq, or health care, at least it’s able to appeal to reporters' guilt in order to make them repeat charges of bias. That may be what passes for a communications victory at McCain headquarters this week.

Shorting Journalism Too

| 2 Comments

A working member of the business press writes in response to last week’s post on the SEC’s war on short-selling:

I would make one additional point that I'm sure you're already aware of—namely that any move to curb short-selling will inevitably curb critical reporting on companies and markets as well.

Any financial journalist committed to delving beyond the corporate handout knows that shorts can be great sources—they can provide all sorts of perspectives and information about a faltering company that you never would have thought of otherwise, and they're an invaluable counterweight against all those unthinking analysts who just keep bleating "buy." As long as you keep in mind that they have an ax to grind (though no more or less so than those on the other side dedicated to seeing a stock go up), and verify that their information is accurate, it's very valuable for a journalist to talk to them.

And now that source of information is going to be severely crimped, because shorts will be leery of being perceived as "spreading rumors" if they give negative information on a company to a journalist. It's already happening; this week I tried calling a well-known short I've spoken to in the past, to get his thoughts about the SEC crackdown, and he wouldn't even get on the phone with me.

This is, of course, very true. Business reporters are bombarded by "longs" and touts all the time. Contrarian sources are invaluable in helping journalists break through the flacky haze by pointing out problems the companies are papering over.

But as I wrote in the Opening Bell this morning, I'd like to see more coverage of whether the SEC's move has caused a "short squeeze", where investors who have shorted stocks scramble to cover their bets by buying shares, sending a stock soaring.

In the five days since the SEC's announcement, financials have rallied 31 percent, The Wall Street Journal reported today, without noting the SEC connection.

A Stumper

| No Comments

Here is Jon Friedman's "MEDIA WEB QUESTION OF THE DAY:"

What do you think is the relationship between politics and journalism -- and sex?

"-- and sex?" This isn't exactly like your friend who, when reading aloud the fortune from his fortune cookie, insists on adding "in bed" to the end of it, just for fun. Because Friedman is keying off his column on how The Nation launching a sex column is "all about business sense, not titillation," which, after you read, you can then watch Friedman summarize in his "Media Web Minute" (i.e., Having Video For Video's Sake, a development in online journalism which we hope to explore in depth in the not-too-distant future).

Parting Thoughts: Walt Wasilewski

| 1 Comment

Dear colleagues:

You're under pressure. I empathize. But listen: I nearly drowned in chaos my first day as a reporter for The Post-Standard (in Syracuse, New York) twenty-eight years ago. We were struggling to make sense of new technology, fighting small-town, tin-pot dictators, and trying to cover a tidal wave of news with far too few reporters and editors. But the day ended, a new one was dawning, and we had put the news at the fingertips of our readers. I was dog-tired, joyful, and proud.

My last day there was exactly the same. Take heart in that symmetry. (I accepted a buyout from The Post-Standard in May 2007. I'm teaching journalism at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University.)

Advice for the newly minted journalist? Read Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley, but don't despair. Ponder what life would be like if no one cared enough to recite the day's list of human failings for those within earshot. Now, that would be dismal. Without journalism, there is no hope for progress. Believe that every person should be treated with respect and act on it. If you don't believe that, please find another profession.

And give a damn, will you? I'll be watching for your bylines.




_________________________________






The steady drip of layoffs and buyouts, slowly desiccating once-vibrant newsrooms around the country, has also produced a reservoir of anger, sadness, fear, uncertainty—even some cautious optimism here and there—among reporters and editors who invested years, decades in some cases, of their lives to print journalism. We’ve asked anyone so inclined to channel these emotions, not into rant—although there will be a bit of that—but rather into reflection on what went wrong, and where we might go from here. We will publish one per day, under the headline “Parting Thoughts.” All of the letters we publish will be collected here.

What happened?

"Wall Street got drunk;" got a tattoo (which didn't look "gargantuan, inevitably tacky, gauche and ugly" at the time).

Taken together, President Bush's recent "off-camera" remarks (now "no longer available" on YouTube) and Richard Cohen's column in yesterday's Washington Post on how America's tramp stamps explain why we're all in the red, are really helping this layman understand our economic dire straits.

Portfolio's Promise

| No Comments

Portfolio’s August cover story is a devastating follow to its scoop that broke the “Friends of Angelo” Countrywide VIP loan scandal last month. This great piece is in keeping with the magazine’s hit or miss nature since its launch, but an enticing example of what could be.

It’s a not-terribly-well-edited, but superbly reported portrait of old-fashioned corruption, plain and simple. Angelo Mozilo didn’t bribe senators with hundred-dollar handshakes; he just had loan officers save them thousands by eliminating fees and lowering interest rates. The evidence is smoking-gun—emails among Countrywide executives obtained by the author, Pulitzer-winning reporter Dan Golden.

Beyond providing evidence of favor-peddling at all levels of government, the emails also helpfully reveal how top Countrywide officials, including Mozilo, describe the various loan-origination and other fees they charged millions of customers: “junk” and “garbage.”

This would be the “junk” and “garbage”—Countrywide’s terms—piled up on account balances across the country, including the ones burdening non-V.I.P.s now in foreclosure. Gretchen Morgenson reported in The New York Times this weekend that the average mortgage loan has $700 of this “junk,” up half in the last few years. In December she reported those totaled $17 billion a year. What a waste.

For the elite, however, life is good. A California appeals judge, for instance, asks country-club buddy Mozilo for $1.9 million in loans. Mozilo personally approves it, telling Robert Feinberg—the loan officer for the VIP program and Portfolio’s key source here— that it’s “golden” and the judge gets thousands of dollars in loan discounts from Countrywide. The judge just happened to have a class-action lawsuit against Countrywide before him at the time, and he and his two fellow judges ruled in favor of the lender.

There’s plenty more, all documented in Countrywide emails, including ones targeted to key Congressional staffers and Feinberg’s boss Doug Perry helpfully spells out why they’re getting the treatment. One was “an adviser to ranking Republican members of Congress responsible for legislation of interest to the financial services industry and of importance to Countrywide.” Another “reports directly to Congressman Mel Watt, who introduced predatory-lending legislation to address unscrupulous lending practices, and they do view Countrywide as a trusted adviser.”

Here’s what Countrywide said about a loan for Franklin Raines, the former chief of Fannie Mae:

“Per Angelo, Frank needs to refi.” Perry notified Feinberg, “One point off, no junk.”

And the magazine has more details on what the VIP’s, which among politicians seem to have been nearly all Democrats, got:

According to Feinberg and company documents, V.I.P.’s nearly always received better deals than those available to most borrowers. Countrywide often waived up to two points and eliminated fees amounting to hundreds of dollars for underwriting, processing, and document preparation. Internal company emails often referred to these fees as “junk” or “garbage.” If interest rates fell while a V.I.P. loan was pending, Countrywide provided a free float-down to the lower rate, eschewing its usual charge of half a point. Some V.I.P.’s who bought or refinanced investment properties were given the lower interest rate reserved for primary residences. Because Mozilo informally preapproved his F.O.A.’s, many of them barely bothered to document their assets and enjoyed exceptions to normal procedures or shortcuts around them.

This story is breaking wide open thanks to Portfolio’s aggressive reporting. The magazine still has some major issues—we’re still unsure what its mission is and apparently, so are its staffers. But its way forward is clear. As the Golden story makes clear, it will rise or fall on the talent of its reporting staff.

Chris Matthews to Jay Leno Monday night, talking about his "thrill up my leg" (from Obama speech) comment (h/t TVNewser and HuffPost):

Ha! You know, some journalists report only what a guy says, what they hear, what they see. I report all senses. I report all reactions...I was inspired by it and I said so at the time...I'd rather be honest and say what I feel than sit there like some kind of statue and say, 'Oh that was noteworthy.' I'm a frickin' American. I do have a reaction to things. And I do react emotionally to my country. I care about this country, I want to look out for it. It's my job. I'm not just some umpire. I take a side — us. That's who I'm rooting for.

Not Team Obama; Team America!

Radar Online "polled a number of current and former producers—the people with the best view of the tantrums and shouting matches—as well as some professional TV reporters and had them dish the dirt" (anonymously, of course) on who's nasty and who's nice in cable punditry.

Oh, how the "former P.A. at CNN who has since moved on" (from working with CNN's Nancy Grace) has been waiting for a chance to tell the world this about her former boss:

Once she gets in makeup chair, she thinks she's a total goddess. We used to joke that the only reason she'd come into the studio was to get her hair done. She wears so much lip gloss that it's amazing she can even open her mouth.

And, a "former MSNBC staffer" no doubt relished the chance to remember aloud that:

[Keith] Olbermann refused to communicate with underlings face to face when he worked out of the network's Secaucus operation, instead insisting that anyone who wished to get in touch with him leave him a note in a special mailbox.

Some hints as to which other MSNBC personalities made the lists (nasty and nice): A "frequent female guest" jokes that this MSNBC anchor and nasty-lister has a "one slot for a chick" which the "frequent female guest" dubbed "the vagina stool" and "it's like he just tries to make whoever is on the vagina stool squirm." Of another MSNBC-er (and nice-list-er), an "impressed" "female producer at CNN" says: "Maybe if something has come of Hillary Clinton's run, it's that a woman in a male-dominated industry can be taken a little bit more fucking seriously."

UPDATE: The New York Times has its own version of this today, but it's not a bunch of former underlings dishing on a bunch of former bosses -- rather just one former boss, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D, NY). About Weiner the Times interviewed "more than two dozen former employees, Congressional colleagues and lobbyists," and unearthed such tidbits as: Weiner "routinely instant messages his employees on weekends, often just one-word missives: 'Teeth' (as in, your answer reminds me of pulling teeth) or 'weeds' (as in, you are too much in the weeds)," "enjoys challenging staff members on issues, even at parties" and, per the Times' analysis, has "presided over more turnover than any other member of the New York House delegation in the last six years."

Mortgage rates jumped to their highest level in nearly five years, as investors continue to worry about the health of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, The New York Times reports on A1 and The Wall Street Journal on C14.

It’s another serious blow to the reeling housing market, making it more expensive to buy houses that are already declining in value. It will also worsen foreclosures by raising the payments of all those adjustable-rate mortgages that reset according to going rates.

Fannie and Freddie are propping up the entire housing market right now by buying most of the mortgage loans being created. Since the bubble popped they’ve essentially become buyers of last resort as others shy away from purchasing home loans. Now, investors are worried that the government-sponsored entities will have to dial back their purchases to preserve capital, making it more expensive to borrow.

But the Times seems to overemphasize the Fannie and Freddie angle, burying information that rising inflation is contributing to the rise in borrowing costs, too. It notes that jumbo rates reached their highest level in eight years, something that hurts its thesis since these loans are too big for Fannie and Freddie to buy.

Thirty-year mortgage rates climbed to 6.71 percent yesterday from 6.44 percent at the end of last week. The paper says that would add $852 to a year of house payments on a $400,000 home, noting the rise in rates, which mirrors one earlier this year, will further pressure the government to shore up Fannie and Freddie and the housing market in general.

Rewarding failure

The banking industry has officially entered Bizarro world. Yesterday five big banks reported miserable second quarters with a combined $11 billion in losses—and their shares jumped an average 14 percent, the Journal says on C1.

Both papers are somewhat incredulous about investors’ reactions to the news, with the Times saying on C1 that “Bank Investors Redefine Bad News.” Wachovia posted a massive $8.9 billion loss, eviscerated its dividend by 87 percent, reported bad signs on its loans, and its stock skyrocketed 27 percent—in part because it said it would fire 6,400 workers. WaMu lost $3.3 billion and reported a record number of mortgage delinquencies and its shares rose 6 percent. The Journal says the five reserved $13 billion for future losses a “sign of the losses likely to haunt them for years.” The Times:

Many investors seem to see signs of hope in red ink that once would have shocked them.

But it has now been a year since the credit crisis erupted, and, so far, the optimists have been proven wrong time and again. Skeptics say it could take years for banks to recover from the worst financial crisis since the Depression. And even when things do improve, the pessimists maintain, banks’ profits will be a fraction of what they were before.

Financial stocks have rallied in the last five days by 31 percent, the Journal says, without noting something that’s surely not a coincidence—the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules on “naked” shorting coincides perfectly with the rise. The Times doesn’t mention this either. Does the rise mean the SEC was right or has it sent an unnecessary chill through the short markets?

The taxpayer bill for Fannie & Freddie

The government rescue of Fannie and Freddie could cost taxpayers $25 billion, the Financial Times reports on page one and the NYT on C1. That’s according to the best estimate of the independent Congressional Budget Office.

But the CBO said most likely it wouldn’t cost anything, though there’s a 5 percent chance a bailout could cost $100 billion. It seems unlikely to us that taxpayers will come out of this clean:

Under generally accepted accounting principles, Mr. Orszag said that the net worth of the mortgage giants at the end of the first quarter of 2008 was about $55 billion. He also said that the companies were considered to be “adequately capitalized” by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which regulates them.

But on a fair value basis—or what the companies’ assets would fetch on the market today—the value of the mortgage companies’ assets exceeded their liabilities at the end of March by just $7 billion, a thin cushion considering that their total debt is $1.6 trillion. That explains why there have been numerous calls for the companies to raise additional capital.

W’s Compassionate Conservatism in action

The richest 1 percent of Americans took the highest proportion of income in more than two decades—maybe since 1929—but their tax rate fell to the lowest level in eighteen years, according to new IRS numbers for 2006, the Journal says on A3.

According to the figures, the richest 1% reported 22% of the nation's total adjusted gross income in 2006. That is up from 21.2% a year earlier, and is the highest in the 19 years that the IRS has kept strictly comparable figures. The 1988 level was 15.2%. Earlier IRS data show the last year the share of income belonging to the top 1% was at such a high level as it was in 2006 was in 1929, but changes in measuring income make a precise comparison difficult.

Except the horse isn’t dead—and neither are our nation’s guerilla satirists! Not surprisingly, they’re hiding out, starved yet resolved, in the tropical caves of the Internets. Joshua David Stein, formerly of Gawker fame, slammed this week’s New Yorker cover as anti-Semitic:*

This week's cover depicts a bunch of affluent whites carousing while their crustacean dinner escapes through the kitchen window with the aid of a red-and-white tablecloth. Clearly this is a veiled attack against the Jews. In this case, the humanoid character with the Semitic nose (on the right) is shown drinking some sort of red wine. Not only are lobsters a food no self-respecting Jew would eat (shellfish aren't kosher) but this diner is shown with a glass of red wine in front of him. Red wine does not go with lobster.

And Vanity Fair, the neglected stepchild of the Condé Nast family, has finally gone public with its own incendiary cover, which explores “a different aspect of the Politics of Fear.” (Explanatory essay TK.)**

---------------

*NB: He doesn’t mean it’s actually anti-Semitic! Don’t worry! The New Yorker’s editor is Jewish, as are some of his best friends, so it’s okay!

**NB: This is not an actual Vanity Fair cover! They’re only joking! We know this because it’s totally the wrong font!

In an early episode of The West Wing, President Jed Bartlet and his chief of staff, Leo McGarry—struggling with what Scott McClellan would later call, after his stint in the real-world version of that corridor, “the permanent campaign culture in Washington”—argue about the relationship between conviction and compromise in presidential politics. The two decide that accomplishing their goals is more important than getting re-elected: they’re going to start being true to their own vision for the country. “Do you have a strategy for all this?” Bartlet asks.

McGarry scrawls his answer on a legal pad: “Let Bartlet Be Bartlet.”

Peggy Noonan, who was a West Wing consultant before her most recent reincarnation as a Wall Street Journal columnist, perhaps had that scene in mind when she wrote her recent column, the Sorkin-esque “Let McCain Be McCain.” Take McCain off the leash, Noonan advised. Let him roam. Let him be. “The most interesting thing about Mr. McCain has always been the delight he takes in a certain unblinkered candor,” she writes. “Get him in the papers being who he is, get people looking at his real nature. Maybe then they'll start taking him seriously when he talks policy. Maybe he’ll start taking himself seriously when he talks policy.”

Well. Noonan, as she so often does, proved prescient: This past week, we’ve heard much about McCain Being McCain—and particularly about his Selfhood as expressed and enabled by his quirky/sharp/rude/unamusing/old-fashioned/callous/smokin’ sense of humor. So, this past week, the McCain campaign has attempted to turn the criticisms of its candidate’s comedy on their head. Humor, McCain’s spokespeople declare, is a mark of Authenticity. Though some of the candidate's jokes have been (mis?)interpreted as offensive, misogynistic, just plain bizarre, etc., the gags aren't a liability, they say; on the contrary, McCain's wisecracks are central to his appeal. “He’s long said that he's said and done things in the past that he regrets,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers told United Press International. “You’ve just got to move on and be yourself—that's what people want. They want somebody who's authentic and this kind of stuff is a good example of McCain being McCain.”

Per this formulation, the content of McCain’s jokes isn’t the point. The point is that, in making jokes that could be construed as offensive, McCain is being true to himself. That McCain is being, you know, McCain. (He tells off-color jokes? That’s so like him. How charmingly idiosyncratic! How delightfully Maverick!)

On the one hand, of course, such a formulation is completely valid. It’s refreshing to see a candidate—hey, any politician—crack jokes, even at the risk of blowback from the sometimes super-sensitive media. You could read not just a bold stubbornness, but also a quiet nobility, in McCain’s Emerson-esque truth-to-self-above-all-else, in his refusal to prance, as so many others have, in Politics’ Pageant—something both admirable and quintessentially American. As Politico’s Ben Smith notes, “To McCain's friends and supporters, the humor is a mark of his authenticity. To his detractors, some of the jokes are offensive and out of touch with contemporary mores. What's undeniable, though, is that the humor, with its political risks and, to some, its charm, is intrinsic to John McCain.”

You can’t help but notice that, in both outcomes of Smith’s either/or, McCain comes out on top. Either: his off-color jokes are a sign of authenticity…or: his off-color jokes are offensive and out of touch, but he tells them anyway. Which is a sign of authenticity. Win…win!

Thus, the other hand. The whole humor-as-authentic notion, and its parent, the McCain-as-authentic narrative, is—for his campaign—a nearly ideal corollary to the McMaverick meme that is now so common it’s become the stuff of cliché. Voters “are putting a premium on authenticity this year,” GOP strategist Matthew Dowd told the LA Times—and a humor narrative that, even in its most negative light, reinforces the candidate’s Straight Shooter Authenticity is, for them, rhetorical gold. No wonder they’re pushing it.

And, indeed, the “let McCain be McCain” line of logic is extremely familiar. Sunday’s New York Times profile of McCain, which details his transformation from the Senate’s class clown to its star student, quotes the Arizona senator’s former colleague, Lindsay Graham. “There was almost a sense of freedom,” Graham told David Kirkpatrick of McCain’s primary loss in 2000. “It reinforced his impulse: ‘I am going to be me.’”

And describing McCain’s casual garb while attending a Yankees game this weekend, CNN’s go-to “image expert,” Heidi Berenson, told Rick Sanchez, “He’s being authentic, and authenticity really is the word of the day.”

Et cetera.

The media, in this, aren’t just reflecting American attitudes about authenticity—namely, that we’d tolerate our candidates being a great number of things before we’d tolerate their being phony. They’re also subscribing to the West Wing logic of governance: that truth-to-self will somehow lead a president to effective leadership. Which is, put charitably, a dubious assumption.

McCain, like every other candidate, has both moments of genuineness and moments of performance. The interest is, of course, in the ratio between the two kinds of moments, between how often McCain is being himself and how often he is being a performer. But the authenticity narrative the press has—so far—written for him doesn’t allow for the nuance of that analysis. McCain has been established as “authentic,” and the media have basically left the matter at that.

Here’s the problem, though: by allowing authenticity as a campaign-trail criterion in the first place—and by framing it as something to be achieved, rather than as a self-evident tautology, something that simply is—the press deprives itself of its own capacity for accountability. How, after all, can you hold a candidate liable for his behavior when the only standard for that behavior is set by the candidate himself? How can you blame John McCain for just being John McCain?

So McCain gets to bask in the glow of his own authenticity—and, as a bonus, his missteps also find themselves bathed in that haze. Take, again, his jokes. In framing his more off-color gags not as gaffes, but as evidence of his genuineness—“he tells off-color jokes, how authentic”—the media essentially insulated him from further discussion of those jokes’ content. (“That’s just McCain being McCain.” “That’s just how he is.” Et cetera.) By dismissing his missteps in that way, the media didn’t just ignore the jokes’ broader implications; they legitimized them as evidence of the senator’s authenticity.

Lighten up—they’re only jokes, you may say. Fair enough, that they are—and, hey, some of them are funny. And yet. The press’s treatment of the gags, especially given that that treatment fits into a larger framework about McCain, has slippery-slope potential. There have been moments, after all, when McCain hasn’t been such a maverick, when he hasn’t been so “authentic”—when he, like Obama, has shifted or moved to the middle or what you will for the sake of political expediency. There will be more. That’s politics.

But just as Obama has been cushioned by the narrative his own campaign has been pushing—of his transcendence, of his being somehow above traditional rules precisely because he claims to be rewriting those rules—McCain has been insulated by his own authenticity. Both candidates have been given, to some extent, free rides. But the press is now questioning Obama’s pass—and it should be doing the same for McCain. “He’s just being himself” should no longer be an acceptable explanation for his statements or actions. Voters may be interested in McCain being McCain, but they’re much more interested in the press being the press.

A Matter of Opinion

| No Comments

"It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece" on the Iraq War, wrote New York Times op-ed page editor David Shipley in an email to the McCain campaign on Friday. Strangely enough, Shipley was writing to reject an opinion column already submitted by McCain; the piece, he explained, was not up to par with the column that the Times had run under Obama's name on July 14. Where Obama's op-ed "offered new information" and "went into detail about his own plans," Shipley asserted, McCain's did neither.

McCain partisans have decried the Times’s decision—and, if you read the two columns side by side, Shipley’s justification does seem rather thin. The similarities between Shipley’s words and an unsigned July 17th Times editorial denouncing McCain for not having “matched Mr. Obama’s seriousness on Iraq” suggest that the rejection is an expression of its heightening exasperation with the presumptive GOP nominee—not an adherence to general principles of newsworthiness. Failing to be straightforward about this was a mistake. Instead of making a statement about its judgment of McCain’s leadership—a judgment that it could defend on principle—the Times has only reinforced its reputation on the right as a biased liberal broadsheet.

It is unclear what detailed "plans" sounded new to the Times when it accepted Barack Obama's July 14th submission. Presumably, Shipley had in mind the four paragraphs towards the bottom, in which Obama reiterated his commitment to a sixteen-month withdrawal timeline, adding that he would work with commanders to "redeploy troops safely" while retaining a small force for "limited missions," pursue "a diplomatic offensive," and shift brigades to Afghanistan. This was preceded by seven paragraphs laying out his criticisms of McCain and reminding readers that he had opposed the war since its beginning.

What, exactly, is new about that? To my eyes, Obama’s column was just a summary of positions on Iraq that he had already offered in various forms. And, with the exception of the sixteen-month time frame, its components are general principles for proceeding in Iraq, not something that could be reasonably considered to constitute a "detailed plan." But in his email to the McCain campaign, Shipley was specific about what "details" he expected from the Arizona senator:

[T]he article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

Shipley’s request for a definition of “victory” echoes the Times’ July 17th editorial, which complains, “We have no idea what winning means to Mr. McCain.” Shipley’s detailed description of what the Times would consider a “detailed plan”—reminiscent of a teacher explaining to an elementary school student why his failed homework didn’t fulfill the assignment—underscores the editorial’s frustration that “Mr. McCain is still tied in knots, largely adopting Mr. Bush’s blind defense of an unending conflict.”

The whole point of McCain’s rejected op-ed, published today in the New York Post, is that he doesn’t think it is wise to offer the kind of Iraq statement that would satisfy theTimes. McCain declares that "any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground—not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Sen. Obama."

The Times editorial board is well within its rights to pronounce this position unacceptable. And the editor of the Op-Ed page has the right to decide what to publish and what to reject. But if the editorial board’s negative opinion of McCain’s approach to Iraq is indeed shared by the opinion pages, as Shipley’s note suggests, then the Times could have made a stronger statement—and been more honest—if it had simply said to McCain, "The Times does not consider your stay-the-course position serious, and we only publish serious arguments on our Op-Ed page."

This would have undoubtedly provoked even louder howls from the right. But wouldn’t the Times rather be defending itself for taking a principled stand—instead of defending tenuous arguments about newsworthiness that serve only to feed the paper’s reputation as a vehicle for thinly veiled liberal bias?

Not Very Newhouse

| 1 Comment

The New York Times apparently wanted to keep us apprised of the State of the Glossy Mag this weekend. First, it ran a rather uninteresting profile of reclusive Condé Nast helmsman Si Newhouse, nominally speculating on what will happen to the company when he leaves:

The most uncomfortable questions involve Mr. Newhouse himself. Though he is, by all accounts, in excellent health and allergic to the idea of retiring, he is 80 years old. Will his successors have his knack for identifying what sells, or his willingness to absorb years of losses on magazines he considers promising?

Unfortunately, it reads pretty similarly to Times reporter David Carr’s Newhouse profile from five years ago, which likewise discussed “the palace intrigue over who will succeed Si Newhouse.” Back then, he was seventy-five, not eighty; but he still wore chinos and old sweatshirts, and he was still awfully shy.

(Women’s Wear Daily, one of Condé Nast’s fashion trade publications, commented last Thursday on the profile’s anticipated redundancy.)

As The New York Observer’s John Koblin noted yesterday, the most interesting aspect of the Times piece is the way Condé Nast’s top executives (minus Si, who declined to comment) speak about the Internet. Tom Wallace, editorial director of Condé Nast, says Internet publications still have a long way to go “to compete with the way we produce words and images in the magazines." And Jonathan Newhouse, head of Condé Nast International, says: “I think sometimes commentators throw around these assumptions about what is happening to the industry, going the way of newspapers, and I don’t believe it.”

Wait, magazines have a shot at survival? Who knew? This perpetual assessment of the industry’s falterings and failings—its (oft-revised) hopes and dreams, in this period of change—is kind of funny, if only because even when there’s nothing new to report, we’re invariably interested in the topic.

Two other recent Times pieces illustrate this palpable desire to comment on the magazine industry’s topography, be it a new-but-short-lived bump or a different angle on the same spread.

One article, in yesterday’s business section, showcasesEsquire’s upcoming September cover, which will incorporate a battery-operated placard that flashes the good news that “The 21st Century Begins Now.”

Here’s Esquire EIC David Granger: “The possibilities of print have just begun. In two years, I hope this looks like cellphones did in 1982, or car phones.” It’s probably fortunate that the cover’s just a publicity stunt (this year marks Esquire’s 75th anniversary), because Granger’s projected image of a newsstand stocked with blinking covers probably won’t resonate with many magazine readers. But the article rightly spends time on the R&D quotient, courtesy of E Ink—the company whose technology brings us Amazon.com’s e-reader, the Kindle. And in highlighting a fluke, the article might, in fact, make readers think about print magazines’ most essential qualities (probably not batteries).

Last week’s Sunday Styles article, about the disappearance of summer Fridays at women’s fashion magazines, presents a different angle on the future of magazines. Its premise? Good old hard work (and fewer weekend trips to the Hamptons) may save the glossies.

Noting that busy summers are nothing new at these magazines (the fat September and October issues are perennially the year’s most lucrative), the article observes that “with April, May and June ad pages sharply down at most women’s fashion and beauty magazines, there is more pressure than usual to do well this fall.” And so editors and interns alike are putting in overtime to make the fall issues as competitive as possible. Tell the Jitney not to wait!

A preoccupation with “how the industry is doing” may lead to somewhat silly pieces like this one. But, in a weird way, the silly pieces often eclipse stories like the self-serious Newhouse profile. Ultimately speaking to such qualities as perseverance (No Hamptons for me - I need to re-edit this piece!) and reinvention (An electronic cover? Let’s talk China!), they track the magazine industry’s topography much more thoroughly than yet another speculative piece about Condé Nast’s future. Until, that is, we can get inside Si Newhouse’s head. Or, at least, his old sweatshirts.

Here is Ashley Gilbertson, a photographer for the New York Times, talking about some of his (pretty stunning) images from Baghdad on MSNBC just now:










Here is the New York Times' John F. Burns who between 2003 and 2007 reported extensively from Baghdad:











Same newspaper. Same city. Same rooftop-perch-stand-up-location (well, maybe). Same hair. Same facial hair. Same facial expression. Same accent (at least to this American ear). Same white button-down shirt. (The vest, Ashley! You forgot the vest! )

My colleague Clint, who first noted the resemblance as we were watching MSNBC this afternoon, wondered if the two ever went out on a story together...

Sign Of The Times

| No Comments

Forget the toasters.

A bank I passed yesterday in West Seattle is marketing itself as the We Won't Lose Your Money In A Bank Run bank.

The sign on the right is a bit hard to read but says "Crazy World/Stable Bank". For a bigger version click here.















What was that John Heilemann was saying in New York magazine about the McCain campaign turning into the Clinton campaign?

The press is fetching pillows for Obama! the McCain campaign seems to be saying (also: We Want You, Anti-Chris-Matthews voters!) with this new video called "Obama Love" and featuring, among others, Matthews' infamous "thrill up my leg" clip.

Parting Thoughts: Jim Spencer

| 35 Comments

When the assistant managing editor trundled over to summon me to my “involuntary separation” from the Denver Post, I was working on an exclusive column about the Crips and Bloods’ turf war at the city’s supposedly family-friendly “Jazz in the Park” series. The timing came to symbolize for me what has happened to the news business. My scoop didn’t matter. Neither did the ten writing awards I won in four years and three months as a metro columnist with the Post. The late nights and occasional weekends I put in, the blog I maintained in deference to the burgeoning online audience—none of it counted.

I had a decent-sized salary and no union protection. Post owner Dean Singleton had bought a bunch of newspapers on credit and needed to shed payroll to get his financing. Circulation and ad revenue was declining. In the newspaper industry’s ongoing struggle to cut costs, I qualified as low-hanging fruit. So, in an office of the Post’s new $85 million building, editor Greg Moore took thirty seconds to pluck me from a branch that had sustained me for thirty years.

My sacking became news on Romenesko. Denver’s alternative weekly, Westword, covered it, too. I meant to die at my desk. Instead, I became a pathetic curiosity.

Today, more than a year later, I feel like an exile. I still want journalism. Journalism just doesn’t seem to want me—at least not enough to pay me a livable wage with benefits and job security. That pretty much sums up the state of the industry.

I have learned a lot in the past year. I have learned that exemplary work at the Virginian-Pilot, the Chicago Tribune, the Daily Press in Newport News, Virginia, and the Denver Post carries little weight where profit margins rule. I have learned that friends at other papers—even those with executive titles—are powerless to help me, because of the state of the industry. I have learned that being a columnist apparently keeps me from being hired as a reporter or feature writer, even though I was both before I took up commentary. I have learned that a six-month temporary assignment running a newsroom of sixty-three reporters and editors does not count as management experience.

I finished in the top three for a job as editorial page editor of a large Midwestern paper. Coming close helped my ego, not my bank account. Another editorial page editor told me he couldn’t hire me because I was “too liberal” and my voice was “too strong.” A third editorial page editor invited me to interview, but his paper was for sale, and when I asked the human resources person about my post-sale job security, she answered honestly that her job might not even exist. If you look up the Daily Press—owned by the Tribune Company—on Wikipedia, it says, in part, “Between 1988 and 2003, award-winning metro columnist Jim Spencer was the paper’s most prominent voice.” What it doesn’t say is that, amid Sam Zell’s current personnel pogrom at Tribune Company, I can never have my old job back.

Over and over I hear the civil language of rejection. I am not “a good fit.”

After the Denver Post laid me off, two friends built me a Web site, SpencerSpeaks.com. The Web site incorporated blogging software for readers to converse with each other about the columns I posted. I learned enough HTML to place copy, photos, slideshows, and podcasts of my radio appearances on the site. I parlayed the Web site and my reputation from the Post into an offer from a young ex-newspaper journalist, named Jake Harkins, to write a monthly column for $450 a month for the Yellow Scene magazine, a 67,000-circulation glossy give-away circulating in Denver’s north suburbs. I also negotiated a $3,000-per-month stipend from David Bennahum’s Center for Independent Media, a nascent national chain of online publications with a “progressive perspective.” I co-published my SpencerSpeaks columns on David’s Colorado Confidential Web site, which is now called the Colorado Indpendent. At $3,000 a month I earned twice as much as my co-workers in the online future of journalism.

The nonprofit model for funding media sounds alluring. In fact, it struggles as much or more than for-profit companies to pay its employees and its bills. Foundation-based journalism may not come with subject-matter expectations, but other forms of nonprofit funding do. Nonprofits on the left and the right support Web sites that have preselected their points of view. These funders don’t have to dictate what gets covered or how it gets covered, but they get the results they want. If this is the future of journalism, then the future lies in advocacy reporting fed in bite-size morsels to true believers.

ProPublica, the investigative reporting service started by former Wall Street Journal Managing Editor Paul Steiger and financed by donations steps far in the right direction. But with a staff of only twenty-seven, ProPublica will never fill the need for quality reporting and writing left by the demise of local coverage.

The Politico, an online publication underwritten by Albritton Communications, seems like another good model for the “new journalism.” It compensates its employees fairly and produces quality results. But The Politico has yet to have to pay its own way.

Meanwhile, too much of online journalism values presentation over product. Philip Anschutz’s new chain of online publications, Examiner.com, advertises $100,000-a-year jobs with benefits for those who can build and maintain “content channels.” It pays the “national examiners”—the journalists whose reporting and writing fills the sites—based on the hits their stories generate. Editors who supervise those national examiners make a middling salary. However, when I inquired about such a job, I was told the editors don’t get benefits such as health insurance because the business is considered “a start-up.”

Journalism should be more than a spiffy, interactive forum from which to vent. Interviews with newsmakers and their constituents, and access to documents and other primary sources, should define journalism. So should the respectful, but constant questioning of authority. Where you lack either the investigative resources or the skepticism, you get lies of omission or propaganda. That doesn’t change—no matter how slickly you package things.

A decade ago, I gave a speech at a college graduation. I told the graduates that corporate ownership of media, particularly publicly traded media conglomerates, had changed the equation for journalism and its consumers. You could have an excellent product with adequate profits, I said. Or you could have an adequate product with excellent profits. Perhaps that is no longer the case. Maybe online niche publications represent the future. However this proceeds, it is the content, not the platform that delivers it, that represents the greatest challenge. As long as economic uncertainty, unreasonable profit margins, staff cuts, and low wages mark the boundaries of journalism… well, you get what you pay for.

As for me, I now earn my living doing public relations for the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine. I work for great people and an important public institution. Yet I still dream of returning to journalism. Literally. My post-traumatic stress doesn’t manifest itself in nightmares from which I awake sweating and screaming. My PTS comes in the near-constant images of reporting and writing that haunt my sleep.

The dreams tell me something. Whether anyone ever again chooses to pay me professionally, I will always be a newspaper columnist.



_________________________________






The steady drip of layoffs and buyouts, slowly desiccating once-vibrant newsrooms around the country, has also produced a reservoir of anger, sadness, fear, uncertainty—even some cautious optimism here and there—among reporters and editors who invested years, decades in some cases, of their lives to print journalism. We’ve asked anyone so inclined to channel these emotions, not into rant—although there will be a bit of that—but rather into reflection on what went wrong, and where we might go from here. We will publish one per day, under the headline “Parting Thoughts.” All of the letters we publish will be collected here.

I don't know why I was even initially startled, given Today's Media Environment. But: today, six weeks before the Republican National Convention, the Republican National Convention sent out a press release touting that "Convention Preparations On Target."

But don't take the RNC's word for it! The media say so.

Quoted at the top of the release is this bit from an Associated Press article:

Indeed, both parties were interested in St. Paul's bid but Republicans moved more quickly and grabbed it first. And their convention planning so far [has] been a model of efficiency and organization while Democrats in Denver have wrestled with logistical complications and fundraising woes.

Three cheers for accountability journalism!

But, only in selective doses. Because, from that same AP article (and not in the RNC press release):

This year, Republicans remain acutely mindful of the challenge they face: How best to showcase McCain, an unpopular party's aging, less-than telegenic standard-bearer, against Obama's soaring oratory and historic status as a major party's first black nominee...[T]he enthusiasm gap between the two events is already noticeable.

According to the new PEJ study, last week's New Yorker cover* only came in fourth in quantity of press coverage received -- behind "Obama's trip," "Iraq war as an issue," and "Obama and McCain speak at NAACP."

Except that the time period studied was July 14-20, which only covers the very, very beginning pretty much the lifespan of Cover-Gate (The Cover officially hit newsstands July 21 14). So, fourth place is actually impressive. Doesn't fourth place seem sort of surprising?

Also from the study:

The week was also the sixth straight since the general election began in which Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, Obama, enjoyed a distinct advantage in the race for exposure over the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. Last week, Obama was a significant presence in 83% of campaign stories studied, vs. McCain in 52%.

*Who else was hoping that this week's New Yorker cover would be a cartoon satirizing the reception of last week's satirical cover? (Insular and self-absorbed, as charged!) Instead, we get a group of wine-sipping white people relaxing on the summer cottage porch while dinner -- lobster -- escapes out the side window. Another image sure to confuse The Rest Of America.

Hanging by the Telephone

| 4 Comments

Last Monday, Der Spiegel editor Mathias Müller von Blumencron joined Bernhard Zand, the magazine’s Arabic-speaking middle east correspondent, in Baghdad. They’d scored a rare interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which they planned on conducting together.

That same day, The New York Times ran an op-ed by Barack Obama reiterating his support for a sixteen-month timetable for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq.

So on Tuesday, when the German journalists joined al-Maliki and a handful of aides for an interview pegged to the prime minister’s upcoming visit to their country, the op-ed was on people’s minds—even inside the locked-down Green Zone.

“It was very clear that [al-Maliki had] read it,” Müller von Blumencron told CJR. “It was kind of innocent how he came up with the sixteen-month thing. We didn’t ask him, he just brought it up.”

Innocent or not, the favorable mention of Obama’s plan drew their eye. ”We knew it could provoke some attention, but we had no idea how much attention,” says Müller von Blumencron.

It wasn’t until Saturday that Der Spiegel posted its interview with al-Maliki, which included this exchange:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

And so were born the weekend’s headlines.

But things got complicated later on Saturday, when, after being contacted by American officials, Maliki spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh (who was himself in the room for the Spiegel interview) issued a statement claiming that the prime minister’s statements to the magazine “have been misunderstood and mistranslated” without naming a specific mistranslation or misunderstanding.

And on Saturday and Sunday, while some news organizations, like CNN, reported the matter as a he-said-she-said, most outlets pointed out that the al-Dabbagh denial was remarkably vague and perfunctory. The discussion was haunted by the frustrating question of the statement’s accuracy; no one made a serious attempt to sort the truth out, to contact Der Spiegel to hear the tape for themselves, and to put the argument to rest.

Except the Times.

In a Monday story, the paper was first to report that the translator in the room had been Maliki’s, and giving its own self-described “direct” translation of the Obama quote.

"Obama's remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq... Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

How come that version is so different from Der Spiegel’s version?

“His original words were unprintable. It would have been embarrassing to him. So we edited it,” says Müller von Blumencron. “There are very few people you can do a Q&A with without editing for grammar. And you always have to make it shorter.”

Quite true. As any journalist could tell you, if a printed interview transcript reads like a punchy exchange, with each sentence a complete thought and each paragraph well formed, odds are someone has done a lot of tweaking to help the direct transcription along. But extreme care must be taken not to distort the speaker’s original meaning.

The editor's hand gives any claim of misrepresentation a little credence--especially if there’s translation involved too. During the interview, Der Spiegel spoke in English, and after listening to each question repeated in Arabic, and hearing Maliki’s responses in Arabic, finally heard its answer in English via Maliki’s translator. Through it all, Zand would have been able to monitor each step of the translation for any slip-ups.

Der Spiegel proudly stands by its work. (And rightly so--events have borne them out.) Their tape contains both Maliki’s original Arabic and the translator’s real-time English. When the magazine readied the transcript, Zand verified the translation against Maliki’s Arabic. On this sensitive interview, and the Obama portion of the interview, Müller von Blumencron emphasizes they stayed “very close. Very, very close.”

So how did the Times get its listen? Simple—it asked. According to Müller von Blumencron, Times reporter Sabrina Tavernise and her translator met with Zand in Baghdad, where he played them the relevant quote.

There’s something else that journalists calling Der Spiegel would have learned. “We have a policy at Der Spiegel when we do a question and answer session to provide a transcript to our counterparts in case they want to have a minor thing changed,” says Müller von Blumencron, who says Zand verified that Maliki’s aides received the publication-ready advance copy. They had no response, and presumably no complaints, before its release.

Der Spiegel has no plans to release the tape (“We don’t see a need to improve upon our credibility by, say, putting the audio on the web.”) but is happy to play it—in person, over the phone—for any journalist interested in verifying.

“Anyone who wants to hear it can hear it,” says Müller von Blumencron. “But no one else has asked.”

Obama's "Hope" During "Presser"

| No Comments

Barack Obama in response to a question just now during his press conference in Jordan (I couldn't hear the question, but safe to assume it contained some variation on the words "McCain says"):

My hope is to avoid a colloquy with the McCain campaign over the next few days.

Good luck with that, Senator. (You did invite all those reporters to ride along with you on this trip).

(Also, while responding to the same multi-point question, an Obama-ism? "It's always a good idea to avoid saying 'always' or 'never.'")

The Lives of Others

| 1 Comment

On March 22, America’s Most Wanted told my story. I wasn’t the fugitive, or the victim, and it shouldn’t have been my story. It should have been Tyeisha’s. But as the producer from amw told me, “Girls die in ditches every day. The reason Tyeisha stands out is because she was profiled in Seventeen magazine.” I met Tyeisha Martin at a Red Cross shelter in Henry County, Georgia, on a sunny September afternoon in 2005. She was barefoot, wearing a tank top and Capri jeans, waiting in line to get a tetanus shot. I was living in a small town nearby called McDonough, south of Atlanta. I’d moved there a year earlier from New York City with my boyfriend. We were both writers, still thinking we might be able to publish the novels we’d written in grad school. I knew I wanted to write for a living, but I’d left my job at a women’s magazine certain I’d never go back.

I didn’t like what I’d been able to write in that world. Every time I put together an article, it felt like I was building a little lie. Whether it was culled from quotes e-mailed through a publicist, like the cover story I did on the movie star; or built upon crude stereotypes, like the “profile” of the three beauty queens who lived together in Trump Place; or the time I followed the rules of a dating book and neatly concluded that it’s better to just be yourself if you want to meet a guy. My instincts as a writer were nowhere in these stories. They weren’t little windows on the human condition, they didn’t wrestle with questions about the world; they passed the time on the StairMaster, at the dentist, by the pool.

I justified it plenty. I told myself that Joan Didion had started at Vogue. I told myself it meant something that I could make it in the glossies. That I was successful. The problem was that I didn’t feel successful. I decamped to Georgia, in part, to get some perspective on all this. But still, I wanted to write. So when Seventeen called and asked me to do a story for its Drama section about a young girl in Tennessee who’d been drugged and raped by her cousin, I said yes. Hell, yes.

I did stories like this for two years. I went to Birmingham, Alabama, to learn about twelve-year-old Jasmine Archie, who died, according to police reports, after her mother poured bleach down her throat and sat on her chest until she stopped breathing. I went to Wythe County, Virginia, and knocked on the door of the home where fourteen-year-old Nakisha Waddell had stabbed her mother forty-three times and buried her in the backyard. I wrote about two teenage lesbians who murdered one’s grandparents in Fayette County, Georgia. The stories were still formulaic, but instead of chasing publicists and trailing beauty queens, I got to read trial transcripts, track down family members, and hang out in county jails. Each story was an adventure, and, at least initially, the reporting felt like the kind of work I imagined a “journalist” would do.

Tyeisha was an accident. I was in Virginia reporting Nakisha’s story when Hurricane Katrina hit, and my editor called to ask if I knew anybody in New Orleans. They wanted to profile a teenage evacuee. I said I might know someone—a girl I knew from the local coffee shop had been headed to Tulane—but I’d have to get back to her.

I promptly forgot about it. There was no easy way to find this girl, since I didn’t even know her last name, and I was tired from the reporting trip. Sitting for hours with Nakisha’s grandmother had been mentally exhausting. This was the second Drama piece I’d done, and I knew what Seventeen wanted was brief and uncomplicated. I wouldn’t be able to tell how the old woman’s hands shook, or how cigarette smoke was stitched into every fiber in her trailer. Or that hanging in the back hallway where Nakisha stuck a knife in her mother’s throat was a plaque that read: “This house shall serve the Lord.”

When I got home, I needed to get out of myself, so I went to the Red Cross shelter at the local church where my boyfriend’s mom, a nurse, was helping tend to the hundreds of suddenly homeless people from New Orleans. That’s when I saw Tyeisha, standing in the middle of a group of boys. Tall, bored, beautiful. I remembered the editor from Seventeen and I approached her. She agreed to be profiled. Over the next several days, as she waited for FEMA money in a Days Inn near Atlanta and tried to decide where to go next, Tyeisha told me about her life. She’d dropped out of school in the ninth grade and had a baby at seventeen (she was nineteen when we met). When Katrina hit, she had a GED, a job at a linen factory, and though she and her daughter, Daneisha, were living at her mother’s house, Tyeisha dreamed of getting her own place.

On the evening of August 28, 2005, when residents were bracing for the storm, Tyeisha took her daughter to the little girl’s father’s apartment; he lived on the third floor and she thought two-year-old Daneisha would be safer there. Tyeisha spent the night with her sister, Quiana, and Quiana’s boyfriend, Chuck. Before dawn, the water broke down their front door. Tyeisha was terrified as the water rose; she couldn’t swim, and thought she was about to die. But Chuck and Quiana helped her, and the three of them climbed out a window and found a wooden door to float on. After several hours of paddling through the filthy water, they found a three-story house that had been abandoned, kicked in a window, and spent the night.

The next morning, the three refugees climbed up to the roof, and at the end of the day were lifted to safety by an Army helicopter. After several sweltering days in the gym at the University of New Orleans, they boarded a bus to Atlanta, where Quiana had friends. Through a series of fortunate coincidences, Tyeisha got in touch with her mother, who had Daneisha and was in Dallas. Her on-again, off-again boyfriend was in Texas, too. Tyeisha decided that’s where she should be.

On Friday, September 16, 2005, I dropped Tyeisha off at the Atlanta Greyhound station. She bought a ticket to Dallas and set off for the fifteen-hour ride. Six months later, Tyeisha was dead. She was found in a ditch beside a rural road in Fort Bend County, Texas. She’d been shot in the back of the head.

I learned about Tyeisha’s death from Quiana, who called me one night in March 2006 and whispered, “Tyeisha’s gone.” When she hung up, I went to my computer and found an article in the Texas paper: there was a sketch, and though her features were exaggerated, it was clearly Tyeisha. The article said the body they’d found had tattoos: Daneisha, RIP Larry. I remembered those tattoos. I’d asked about them as we sat on a bench outside the church. Larry was Tyeisha’s father, who had died, she said, about a year before Katrina hit.

I called the number in the paper and asked to speak to the detective in charge. I explained that I hadn’t seen or heard from Tyeisha in months, but I told him what I knew: that she’d survived Katrina, and that she’d apparently gone to Texas to be with her mother, daughter, and boyfriend. He asked me to fax him a copy of the article I wrote for Seventeen. He said they didn’t have many leads. I gave him Quiana’s number, and he promised to call me back. I called Seventeen, thinking that if the editors would allow me to write about her death, I could finance a trip to Texas. I could help find her killer. The impulse was a combination of personal outrage (I’d never known anyone who’d been murdered), curiosity, and ambition. I knew the victim and already had the family’s trust. I began having visions of writing the In Cold Blood of the Katrina diaspora. But there was a new editor on the Drama section, and she didn’t sound terribly excited about the idea. She said she’d talk to the editor-in-chief and get back to me.

Days passed. My editor called and said they might want to mention Tyeisha’s death in the next issue, but that they didn’t want a story about it. “It might be too morbid for the readers,” she told me. In my three years covering crimes for Seventeen, I had written about four female murderers, about stabbings and suffocation and gunshots to the head. The editors I’d worked with talked a lot about what their readers “wanted.” Those readers’ attention spans were short, apparently, and their eyeballs had to be hijacked with big, red letters and shocking graphics. When my story about Nakisha ran, “She killed her mom” was splashed in red letters across the first page; pictured below was a hunting knife “similar” to the one she’d used, and opposite was a grainy yearbook snapshot of Nakisha with stab marks Photoshopped all around her. I called to complain. My editor was polite, but said they knew what was needed to grab the readers’ attention in this “media-saturated” environment.

Of course, I was as culpable as the editors at Seventeen. I did the reporting that revealed nuance and uncertainty, and then did what I was told and turned in simplistic, straightforward stories with immutable lines between cause and effect. So why didn’t Tyeisha’s unsolved death make the cut? It occurred to me that the story didn’t fit the fiction of the magazine. The rigid code that dictated a certain number of pages be given to fashion, celebrities, and make-up also assured that lines didn’t get crossed. Tyeisha’s story had been one of triumph over tragedy. To have her escape Katrina and six months later be found by a roadside in rural Texas was just too complicated.

But I didn’t push. I dashed off pitches to various other publications I thought might be interested in her story: Texas Monthly, the Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times. No one bit. So I let go. Quiana and I talked every few days, then every couple of weeks. The case went nowhere.

Six weeks later, I got a call from America’s Most Wanted. Karen Daborowski, a producer, had read about Tyeisha in the Houston Chronicle and said they wanted to do a segment on her death. “Maybe we can find her killer,” she said. I had not watched America’s Most Wanted in years. In fact, had you asked me about the show the day before Karen called, I probably would have said it had been pulled by Fox a long time ago. But what I remembered as a mildly creepy combination of Unsolved Mysteries and A Current Affair had been airing nonstop every Saturday night since 1988. The show was still hosted by a man named John Walsh, who’d been thrust into the spotlight in 1981 when his son, Adam, was kidnapped and murdered. To date, it has helped catch a thousand fugitives.

So I agreed to the interview. But the interview turned into a request to travel with the producers and a crew to Texas. “We want the story to be about you,” said Karen. “About your bond with Tyeisha and how you cared enough to find her killer.” Calling my fleeting relationship with Tyeisha a bond was a stretch, but in my mind, Karen was asking how much I was willing to do to help Tyeisha. The story of her death deserved to be told, and if I couldn’t convince Seventeen or any other publication of that, I figured I could get in front of a camera and help someone else tell it. I didn’t think about what it meant, journalistically, to become an advocate for someone I’d written about. Having had no formal training in the craft I practiced, I navigated articles and the people involved by my gut, and I felt I owed Tyeisha this much. It also didn’t occur to me that I’d become to Karen what Tyeisha had been to me: a subject. Just as I’d asked Tyeisha to relive Katrina beneath a magnolia tree so I could write an article about her for Seventeen, Karen was asking me to be a character in her own television report about Tyeisha.

On October 13, 2006, I met Karen and Sedgwick Tourison, another producer, at the American Airlines terminal at Baltimore’s BWI. We landed in Dallas around noon and drove to a Whattaburger restaurant near the airport to meet Dave Barsotti and Tom Overstreet, the local camera and audio guys. We all said hello, then Dave dropped a mini-microphone down my blouse, tucked a battery pack into my pants, and told me to get in the driver’s seat of the rented Jeep Cherokee. As I drove, Tom aimed his camera at me and Sedg prompted me to talk about what I was doing.
“I’m driving,” I said, lamely.
“To . . . ” steered Sedg.
“I’m driving to visit Tyeisha’s mom, Cabrini, and her daughter Daneisha,” I said.

We exited the freeway and made our way into Cabrini’s apartment complex. As the crew unloaded the equipment, I wondered how I would greet Cabrini. The woman’s daughter had been murdered not six months before, and here I was waltzing in with cameras and lights and four more strangers to poke at her pain. The point, obviously, was to find Tyeisha’s killer. I hoped Cabrini knew that. Karen gave the word, and I walked down the outdoor hallway toward Tom, who had his camera positioned on his shoulder, and knocked on the door. Quiana opened it, looking gorgeous, just liked I remembered her. We hugged and I stepped toward Cabrini, who was wearing a T-shirt with a picture of Tyeisha on it. I wasn’t sure if I should hug her or shake her hand, but she came toward me with her arms open, and I was glad. The crew flipped on the lights, wired everyone up, and we started talking on-camera, first about Katrina, then about what Cabrini remembered of Tyeisha’s arrival in Texas. Tyeisha didn’t want to stay in Dallas a day longer than she had to. “She was like, ‘Mama, it’s all old people around here,’_” said Cabrini. So she took Daneisha and left for Houston, where her boyfriend lived. For the first time in her entire life, Tyeisha got her own apartment. Her own furniture. “She was so excited,” said Cabrini. “She said, ‘Mama, there’s no rules. I can wake up when I want.’ I said, ‘Lord, I wouldn’t want to live where there’s no rules.’_” In February, Tyeisha stopped calling. On March 9, 2006, six months to the day after I met her, her body was found in a grassy ditch at the bend of a county road.

We woke up early the next morning and met downstairs at the hotel for breakfast. Sedg laid out the day’s schedule, which began with an hour of them filming me typing on my laptop in my room. Sedg wanted more shots of Quiana and me, so we picked her up and drove to a nearby park. Quiana was six years older than Tyeisha, and more articulate and outgoing. Life hasn’t been easy for her. She is twenty-nine, and has four children. She had an emergency hysterectomy just a few months before Katrina hit. The storm washed away her home and separated her from her mother, sister, and children. She settled in Atlanta with her boyfriend, but they broke up. And then her sister was murdered.

When the cameras were ready, we said our lines. I asked her about the last time she talked to her sister, and she said it had been weeks and that she’d begun to worry. We repeated this sequence several times so they could film us from different angles. Quiana didn’t seem to mind. I remembered what she said to me months ago, when she called and told me about the murder: “I don’t want to see my sister on Cold Case Files in five years. I want somebody caught.”

After we dropped off Quiana, Sedg and Karen told me they wanted some Sex and the City shots of me, so we stopped at an upscale strip mall to do more filming. Trailed by Tom and his camera, I dutifully walked into a boutique and gazed at racks of clothing I couldn’t afford. Karen assured me that they needed shots like this to “set me up” as a former New York City magazine writer. They thought it important to play up the “fish out of water” angle: big-city girl gets caught up in a small-town murder. The whole thing was false, and I reminded Karen that I hadn’t been on staff at a women’s magazine since 2002. But in the language of reality television, three years of my life are boiled down to a shopping trip in order to facilitate a story arc.

That night we flew to Houston, and the next morning we showed up at the Fort Bend County sheriff’s station. Inside, Detective Campbell—who Sedg had warned me was “all business”—opened his case file, and pulled out color photographs of the crime scene. There she was: lying in the grass, her skinny legs sticking out from under a yellow tarp. She had on the same blue jeans and belt she was wearing when I met her. The grass around her body was long and lush, green and damp. I wondered if it rained on her while she laid, eyes wide open, in the clover. She was found just a few feet off the road, and according to Campbell, had been shot there. There were minimal wounds other than the fatal bullet wound, which Campbell said suggested that she had been killed by someone she knew. Campbell told us that when he visited her apartment, “it was organized and homey. Like she was focused on raising a child.” He showed us birth certificates and FEMA correspondence. She’d kept her papers in a shoebox. “She was doing all the things she should,” he said. “She was setting up her future.”

The big Texas sky was crowded with clouds in every shade of gray as we drove past fields of cows and ducks, past an old country homestead with a gated family cemetery in the front yard, past Trav’s Roadhouse, to the bend in the road where Tyeisha was murdered. A house sat just a few hundred yards away, but Campbell interviewed the people there, and they didn’t hear the gunshot. “The TV was probably on,” he said. As Tom and Dave set up the shot, I stepped onto the grass, half expecting to feel some sort of ghostly presence. The sun shone through the clouds, but I tried to imagine the road at night. I tried to see her in her last moments. I tried to feel her fear. But I couldn’t. All I could do was what I was doing, standing before the cameras to make sure she was not forgotten.

Months went by. And then a year. Occasionally, I would get a phone call from Karen, saying they were planning to air the show soon, but then she’d drop out of contact for a couple of months. At one point, it had apparently been slated to run as part of a special Hurricane Katrina hour in late 2007, but then she told me it was “so strong,” they wanted it to anchor another episode. Tyeisha had been dead more than two years when the segment finally aired on March 22, 2008.

I was back in Georgia that weekend, visiting my boyfriend’s family. We got take-out BBQ from a local rib shack and gathered in front of the TV. Before each commercial break, they teased my segment: “Coming up: a magazine writer leaves behind the glitzy New York fashion world in a quest for justice.” I covered my face as they pasted my voice over clips of Sarah Jessica Parker adjusting her skirt on the street and cringed at the reenactments. The “Julia” in the segment had a big apartment with leather couches, and the “Tyeisha” was much more conservative than the tattooed girl with messy, maroon-tinted hair extensions I’d met in Georgia. They flashed images of the real Tyeisha on the screen, but my face was the most prominent. The piece even ended with John Walsh giving me a “personal thanks” for being involved.

To me, the compelling story is still Tyeisha’s. How, like thousands of her friends and neighbors in New Orleans, she was torn from her support system, separated from the people who looked out for her. She’d tried to rebuild a life for herself and her child in a new state and instead became the victim of a brutal murder. But no one else seemed particularly interested in that story. According to the Centers for Disease Control, homicide is the second leading cause of death for black women between ages fifteen and twenty-four, but even to America’s Most Wanted, Tyeisha’s tale was only worth telling in relation to me.

I suppose I knew that the press tends to illuminate the exceptions, the extremes. The plight of the family with septuplets instead of the more common burden of unexpected twins; the detained immigrant with the amputated penis instead of the thousands with untreated depression. The impulse is understandable, and certainly an oddball story can draw attention to a worthy issue, but what of the issues inside the more common stories? By their very nature, such issues—like mental illness in immigrant communities, or the high murder rate among young black women—are more intransigent, harder to untangle and fit into a facile narrative. I imagine that maybe Jill Leovy, a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, was thinking this way when she created The Homicide Report, a blog on the paper’s Web site that attempts to report on every single homicide in Los Angeles County; last year, there were 324. As the explanatory page puts it, “only the most unusual and statistically marginal homicide cases receive press coverage, while those cases at the very eye of the storm—those which best expose the true statistical dimensions of the problem of deadly violence—remain hidden.”

It remains to be seen whether my appearance on America’s Most Wanted will lead to the capture of Tyeisha’s killer. Two months after the show aired, there are no promising leads, but I believe I did the right thing, as a human being and as a journalist, when I realize that had I walked out of that Georgia church ten minutes later, or turned left instead of going straight out the door, Tyeisha Martin—not yet twenty years old, mother, sister, daughter, hurricane survivor—would have died not only too soon, but in silence.

Veepstakes Hometown Dates

| No Comments

Last night, Jon Stewart compared Obama's courting of the press prior to and during his overseas trip to the reality TV show, The Bachelor ("As I understand it on each night of the trip Barack Obama will give a rose to the anchors he wants to stay.")

It isn't hard to see a similar application to the Veepstakes (in fact, we've so applied it here before).

Today, the Christian Science Monitor's Linda Feldman files a piece on the 2008 Veepstakes (The Most Shocking Rose Ceremony Ever, naturally) filled with Bachelor-like details.

In pursuit of McCain's final rose, Feldman reports, "[Tim] Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota... has cut off his little 'mullet' in favor of a more conventional hair style" (just like that martial arts master from Kentucky on the most recent Bachelorette!). And, so that he might appear more the marrying kind to McCain, Feldman writes, Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida will actually get married "thus dampening some of the concern about his lack of a wedding band" (having, or having had a ring didn't do much for Jason's pursuit of DeAnna).

The "beauty" of the Veepstakes (or "all the talk," as Feldman puts it) for a political reporter is that "there is no way to disprove any of the theories" (that is, idle speculation) "at least until the actual selections are announced." And, Feldman reports,"those with a window into [the candidates'] thinking aren't talking, and those who talk probably don't have a clue."

At which point Feldman quotes some of the people she just told readers are "probably" clueless.

Like "McCain insiders" who, Feldman reports, "stress the importance of the senator's personal comfort level with his potential No. 2" and suggest that Mitt Romney "isn't a slam dunk. But they don't rule it out."

And "Dan Schnur, who ran communications for McCain in his 2000 presidential race and is not active in the current race" who offers that Romney "still seems like an unlikely pick, if only because of the importance McCain puts on those types of personal feelings. But for all the talk, Romney certainly brings a lot of political benefits to the ticket, which could force McCain to reconsider how important that type of personal chemistry is to him."

Will the recipient of McCain's final rose be merely a Veep with benefits or true love? Stay tuned later this week (next week? week after?)

The New York Times on page one reports that the number of women in the workforce is declining. The recovery (which is all but officially over) from the 2001 recession is the first since 1960 where the percentage of women working is lower than before the recession.

In 2000, 74.9 percent of women worked. Last month, that had fallen to 72.7 percent. It’s not necessarily because more women are choosing to stay home. This goes a long way toward understanding why so many never felt the glow from the recovery of the last several years:

After moving into virtually every occupation, women are being afflicted on a large scale by the same troubles as men: downturns, layoffs, outsourcing, stagnant wages or the discouraging prospect of an outright pay cut. And they are responding as men have, by dropping out or disappearing for a while.

Indeed, while unemployment has remained low in the last seven years, the rate of workforce participation has decreased (something the Times should have mentioned), signaling that the economy isn’t creating enough good jobs to draw people back into the workforce—and that real unemployment could be higher than the stats say. The not-enough-good-jobs woes show up in women’s median earnings, which have fallen from $15.04 an hour four years ago to $14.84 last year.

The Times notes in so many words that any improvement in household incomes over the last few decades has been because of wives getting jobs, adding a second income to the traditional male-led family, and it says the loss of that income (an average one-third of the total) could be “potentially disastrous” for families.

This is interesting info:

Ninety-six percent of the men held jobs in 1953, their peak year. That is down to 86.4 percent today. But while men are rarely thought of as dropping out to run the household, that is often the assumption when women pull out.

By the way, the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale, too

The Bush administration is pushing harder on its campaign to save free markets from themselves. Yesterday, it sent Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson—gasp!—to The New York Times for an editorial meeting, and the Times gives his pitch for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout A1 play.

It even lets Paulson get by with this quote without any follow-up Times skepticism:

“The more flexibility we have on the credit facility, the more confidence you have in the market and the greater protection to the taxpayer because the less likely it will be used,” Mr. Paulson said. “Something like that shouldn’t have to be used. It’s like the Fed’s lender of last resort facility.”

So Paulson says we should give him a no-ceiling checking account with which to bail out Fannie Mae because if he has it he won’t have to use it. That’s like authorizing military action in Iraq back in 2002 so Saddam Hussein would back down so we wouldn’t have to use military action.

Anybody buying that line?

Cut up that card!

American Express posted weak earnings for the second-straight quarter, sending its shares tumbling 11 percent in after-hours trading. It seems even its wealthy customers are feeling the pinch from the downturn, and the problems accelerated during the second quarter, with June being the worst month. Calculated Risk points out a new term—superprime!—and notes that AmEx says even those top-notch spenders are showing strain.

The Wall Street Journal puts the news on C1, the Times runs wire copy on C3. AmEx profits dropped 38 percent and it socked away $600 million for future bad loans. The Journal:

The card company, which both issues plastic and processes electronic-payment transactions on its proprietary network, has been hurt by a slowdown in cardholder spending and rising losses and delinquencies in its fast-growing lending portfolio, which allows cardholders to carry a balance. To stem the losses, AmEx has been slashing credit lines and tightening its underwriting standards to a range of customers.

Apple’s stock drops, but is Steve Jobs okay?

Apple reported solid results with computer shipments up 41 percent, but issued conservative guidance for the next three months—as the company is wont to do—and its stock also plunged after hours by 11 percent. The WSJ on B1 says its outlook raises concerns for a nervous technology industry.

But much of the drop could have been because of hardly reassuring words from Apple’s chief financial officer concerning worries about CEO Steve Jobs’ health after the cancer survivor appeared gaunt at a recent event:

Responding to an analyst's question about CEO Steve Jobs's health, Mr. Oppenheimer said on a conference call that Mr. Jobs "has no plans to leave Apple" and the Apple leader's "health is a private matter."

The Journal inexplicably leaves it at that without any context about Jobs’ medical history. It should have expanded on that and it seriously underplayed the health information by putting it in the penultimate paragraph. The Times on C1 is not much better.

Yahoo buys off Icahn with three board seats

Yahoo agreed to give activist investor Carl Icahn three board seats to get him to end his proxy fight with the company over its refusal to sell to Microsoft, the Journal says on A1 and the Times on C1.

Yahoo will probably regret buying off Icahn, who only owns 5 percent of its shares. Here’s what he’s done at Blockbuster, where he owns just 14 percent:

Since he gained control of three seats on what was an eight-person board, the company's CEO and most of the top management have left. People familiar with the company say Mr. Icahn was able to block one major business venture and delay another for months. The company even holds board meetings in New York, because Mr. Icahn won't travel to its Dallas headquarters.

The Times says his board power could mean a better chance of a Microsoft deal.

Amen, Deborah Howell

| No Comments

The WaPo's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, joins the choir pleading for more substance in campaign coverage:

My monitoring of political stories since Nov. 12, done with my assistant Jean Hwang, shows that almost twice as many "horse race" stories (675) have been written as stories on issues (295) and biographical background (99). Part of that reflects the long primary campaign and the number of candidates....

[The candidates'] voting records should be explored extensively. Is Obama really relentlessly liberal? Is McCain really so conservative? Are both posing as centrists? While The Post has written about who advises the two candidates, I want to know what the advice is and whether it is being taken.

With global food prices up eighty-three percent over the last three years, world leaders are looking for any means available to ease the burden on consumers, especially in developing countries.

Potential policy-oriented solutions, such as relaxing the U.S. ethanol requirements that chew up the supply of corn and other foodstuffs, are manifold. We live in a world that reveres technology, however, and the promise that humans can engineer their way out of any bind. Thus, it was no surprise when, in April, The New York Times reported that:

Soaring food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on governments, food companies and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance to genetically engineered crops.

Yet two months later, after a plethora of articles exploring the biotechnology industry's ability to mollify world hunger, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) complained that some journalists had been misled. The nonprofit advocacy group issued a press release at the end of June, which argued that:

A number of recent news stories on soaring food prices worldwide have cited unsubstantiated claims that genetically engineered crops are the solution to the problem. In fact, according to experts at the UCS, there is no evidence that currently available genetically engineered crops strengthen drought tolerance or reduce fertilizer use. Nor do they fundamentally increase crop yields.

The UCS is partly right. While it can make a strong argument that genetically modified (GM) crops are unlikely to reduce global food prices and alleviate hunger in the short-term, there is, in fact, some evidence that they improve yields. The group, which has long criticized the alleged benefits of GM foods, is also only partly right about the related journalism. Its press release identified three problem stories.

The first was a June 5 article from the Los Angeles Times covering a United Nations emergency summit on food supply in Rome. The meeting focused on the correlations between biofuels production and rising food prices, but, as a sentence at the end of the piece reported, "American officials are also using the summit to promote genetic engineering as a way to boost food productions by the increasing crop yields."

While there is nothing technically wrong with that statement (nobody claims that GM crops are a solution - only that they could be), it hints at a common criticism made by biotech opponents — that the industry is taking advantage of global hunger to promote a dubiously beneficial product. In 2007, the number of worldwide acres devoted to biotech crops increased substantially for the twelfth consecutive year, according to the ISAAA, an industry trade group. U.S. exporters, who planted half of those acres, stand to benefit the most from more growth, and the food crisis may abet that. Indeed, a May article from the Chicago Tribune reported that:

The Bush administration has slipped a controversial ingredient in the $770 million aid package it recently proposed to ease the world food crisis, adding language that would promote the use of genetically modified crops in food-deprived countries.

While the article prominently notes that the value of GM foods is "intensely disputed," it is, nonetheless, another one of the pieces singled out by the Union of Concerned Scientists’ press release. The group complained about a quote from Dan Price, a food aid expert at the National Security Council, who told the Tribune, "We certainly think that it is established fact that a number of bio-engineered crops have shown themselves to increase yields through their drought resistance and pest resistance." Just one paragraph farther down, the Tribune reporter balances Price's quote with one from the national director of the Organic Consumers Association, who says, "I think it's pretty obvious at this point that genetically engineered crops — they do a number of thing, but they don't increase yields."

The UCS doesn't mention that quote, of course (tsk, tsk), but that omission doesn't invalidate the criticism. Too often, science journalists think that adhering to the old norm of "balance" fulfills their obligation to readers. But two conflicting statements do not enlightenment make. What is a reader supposed to think when one person says that GM crops boost yields and another says the opposite? In such cases, journalists must at least try to provide more context.

For starters, reporters can unbundle the crops. Referring to them in aggregate as having this or that effect on yields (or on any other variable) is utterly meaningless - they're all different. At this point there are really only three big crops to keep track of, anyway: corn, cotton and soybeans. (Dig deeper and you'll get a bit of data on rice, wheat, canola, cassava, tomatoes, and a few others.)

Because varieties of these GM seeds have only been available commercially since 1996, only a limited amount of data exists, much of which conflicts on the question of yields. The first generation of seeds was designed to make plants resist insects and herbicides (weed killers). They were not designed to improve yields per se (that is, they weren't designed to put bigger beans on the stalk or more corn on the ear). So, reporters write or quote sources saying that GM crops have not "improved" yields, which is true insofar as they weren't really designed to do so. But, according to a 2006 report [pdf] from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, some of them can "prevent yield losses" compared to non-GM crops, which succumb more easily to bugs and weeds. This report has been selectively quoted by groups like the U.K.'s pro-organic Soil Association and Friends of the Earth International [pdf], in order to make it appear that the USDA's ultimate conclusion was—flat-out—GM crops don't improve yields.

In fact, many studies agree that both insect- and herbicide-resistant corn have improved yields, although there is some concern that this only happens when pest infestation is particularly high. Cotton is a bit more contentious. There is strong evidence that GM cotton has helped turn India from one of the world's least fruitful cotton producers into one of its biggest exporters. Elsewhere, cotton has had mixed results, and even in India there have been problems — much like mosquitoes to malaria, harmful pests have been found to develop tolerances for their intended treatments. GM soybeans are by far the biggest disappointment yield-wise, and in some cases they've even led to yield losses. This is significant because soybeans are by far the most planted GM crop, and the rate of increase in global soybean acreage is rising faster than any other.

Again, none of this is to say that groups like the UCS and Friends of the Earth don’t make strong arguments that GM crops won’t assuage the global food crisis (and reporters should be as leery of reports [pdf] from pro-GM groups like the ISAAA as they are of those from Friends of the Earth [pdf]). Certainly, many news accounts have portrayed biotech's ability to stem that crisis in a rather Pollyannaish fashion. The third and final article cited in the UCS’s press release was from Investor's Business Daily in May, which reported in the nut graph:

Soaring world food prices appear to be chipping away at public and commercial objections to GM crops that sharply raise yields and slash growing costs for corn, wheat and other staples at a time when the biggest spike in commodities prices since the 1970s is driving up food prices worldwide.

The story gets more nuanced as it progresses, but it still makes it seem as though the next generation of drought-resistant, nitrogen-fixing, and nutrient-rich seeds is impending—a highly questionable conclusion. Of course, the press has also swung to the opposite extreme, dismissing the potential of new technologies wholesale.

The U.K.'s Independent did just that when covering a University of Kansas study [pdf] about how GM soybeans had caused yield losses in the U.S. The study was sturdy and newsworthy enough, but The Independent framed it with an egregiously exaggerated headline: "Exposed: the great GM crops myth." Ironically, the paper swung back to the other side of the debate two months later when it covered a European Commission report on pest-resistant corn - the only GM crop approved in Europe. The short article made it seem like the corn equivocally produced higher yields despite the fact that the commission’s report clearly stated that, “The results of the analysis were mixed.”

Reporters (and editors) must be more precise about such details because a lot is at stake. As myriad articles about the politics of GM crops have observed, the U.S. is ardently promoting biotechnology as a "key to the solving the food crisis." At the same time, other stories have noted that Europe, which has long opposed GM crops, is now grudgingly warming to them, as are China, Japan, and South Korea.

In early June, both the Associated Press and The New York Times covered Monsanto's promise to double yields of GM corn, cotton and soybeans by 2030. The Times coverage was especially skeptical, making it clear the attainability of such goals is a "matter of debate." The most detailed coverage of biotech's current capabilities and future projects, however, is to be found in two long features from late June and early July. The first, headlined "All about the yield," came from Canada's The Globe and Mail, and second, headlined "A time to sow?" came from the U.K.'s Financial Times. Both articles unbundle the various crops and run through profiles of Monsanto and Syngenta, the world's number one and two agricultural biotech companies respectively.

"And as we stand at the edge of the precipice of hunger once more, the world is again asking the men and women of the labs to perform their miracle," the Toronto Star wisely noted in a recent lede. Nonetheless, a number of articles have quoted Martin Taylor, the chairman of Syngenta, conceding that, "GM won't solve the food crisis, at least not in the short term."

That said, Taylor and his cohorts are working hard on the next generation of drought- and salinity-resistant crops, as well as seeds specifically engineered to directly boost yields. But, of course, this leads to some obvious questions that reporters ought to be asking. Will Syngenta and its competitors share these GM crops? What will be the impacts on the environment, human health, and biodiversity? Even if we grow enough safe, sturdy mega-crops to feed the entire world, we will still have to deal with fundamental and ongoing problems of consumption, distribution, and trade policy.

A number of recent article about GM crops role in the food crisis have discussed the need for a second "Green Revolution." The first pulled Mexico and India from the brink of famine in the 1940s and 1960s, respectively, by introducing higher yielding crops (achieved through conventional cross-breeding), fertilizers and pesticides. This time around, food experts hope for much of the same, but they've learned a few lessons from past experiences. In an editorial from early June, The Christian Science Monitor argued that:

A second green revolution would need to go beyond recent science in genetically modified seeds. Poor farmers often can't afford the high prices charge by companies that own rights to these seeds… Despite advances in GM crops over the past decade, world crop yields have risen at about half the yearly rate since 1990 as they did during the two previous decades of the Green Revolution.

Unfortunately, all of this information—from the yields, to impacts on health and biodiversity, to the policy obstacles related to solving the global food crisis—is difficult to present every time a source says something quotable about GM crops. Useful elaboration eats up space in print and broadcast outlets and defies the rush-to-post mentality of online publications. Nonetheless, reporters must make time to make some sense of the competing claims of the biotech industry (and its government proponents) and groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists. Human life hangs in the balance, and greater clarity is possible.

Sneaking in one last pundit punch before the New Yorker hits newsstands with a new cover this week, meta-media critic Howard Kurtz weighed in—twice!—on Sunday to reiterate that he just didn’t get the joke.

Appearing on Lou Dobbs on Sunday night to cover the coverage of Obama’s coming-of-age trip abroad, Kurtz rattled off all the magazine covers Obama’s face has graced recently, before shrewdly reminding us that “more coverage doesn’t always mean positive coverage” as last week’s New Yorker cover filled the screen.

But Kurtz saved his most earnest attack for his own show, Reliable Sources. On Sunday morning, he signed off by giving us his earnest opinion (again): the cover “was—and there's no other way to put it—offensive.” He turned the heat up on New Yorker editor David Remnick, who, in Kurtz’s words, “thought everyone would get the joke” but instead “found himself on the defensive.” Yes, Remnick was on the defensive, as were the people that Kurtz felt wouldn’t get the incredibly difficult concept of “satire” if they weren’t “sophisticated New Yorker readers” who wear Savile Row tweed and quibble over the finer points of Continental philosophy over their seared foie gras. “I think you underestimate the intelligence of the American people, to be quite honest,” Remnick snipped during Kurtz’s re-airing of that tense Wolf Blitzer interview.

Kurtz, however, was not convinced: “Well, maybe,” he retorted. “But Remnick would have been better off writing an essay explaining the artist’s satiric intent, because not everyone gets it. Not everyone is immersed in irony. When you’re playing with comedic fire, even smart New Yorkers can get burned.”

And then he signed off till next week when, hopefully, he’ll hand out explanatory essay assignments to Stephen Colbert and the The Onion.

The Blind Leading The Blind

| 1 Comment

Portfolio’s long profile of new Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth is a pretty good read. It would be hard not to write an interesting story about someone with the life she’s had, having tales like the whole Norman Mailer punching Gore Vidal at a family dinner party thing.

But if you’re looking to Weymouth for answers to the newspaper industry’s woes you’re not going to find them. That’s a lot to ask of anyone right now, but it’s disappointing to find the new leader of one of the country’s best papers without new ideas, or at least one that makes its way into this profile, which went to press before her pick of Marcus Brauchli as editor. And no, merging the print and online news divisions doesn’t count.

It is not encouraging to hear her buying into the Murdoch/Zell tart-things-up approach. Her quote in this piece has been discussed already, but it’s worth pointing out because it’s so arresting coming from the head of The Washington Post: “To some degree, it is puppies and Iraq,” she said, referring to Sam Zell’s infamous cussing of a Orlando Sentinel photographer about what readers want. She also complains that the front page of the paper boring—that “There are days on Saturday that I think maybe somebody is trying to not have people buy the paper.”

To what extent can the biz really blame its woes on content, especially those of one whose content is as good as anyone’s? There are bad papers, of course, and dumb papers, but just about everyone acknowledges that nearly all are more widely read than they were five or ten years ago. Newspaper Web sites, after all, got seventy million different visitors in May, according to the industry and Nielsen Online, or more than four out of ten on the Internet.

Add at least some of those online readers to papers’ still-substantial print circulation and that’s more readership than ever. Newspapers just have to find a way to monetize that online readership—and keep it on their sites longer. The Nielsen study found the average Web visitor spends just forty minutes a month on a newspaper site, not much more than the average per day for the print copy.

The Washington Post, for instance, somehow drew 9.2 million readers to its Web site in May without the Weymouth-approved puppy slide shows that may be on the way. That huge number is about fourteen times the Post’s daily print circulation of 673,000 (the comparison is complicated by the fact that not all 9.2 million Web visitors came every day—that’s total “circulation” over a month. Plus each newspaper copy is read by an average of at least two people).

The New York Times maybe should corner the market in kitty-cat multimedia blowouts, but if it doesn’t it’ll still probably be all right. It got 21.3 million unique visitors in May—far less than Yahoo News’ 35.8 million, but far more than that vaunted threat Google News with its 11.4 million. For the record, that’s about twenty times its 1,077,000 print circulation.

The point is lots of people like what newspapers offer and like to read them. This doesn’t mean they can’t do a better job of giving the people what they want and need—that’s always going to be the case. And I'm not arguing there's no place for puppies. There's just no place for reallocating dwindling hard-news resources to puppies.

But it does mean this is fundamentally a problem with the collapse of newspapers’ monopoly of a certain sizeable segment of the advertising market. Weymouth, being from the business side of things, may be in a better position to help fix that than someone from the news side. We’d love to hear her ideas, whenever she has one.

Per Lyn Sweet:

During one school year at Columbia, Obama was a telemarketer in midtown Manhattan selling New York Times subscriptions over the phone, wearing a headset. He did not like the job because "he worried that some of the people he called couldn't really afford the subscription."

Back in the early '80s, years before people got hung up on Obama, people hung up on Obama?

Parting Thoughts: John Sugg

| No Comments

I’ve been a print journalist for thirty-eight years, and have held senior editing and writing positions at The Miami Herald, Palm Beach Post, Atlanta Constitution, American Lawyer, Tampa Tribune, and the Creative Loafing alternative group. It’s been a fun trip, but a sad one.

I went to work for the Palm Beach Post in 1970. I was on a vacation to Europe when the Post’s owner, Cox, ordered all of its editors to endorse Nixon. The Post editor, Gregory Favre, resigned—and when I returned from Europe I opted for a job at the Herald, which at that time still reflected the great journalistic tradition of Jack Knight. Sylvan Meyer, editor of Cox’s other South Florida newspaper, The Miami News, was fired after he took his name off of the masthead the day the Nixon endorsement ran. Those events were traumatic—but the backdrop was horrible. As the great media critic Ben Bagdikian would later expose, America's publishers had bartered their endorsement to Nixon if his administration would drop its opposition to Joint Operating Agreements, the monopolistic, anti-competitive schemes the publishers used to prop up a "second voice," thereby deterring real competition from coming into markets. (A source, apart from myself, is CJR.)

The significance of that is that, for four decades, newspaper owners consistently have sacrificed integrity and watchdog reporting in favor of one grab-the-cash scheme after another—the latest being the muscling of the FCC to drop cross-ownership bans, which came far too late for the industry and wouldn’t have worked anyway, as illustrated by the arguably illegal “convergence” at The Tampa Tribune. As armies of critics have said (and been roundly ignored), investing in the product - doing great journalism - is not on the publishers’ agendas.

I live in Atlanta, where the Journal-Constitution has turned itself into a joke. As with most major dailies, it has become timid—afraid even to hire a metro columnist over anxiety that that person would have an independent base. Its coverage of the Bush administration and the Iraq war has been pathetic. It has withheld news that might offend Georgia’s white racists (as chronicled in the recent book Buried in Bitter Waters, by, incredibly, a Cox Washington reporter, Elliott Jaspin), and it gives many incompetent and corrupt black politicians a free pass because it’s afraid it will be called racist. With those sorts of wet-their-pants priorities, it’s not surprising that the AJC circulation has dwindled to a fraction of its peak. Now the editors, as elsewhere in the nation, are trying to con people with the assertion that the combined online and print readership is growing. That equates to someone in, say, Moscow, clicking on a single AJC story with someone who subscribes to the paper and reads the dozens of stories in it. After all, each is a “reader.”

In 1995, I made the decision to leave dailies, and went to work for the alternative press as an editor of the group now called Creative Loafing, which has papers in Atlanta, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Tampa, Charlotte, and Sarasota. Alternatives seemed to hold on to what little bit of life was left in local journalism. But they’ve been battered too. Although the origin of these papers is the “underground press” of the 1960s, the big groups—Village Voice/New Times and Creative Loafing—have fled the political arena. They are hardly voices of dissent, and their interest in investigative reporting is waning.

What’s left? The new model for journalism will be Internet-based and funded through nontraditional and traditional sources. I semi-retired from Creative Loafing this year (I’m still an owner and write a column), and with one of the top editorial writers from the AJC, Lyle Harris, and several other folks—including Jon Sinton, founding president of Air America—am starting a think tank called Think Atlanta. An independent companion entity will be the Georgia Online News Service Organization (we couldn’t resist the acronym, GONSO). Although the business plan is extensive, it boils down to: people in this state want intelligent, high-quality journalism, and they’re not getting it from traditional media. What we’re doing is similar to other projects popping up across America, from ProPublica on a national level to MinnPost, which is bringing quality local reporting and commentary to Minnesota. Most of these efforts are funded, at least in part, by journalism foundations, and that may be the best model for starting up the enterprises. We’ll do the same, with the objective of quickly becoming self-sustaining.

The other giant lie perpetrated by publishers is that they were bushwhacked by the Internet. As a business writer, I covered Knight-Ridder’s Viewtron experiment in the mid-1980s. I several times interviewed K-R Chairman Jim Batten, who knew full well what the implications of the clunky Viewtron were. For almost thirty years, the tree-killing, oil-wasting publishers knew the days were numbered for their manufacturing plants. Sure, they built Web sites, generally pretty awful. And they became excellent at portraying themselves as victims of Craigslist, Google, and the rest of the Internet. As the newspaper circulations plummeted, the advertising rates soared—what a deal for the publishers! Even better, they could fire (pick the euphemism) all of those non-revenue-producing, pesky journalists.

And what’s the final act going to be? In Atlanta, few people take the AJC, and even fewer take it seriously. It has a handful of great editorial writers, but since the paper is no longer capable of convening the community, it has forfeited its right to lead. Its news coverage is pathetic. That story is repeated in city after city. The national newspapers may survive, for a time, but the locals are on life support. Cause of death?

Suicide.




_________________________________






The steady drip of layoffs and buyouts, slowly desiccating once-vibrant newsrooms around the country, has also produced a reservoir of anger, sadness, fear, uncertainty—even some cautious optimism here and there—among reporters and editors who invested years, decades in some cases, of their lives to print journalism. We’ve asked anyone so inclined to channel these emotions, not into rant—although there will be a bit of that—but rather into reflection on what went wrong, and where we might go from here. We will publish one per day, under the headline “Parting Thoughts.” All of the letters we publish will be collected here.

Goodbye To Most Of That

| No Comments

The LA Times reportedly will replace its Sunday Book Review with "a smaller number of pages appended to the Calendar section," a move that several former editors of the section, including Steve Wasserman, are protesting.

Wasserman wrote about the decline of books coverage ("Goodbye To All That") for CJR's September/October 2007 issue.

MSNBC teasing a segment on Obama's overseas travel:

Will this trip add enough meat to his foreign policy experience to quiet the critics?

Sort of sums up what's often wrong with campaign reporting: The focus on strategy, whether something Campaign A does will suffice to “quiet” criticisms from Campaign B.

Not if/specifically how this trip could add "meat" to Obama’s “foreign policy experience” at all and then whether such beefing up should satisfy voters who might be looking for more. Not, what constitutes "experience in foreign policy" and let's examine the candidates’ experiences and their plans and try to separate for viewers the meat from the fat. But: Will Obama's trip deflate one of McCain's criticisms of Obama?

Absent Without Leave

| No Comments

John Cochran, a writer-editor for the federal government, writes:

Here’s a construction I don’t like: ‘Absent some better way … ‘ I’m not sure why, but that use of ‘absent’ really rubs me the wrong way. Thoughts?

“Absent” is mostly an adjective or a transitive verb. Absent any other evidence, it’s apparent that Mr. Cochran objects to its use as a preposition in place of “without” or “in the absence of.”

It often appears at the beginning of a sentence, but, like any preposition, it can go anywhere (yes, even at the end of a sentence, Churchillians be damned). Because it most frequently appears in a legalistic context, like judicial opinions, there’s some speculation that its use began in England, where much of our legal jargon originated.

But it’s purely American, and, as is the case with so many things American, it’s not fully accepted as “real” by many English people.

The Oxford English Dictionary cites a first appearance in 1944 and calls it “quasi-prep.,” which is Oxfordian for “it is not really a preposition, but go ahead and use it as such if you insist.” The New Oxford American Dictionary lists it as a plain preposition, but for “formal” use. (Don’t the American and British dictionaries talk to each another? Can’t they at least get their stories straight?)

Because it’s so new, you can actually trace a lot of its history. In Webster’s New World Dictionary Second College Edition, published in 1982, “absent” as a preposition is, well, absent. But by the 1991 publication of the Third College Edition, there it is, announced with the star that means “Americanism.”

Webster’s New World, it appears, is a little slow: Many other (American) dictionaries embrace “absent” unironically, giving no hint of its quasi-legal status or its struggle for recognition.

So should you use it? I’ll (reluctantly) go with the British here: use it, if you must. But what’s wrong with plain, ordinary “without”?

Send tips and ideas to languagecorner@cjr.org.

Campaign Plane Follies

| No Comments

So The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza writes a long, unsentimental story about Barack Obama last week, and then, wouldn't you know it, there's no room for him on Obama's campaign plane. Who else in the press corps is on the verge of having to fly commercial?

Joe Stephens: WaPo reporter dug deep into Obama's Hyde Park home mortgage for a gotcha story that wasn't. God knows what he'd do if found out that Obama is the kind of passenger who reclines his seat.

Carol Marin: Refusing to buy into Obama's hope-change-magic! campaign narrative, the tough-as-nails columnist/news anchor from Chicago is not afraid to criticize a candidate whom she has called an "elegant practitioner of political pragmatism," which is basically the same point that Ryan Lizza took 15,000 words to make. They can compare notes together in coach.

Eli Lake: In an article in The New Republic last week, New York Sun reporter Lake compared Obama to Ronald Reagan. Dems resent the implication that Obama died four years ago.

David Broder: The Washington Post columnist, while generally even-handed, has nonetheless called Obama opaque, an engima, and a one-trick pony. Also, he smells of Old Spice.

Skip Bayless: Nobody likes Skip Bayless.

"Obama spoofers walk a fine line," reports today's LA Times. Didn't the New York Times tell us this last Tuesday ("Want Obama In A Punchine? First, Find A Joke)?

Well, the LA Times's story is datelined Chicago; surely, the Times likely figured, there is something to be learned in this city (the one where Obama lives and "the home of the venerable Second City comedy troupe") about How To Make Fun Of Obama (that even the Times' own column Friday, "How To Make Fun of Obama," did not consider).

So?

The show's staff [at Second City] wrote a sketch featuring Hillary Rodham Clinton trying to hire a hit man to kill her rival. Her effort is thwarted when the murderer refuses to take the job because he is bisexual, and in love with Obama.

Maybe not.

Remember when ex-Gawker employee Emily Gould overshared on the cover of the New York Times Magazine? When she, in the course of 8,000 words, pondered Questions She's Faced In Life such as:

But how could I convey to Henry — who sometimes, onstage with his band, played entire shows with his back to the audience — the thrill of delivering a good line to a crowd that would immediately respond, that would fall over themselves to one-up your joke or fill in the blanks with their own suggestions and information?

Yesterday, it was David Carr's turn. In the course of his 8,000 words he pondered Questions He's Faced In Life such as:

Are you willing to destroy others, including little babies, in order to feed the monster within?

Not in my case, but it was a much closer call than I would like to admit. I now inhabit a life I don’t deserve, but we all walk this earth feeling we are frauds. The trick is to be grateful and hope the caper doesn’t end any time soon.

Who's a Winner?

| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks

In last Thursday’s Boston Globe, historian Howard Zinn wrote about the presidential candidates’ misleading uses of the word “win” when speaking about the military situations in Iraq and Afghanistan:

For someone like myself, who fought in World War II, and since then has protested against war, I must ask: Have our political leaders gone mad? Have they learned nothing from recent history? Have they not learned that no one "wins" in a war, but that hundreds of thousands of humans die, most of them civilians, many of them children?

He’s right, of course. The term “victory” in relation to recent armed conflicts seems almost non sequitur, not only because of the irreparable human costs associated with war but, more immediately, because of the changing schema of the conflicts. As Vietnam taught us, and as we are learning yet again in Afghanistan and Iraq, the concept of victory has become much less definable. In that sense Zinn makes a valid semantic point.

But to the candidates, the word “win” is rhetorically significant insofar as to not use the word—to speak more cautiously about such things as victories—is a campaign killjoy that could quickly become political suicide.

Take the comment made by McCain’s foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, in a recent conference call with reporters: "We cannot afford to replace one administration that refused for too long to acknowledge failure in Iraq with a candidate that refuses to acknowledge success in Iraq." (TPM noted this earlier in the week.) Way to identify the losers! Scheunemann lumps the current loser (Bush) with the candidate who can’t possibly be a winner in the future because he won’t “acknowledge success.”

In our American Culture of Winning (throw in baseball stat reference here), it probably is political suicide to imply that a war—or anything, for that matter—cannot be won. For the candidates to inspire confidence in voters, they must cast themselves as positive harbingers of what is in store for our country. When Reinhold Niebuhr cautioned against using absolutist language in forming foreign policy, I wonder if his thoughts also turned to voter confidence. Given the hair-splitting attention accorded to policy speeches (wherein positions have been debated on the head of a syntactic pin), it’s no wonder that the candidates want to come out on top, linguistically speaking.

The verb “to win” comes from the Old English winnan, to struggle. But the noun “winner” in our cultural vocabulary (and in Merriam-Webster) is not only “one who wins” but also “one who wins admiration.” Last week, McCain said, “I know how to win wars,” and Obama called the Afghanistan conflict “a war we have to win.” The (somewhat debatable) beauty of sound bites like these is that they allow both candidates to project their versions of a robust confidence about our country’s prospects abroad—and (at least theoretically) look like a winner at the same time. Both candidates, it seems, know how to use the word to earn double points.

Winning a war in the traditional sense of the word may have gone the way of nation-states, as Zinn suggests. But the rhetorical power of the word “win” may be too strong for the candidates to avoid. Zinn, in the meantime, can always turn his attention to Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, who favors immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and a titling switch—instead of the Department of State, a Department of Peace. Now those are some fighting words.

I'm no economist, but I think I have an answer to the question Erin Burnett, the 32-year-old CNBC anchor whom the channel regards as its "ultimate growth stock," asked just now on MSNBC.

After talking about yesterday's front page New York Times piece ("Given a Shovel, Americans Dig Deeper Into Debt," which begins: "The collection agencies call at least 20 times a day. For a little quiet, Diane McLeod stashes her phone in the dishwasher") Burnett asked:

Now that I've raised all the negative question marks...If Americans are so grim about their future, why then did they set the record for a Hollywood opening [Batman] this weekend? $155 million?

Can you think of a better way to avoid (perchance, to forget about) those 20 daily calls from collection agencies than sitting in an air-conditioned theater on a hot July day watching Christian Bale? (Which is about how MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski responded to Burnett:"A bad economy, going to the movies is all you can do, although that's expensive.")

Then Joe Scarborough chimed in:

No, no, Erin, you bring up a great point. We hear about how horrific the economy is. Americans are spending more money than ever before on entertainment. We were doing reports about how horrific the economy was the same morning we were showing long lines wrapped around the block of Apple stores across America. People going out, millions of people spending over $200 million for a toy when they could get a cell phone for $15...

What are those collection agencies calling about, anyway?

Opening Bell: WTF, FDIC?

| No Comments

The Wall Street Journal goes page one with a story about the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation running a bank that issued predatory subprime mortgages. The paper says hundreds of borrowers have subsequently lost their homes.

The banking regulator seized an Illinois bank in 2001 and continued to let it make loans for months while trying to sell it.

The FDIC then sold a big chunk of the loans to another bank. That loan pool was afflicted by the same problems for which regulators have faulted the industry: lending to unqualified borrowers, inflated appraisals and poor verification of borrowers' incomes, according to a written report from a government-hired expert. The report said that many of the loans never should have been made in the first place.

The bank that bought the shoddy loans is now suing the government.

It’s a big black eye for the FDIC that undermines its credibility as a regulator at a time when it could really use it.

Food companies stick it to customers

The Financial Times says on page one that food companies are planning significant price hikes. It says the price of Jimmy Dean sausage, for instance, may rise by 20 percent later this year. Kraft says it will push up its prices by 12 percent to 13 percent and up to a quarter for some cheeses.

Food inflation is already up more than 5 percent in the last year and the increases have been picking up speed. Meat prices hit a two-decade high recently and that’s prompting big cutbacks in consumption, the most in twenty-seven years.

It comes, of course, at a time when the economy is slowing generally and more people are losing their jobs or getting hours cut back, which has raised worries about a bout of seventies-style stagflation.

Eat, or drink, but not both

The New York Times on A1 reports that countries in the Middle East are facing a serious dilemma about whether to funnel more of their already limited water supplies to farming in order to deal with soaring food costs.

The paper says the countries import much more of their food than they grow and the rich ones are preparing schemes to buy land in places like Pakistan specifically to grow food for themselves. And the oil boom gives them plenty of money to spend:

Djibouti is growing rice in solar-powered greenhouses, fed by groundwater and cooled with seawater, in a project that produces what the World Bank economist Ruslan Yemtsov calls “probably the most expensive rice on earth.”

Please, Starbucks, don’t make me walk an extra block for coffee!

The Journal for some reason puts on A3 a story reporting that Starbucks customers are begging—begging!—the chain not to shutter their beloved coffee outlets in its round of 600 closings.

In towns as small as Bloomfield, N.M., and metropolises as large as New York, customers and city officials are starting to write letters, place phone calls, circulate petitions and otherwise plead with the coffee company to change its mind.

Seems a little flacky for A3.

S&L bailout was chump change

The WSJ has an interesting Ahead of the Tape column today on its Money & Investing section front.

The paper points out the folly of having financial institutions “scrounging” for money every quarter because they are significantly under-capitalized, and says the next step in the ordeal may well be something like the prospect of a savings-and-loan style Resolution Trust Corporation, which bailed out and sold off hundreds of failed banks. That cost taxpayers $76 billion.

Potential losses in this crisis are far larger, with estimates of $1 trillion or more being bandied about. Taxpayers won't be on the hook for anything close to that. But their bill could make the $124 billion they paid, in total, for the S&L crisis seem a bargain.

Rethinking investments in the U.S.

The Times on C1 looks at how the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis could affect how foreign countries invest in the U.S.

International investors own $1.5 trillion worth of Fannie and Freddie mortgages, which until now were considered quite safe.

Now that the two companies are at risk, how their rescue is handled will ultimately test the world’s faith in American markets. It could also influence the level of interest rates and weigh on the strength of the dollar for years to come, analysts say… Also at stake is Americans’ future ability to gain access to credit. If foreign companies and governments abandon United States investments, home, auto and credit card loans will be much more difficult to come by.

Sunday Watch 7-20-08

| No Comments

Imagine! Almost an entire installment of Meet the Press devoted to an interview with a private citizen who is not running for office—who receives the attention not only because he is famous but because he…knows something. Quite a lot, actually. He is, of course, Al Gore, and he knows quite a lot about how our Earth became unstable after centuries worth of humans tampering with carbon.

Tom Brokaw sat still for this rampant seriousness. He did not force Gore to debate a crackpot from cloud-cuckoo-land who is still waiting for the evidence to arrive about human sources of radical climate change. He cited Gore’s challenge to break our dependence on carbon-generating electricity production within ten years as if such an idea were not prima facie evidence of raving insanity. He gave Gore a chance to warn against the folly of continuing the reckless addiction to coal and oil without treating him as a stick-figure “ozone man,” as did a certain politician—without being ridiculed by the curators of the national dialogue—not so many years ago. He gave Gore the chance to argue against “just taking baby steps and offering gimmicks and, instead,” defend the proposition of “a strategic initiative.”

Brokaw broached a doubt: cost. “Let’s talk about the cost.” “What would electricity cost?” “What do we have to give up to reach the cost of a trillion and a half to three trillion dollars? There's going to have to be some pain, some sacrifice on the part of the American taxpayer, isn't there?” Somehow I don’t remember any of television’s talking heads acting so vociferously as surrogates for the American taxpayer in questioning the cost of the Iraq war during the heroic run-up days. But never mind. The cost question is legitimate, as is the question of how those costs will be paid. Brokaw rightly inquired.

He invited Gore to condemn Hillary Clinton for her provisional gas tax rollback (not noting that she joined John McCain in this). Gore refused to play the great game of inside baseball. He said that he disagreed, and more: “The real way to bring gasoline prices down is not by going back to try more of the same things that have not worked in the past, but to say, ‘Wait a minute, now is the time for a really dramatic shift over to renewable energy.’” He stayed on message: “Incremental baby steps are no longer responsible proposals.”

Brokaw could have nitpicked around the edges. To his credit, he didn’t. So, for a change, we got a TV talk show for grown-ups, where a burning issue of our time was discussed without a single gotcha moment, a single accusation of flip-flopping, a single objection from a representative of the Flat Earth Society. Hallelujah.

We may have a winner in the contest for the most distressing op-ed ever run by The New York Times. Benny Morris, a revered left-leaning Israeli historian, explains, in a certain tone, how upcoming Israel-Iran brinkmanship will play out. First, Israel will launch a conventional air strike on Iran's nuclear sites, probably before the U.S. presidential inauguration. It probably won't be enough to fully halt Iran's presumed bomb progress. And Iran will retaliate against Israel, striking cities (maybe with nasty chemical or biological weapons) and egging on terrorists. So, with both countries badly battered, and Iran's program ongoing — and perhaps hastened — what comes next?

Such a situation would confront Israeli leaders with two agonizing, dismal choices. One is to allow the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the best — meaning a nuclear standoff, with the prospect of mutual assured destruction preventing the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The other would be to use the Iranian counterstrikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal.

Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards.



No matter what, "Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust"! Sounds great.

That is, unless Iran doesn't have a leadership corps of, quote, "fundamentalist, self-sacrificial ... mullahs" willing to exchange their lives, and those of millions of innocent Iranians, for the sake of destroying Israel. So this ultimately unknowable question--is Iran deterable?--remains the biggest on the table. But if they are, Morris's first scenario, as unpleasant as a volatile region balanced on the uneasy tightrope of mutually agreed destruction may be, clearly has a lot more to speak for it.

So let's see a new round of serious press exploration of that topic in both the opinion and hard news arenas. (One template could be this clear-headed look at the true power of President Ahmadinejad vis-a-vis the ruling Ayatollah Khamenei that the Times ran on the eve of the former's New York visit.) If Morris's predicted timeline is anything close to right, Americans need the information to make up our minds as best we can. And we need it urgently.

Obama's Gym-O-Rama

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

Yesterday, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made not one, not two, but three, yes, count them, three, visits to a physical fitness facility, known colloquially as a gym.

“The Day of the Three Workouts” aroused attention from the ever-vigilant press and blogs who wondered if Obama is A) using the repeated workouts to emphasize McCain’s age or B) conducting VP vetting sessions under cover of sweat.

Seriously? Maybe he’s training for the Olympics? Or maybe he’s practicing moves for the next campaign ad which features a dance number to, you know, appeal to the MTV generation? It could just be the mystical appeal of things that come in threes.

This sort of treatment used to be reserved for the likes of Britney Spears, but now, the press seems determined to celebritize Obama.

And, it’s worth mentioning, that we’re still in the dark about McCain’s fitness habits. Last we heard, McCain’s in good shape, but we still don’t know if he’s a yoga or Pilates man. Inquiring minds want to know!

"Evangelicals Haven't Embraced the Democrats’ Agenda," crows Naomi Schaefer Riley in today's Wall Street Journal, gleefully dismissing Barack Obama's attempts to reach out to Christian voters. "Are religious voters feeling the stirrings of a new, leftward-leaning faith agenda?" she asks rhetorically. "Not really," she answers, citing two recent polls.

While Riley's argument doesn’t fall into the category of "damn lies," her statistics are misleading. If Riley were merely voicing skepticism that a sea change is really under way among the evangelical electorate, she would be justified. But her suggestion that Christian voters are the same voting bloc in 2008 that they were in 2004 is just flat wrong, and she uses specious analysis to reach that conclusion.

Her lead bit of evidence is a finding from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life that evangelicals remain more conservative than Americans generally. There's no arguing with those statistics: 61 percent of evangelicals believe abortion should be illegal, for example, compared to 43 percent of the population as a whole. But the more relevant question is whether evangelicals are shifting, even of some of these tough social issues. A comparison of today’s polls with polls from 2004 suggests that they are indeed: the number of evangelicals who believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases has dropped eight points. (Interestingly, though, young evangelicals are more rigorously anti-abortion than their grandparents.) Opposition to gay marriage has similarly declined, from 75 percent in 2004 to 69 percent in 2008. (Here, younger evangelicals are driving the trend—30 percent of eighteen-to-twenty-five-year-olds believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, as oppose to 15 percent of those over age fifty-six.)

But the debate about evangelical attitudes on social issues is something of a red herring. It is perfectly conceivable that even evangelicals who remain strongly opposed to abortion and gay marriage might consider voting Democrat because other concerns—the economy, health care, energy prices—are weighing heavily on them this election year. Corwin Smidt, of Calvin College's Henry Institute and the author of one of the studies Riley cites, explained, "Evangelicals haven't so much changed their position, but their agenda has broadened."

There is a growing frustration among evangelicals that they have lost much of their political clout in recent years because they became a single-issue voting bloc. In a January interview, Richard Cizik, the vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, described the alliance with the GOP as an “unholy” one “in which the evangelicals have given everything and gotten nothing in return." This year, he said in June, "I'm not going to vote for someone just because they're pro-life. I don't think evangelicals should either." He also cautioned the 30 million evangelicals his organization represents, "Do not cast your ballot for someone who supports the [federal] marriage amendment."

The question is how high evangelicals rank social issues on their lists of voting-booth concerns, not how they feel about those issues in the abstract. Surprisingly, this data is relatively hard to come by. The Pew Forum, which is widely considered the gold standard on religious polling, has not asked that question in its recent surveys. But polls have shown that at times during this election cycle, health care—not abortion—tops the list of evangelical priorities, while the economy, social security reform, and immigration all rank higher than gay marriage.

This does not mean that the 26 percent of Americans who consider themselves evangelical are all in play. Broad partisan realignment does not happen overnight in American politics, and social issues are not the only aspects of the GOP platform that have kept evangelicals loyal for a generation. Evangelicals do, in fact, remain the voting bloc least friendly to the Democrats. Fifty percent identify as Republican as compared to 35 percent of the population as a whole. But that is an 11 percent decrease since 2004. And John McCain has lost eleven points of the advantage George W. Bush had over his John Kerry among evangelicals at this time in the 2004, according to the Smidt's Henry Institute.

In a country whose political culture is as narrowly divided as ours, these small changes can have a dramatic effect on the outcome of an election, especially in swing states with considerable evangelical populations like Missouri, Florida, and Ohio. We may not be witnessing a sea change, but that doesn't mean there's no turning of the tide.

Read all about "Boogyin' With Barack."

Across the Pond

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

As a quasi-follow up to this post I made yesterday, here's an enjoyable reflection on the differences between the U.K. and American presses, from a British journalist who has worked in both countries.

My first encounter with the very different culture of US journalism came when I was working as a freelance in Washington about 20 years ago. Every now and then, I would wander into the Chicago Tribune offices next door - but I could see that something about me was upsetting their bureau chief. Eventually, he approached and said: "Would you mind wearing a tie when you come into the bureau?"

... Certainly, after a while in Washington I began to develop a grudging respect for my neighbours at the Tribune. I admired the fact that their investigative team would work for months on a single article. On the British paper I then worked for, an "investigation" was something we started on Tuesday and published on Sunday.

Read the whole thing in the Financial Times.

From the I'd-be-cringing-in-horror-if-I-weren't-laughing-so-hard department: footage of noted nuance-lover Barack Obama submitting to free-association game-playing while being interviewed about the economy. (Keep it snappy, Barack. No nuance allowed!) The whole thing, be warned, is incredibly, almost painfully awkward to watch.

And just to clarify, it isn't from Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show. It's from Fox Business News.

In other words, it isn't a joke. It's journalism.

Well..."journalism."







In her magazine profile of FBN (well worth a read, here), Liza Featherstone notes that the fledgling business network, commendable in many ways for its everyman appeal, is, at times, "just plain dumb."

I'd agree with her, but right now I'm too busy cringing.



[h/t: Gawker]

Cut the Dividends!

| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks

Gannett had one helluva bad quarter, losing a tenth of its revenues from a year ago and more than a third of its profits.

But something too often lost in all the gloom of the cataclysmic upheavals in the newspaper business is that they're still profitable—highly profitable in most cases. And they're throwing away big money every quarter in the form of rich dividends.

For all of Gannett's misery from April to June, it still posted a 13.5 percent profit margin, far below those famous (or infamous) margins of a few years ago that were about double that, but still a level that Wal-Mart (with 3.1 percent margins last quarter) or Toyota (4.8 percent) would love to have.

But Gannett’s dividend ratio is sky high. As of yesterday, one share of Gannett cost $17.24 but returns $1.60 in cash dividends to its holder annually. That’s a 9.3 percent yield.

The chain is hardly alone. The New York Times Company, while not nearly as profitable as Gannett, has a dividend yield of 6.9 percent. Media General has a 7.4 percent rate. McClatchy yields 14.7 percent, as Dow Jones Newswires says here. Lee Enterprises? 21.2 percent.

It’s clear these companies won’t be able to keep up dividend payments at their current levels. No industry could when its sales are falling at or near a double-digit rate—and soaring dividend ratios are often a sign for investors that a cut is in the offing.

But, allow us to run something up the flagpole here, just to “blue-sky” it for a moment; think “outside the box,” as they say in the world of high finance: Why pay dividends at all? After all, newspapers are not and probably never will be again the monopolistic cash machines of yesteryear. They’re hardly in the “widows and orphans” stocks class anymore with predictable cash streams like utilities or, cough, banks.

The Dow Jones story makes the point here about the NYT and McClatchy, just as our Audit commander did more than a year ago about Dow Jones itself before it was absorbed into News Corporation.

Here’s what Rupert Murdoch—by far a craftier businessman than anyone leading these other companies—said to The New York Times about DJ—just before he took it over:

”A year ago, they made $81 million after tax and paid $80 million in dividends,” he said, “and you can’t grow a company that way.”

But the families that control the voting shares of the companies depend on the dividends to support their lifestyle, putting them in a Catch-22: Give up the private jet or milk their cash cows dry.

What could the newspaper business do with a spare $311 million? That’s how much Gannett paid out last year in dividends and about how much it will this year. The struggling New York Times Company, which like everyone else has taken the ax to its news staff, dropped $125 million in “excess” cash on its investors last year. That surely would have made a difference in its newsroom, which has a budget of some $200 million. Even McClatchy paid out $59 million last year.

That’s a lot of cash floating out of a business that’s hurting for a new business model. Surely, newspapers could find better uses for these hundreds of millions of dollars than giving it back to shareholders (and family members).

Of course, lots of people invest in companies for their dividend payments, and companies that cut their dividends typically see their share prices fall.

But it just might be taken as a sign from investors that newspapers believe they can make better returns investing the money in their business, one that they think isn’t actually on death’s door. Or that the companies are paying down debt or creating a rainy-day fund to make it to the other side of these awful bad times.

Whatever, newspapers ought to end or at the very least severely curtail their dividends—and put the cash to more creative use.

Comrade Obama?

| 6 Comments | No TrackBacks

Only in our screwy media culture can a candidate imply, on little evidence, that his opponent is a socialist, confident in the knowledge that the press won’t scrutinize the claim, or stop to ask him what the hell he’s talking about.

In an interview with The Kansas City Star yesterday, John McCain said of Barack Obama: “His voting record … is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.” Asked whether he thinks Obama is a socialist, McCain replied: “I don’t know. All I know is his voting record, and that’s what people usually judge their elected representatives by.”

This morning, CNN.com, sensing controversy, transcribed that brief exchange into a news item.

There are, um, numerous problems here.

First, McCain, of course, wasn’t asked where his assessment of Obama’s voting record comes from. It’s likely, though, that he’s referring to the National Journal rankings, which found that Obama had the Senate’s most liberal voting record. But neither CNN nor the Star bothered to point out that those rankings have been challenged, persuasively, by numerous analysts. One of the votes that contributed to Obama’s “most liberal” ranking, for instance, was his support for a bill, proposed by Joe Lieberman, to establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity. Even National Journal’s editor has conceded that you should not rely exclusively on his magazine’s rankings to determine a candidate’s ideology—which is exactly what McCain, and therefore CNN and the Star, likely did in this case. Nor did either news outlet note that several other rankings put Obama much further down the list of “most liberal.”

But more fundamentally, neither news outlet independently tried to evaluate the validity of McCain’s implied charge. The obvious way to do that would be to examine Obama’s economic proposals (for instance, repealing the Bush tax cuts, which were aimed primarily at the wealthy, and instead providing a tax cut for 150 million working- and middle-class Americans), and then consider whether they meet the commonly understood definition of socialism, which Wikipedia describes as “various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services.” (They don’t.)

(It’s also worth noting that neither news outlet challenges the obviously mistaken idea that “socialist” means “really really liberal.” Senators vote on scores of issues that have nothing to do with economics. Support for abortion rights, or stem cell research, has nothing to do with socialism—Stalin criminalized abortion. But maybe it’s too much to expect this level of precision from political reporters.)

The larger point is this: about two minutes worth of close scrutiny would be enough to convince any reasonable observer that to suggest Obama is a socialist is to drain the term of any meaning. Everyone involved knows this, including McCain (which is why he settled for implying, rather than saying so outright.) But by the rules of today’s political press, the “news” is that McCain made an explosive-sounding attack. Whether that attack is substantively valid just isn’t relevant to reporters.

Wikipedia, aid and scourge of journalists the world over, is considering adding a layer of monitoring to protect the site and its readers against vandalism. The update to the Wiki hierarchy, currently in a kind of pilot phase in German Wikipedia, would require an editor to sign off on each update users make before those updates go live. Per the Times's Bits blog:

The idea, which is called “flagged revisions,” has only been possible in the last few months because of a new extension to the software that runs Wikipedia. It is sure to be a hot topic here at Wikimania 2008, in Alexandria, Egypt, because it promises to enact a goal for “stable versions” of articles that has long been championed by Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales.

In other words, the encyclopedia may cede a bit of democracy in the name of stability.

The announcement comes, as luck would have it, the same week when John Seigenthaler, the former NBC News reporter and weekend anchor, has been in the news for taking the helm of his family's PR business. In 2005, Seigenthaler became a victim of Wiki-mischief when the following fib spent 132 days sitting on his Wikipedia page:

John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.

As Seigenthaler noted in a USA Today op-ed about the experience of being Wiki-dissed, "we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research—but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects."

Looks like those vandals might now have to work a little harder to expose the ink in those poison pens.

Good news for all you tired, you poor, you huddled bloggers yearning not to work for free: you might be getting paid! Well, someday! Down the road! Maybe!

In an interview with Colby College's alumni magazine (h/t: Jeff Bercovici), Huffington Post CEO Betsy Morgan allowed the possibility that the "newspaper of the future" might eventually—gasp!compensate its bloggers.

Asked by Colby Magazine whether HuffPo has plans to pay its contributors, Morgan responded:

Not all of the plays have been written yet for this company. That said, we have a very good relationship with our bloggers; we're unbelievably respectful of them. By blogging, they get terrific exposure and our brand gives them a unique platform. We've had a positive two-way relationship with them. Could that include money at some point? Sure. But it feels very 1993 to say, 'Hey, it's all about the check that I get at the end of the month.'

I don't know, Betsy. Saying that feels very 2008 to me...

God bless Lou Dobbs, America’s only working home-security system. If it weren’t for him, you’d never know what to be scared of. And this time, the threat is real, people. Forget Spanish lessons and salmonella: there are troglodytes on the loose.

Yes, troglodytes. Last night, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Dobbs what he thought of Al Gore’s speech wherein the former veep slammed the idea of off-shore drilling as “perverse.” Here’s what Dobbs had to say about that logic:

Al Gore, whatever else he is, has lapsed into some sort of black hole of environmental nonsense from which he can't extricate himself….We've got to do everything we can to relieve the burden on our working men and women, their families and middle class. Because these prices are going to go higher, not lower, if we don't lift that ban…we should be trying and desperately trying, working as hard as we possibly can, innovating to create those alternate energy sources. But we can't have troglodytes running around suggesting we're not going to drill for oil…We have enough people in this country in both parties saying what we can't do. And Al Gore among them. We need leaders now telling us how to get things done.

Surely Dobbs meant to say “nay-sayers” or even “environmentalist sissies,” not “one of various races or tribes of men (chiefly ancient or prehistoric) inhabiting caves or dens (natural or artificial).” And I’m guessing he didn’t mean to refer to “some kind of deer or other horned quadruped.” Just guessing, though.

Barack Obama: No Sweat

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

So, in addition to his many other otherworldly qualities—the leg-thrilling oratory, the generation-uniting charisma, the Halo of Hope that bathes him in a glow of light—it looks like we've got one more to add to the list: Barack Obama, apparently, doesn't sweat.

No, seriously. Dry as a bone. The Dems' nominee presumptive does aspiration, yeah. Inspiration, sure. But perspiration? Nope.

We get this odd bit of TMI in the wake of yesterday's rabid speculation about the candidate's trifecta of gym visits on Wednesday: Was he demonstrating his athleticism? treating a sore hip? secretly meeting with potential running mates? sneaking off to an enchanted forest to frolick with unicorns and various woodland creatures? No one seemed to know for sure. But then, out of the blue, unasked for and odd, the AP gave us the following:

A distinct lack of visible sweat on the Illinois senator triggered questions about whether he was actually exercising or using the gym visits as cover for conducting vice presidential vetting or interviews.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton e-mailed a succinct, two-word answer: "Working out."

That view held credence among some of the photographers who regularly accompany Obama. They said that even when he shot hoops earlier this year with members of the University of North Carolina varsity men's basketball team, they didn't see Obama sweat.

Got it? Obama wasn't sweating, but that doesn't mean he was vetting. He's just not a sweaty guy. Deem that "effete" or "Messianic" as you will; as far as I'm concerned, anyway, Obama's humanity has been a question ever since we found out that he doesn't like ice cream.

This is the second entry in a series examining John McCain’s health proposals and how they have been covered in the press.

The sound bite you hear most often from John McCain about his health care proposals is that he wants to put families in charge of medical decision making. In “Straight Talk on Health System Reform—‘A Call to Action’”, a document published on his Web site, McCain says “the key to health care reform is to restore control to the patients themselves.” At first glance, it’s hard to argue with that premise, and so the sound bite sounds good. It plays well in Peoria, as Richard Nixon’s operatives used to say. But what’s under the hood here? If putting patients in charge is the cornerstone of McCain’s health initiatives, shouldn’t the media have been evaluating his premise?

The truth is they’ve been MIA on this one. There’s been virtually no examination of what McCain means by his lofty sound bite, and how that sound bite squares with reality. He has used it to imply that government bureaucrats should not be in charge of health care, forgetting that managed care organizations now make many decisions about what treatments people get and who gives them. Last April, when he announced his health care plan, stories like the one in USA Today’s On Politics blog quoted him saying: “My approach to transforming health care is to put families in charge.” Since then, the topic has scarcely surfaced, giving more credence to McCain’s Great Escape from press scrutiny.

One story that did appear comes from the Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com), an online news service whose parent organization is the Media Research Center, which specializes in media criticism with a right wing point of view. The Center’s chairman, L. Brent Bozell, has long been active in conservative Republican politics. The news service’s Web site says that CNSNews.com is “an effort to provide an alternative news source that would cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission.” Its mission is also “to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story and debunk popular, albeit incorrect myths about cultural and policy issues.”

Of course, what’s legitimate to the Center may not seem that way to another observer. But a recent news service story, headlined “McCain: Health Care Choice for People,” gave a pretty fair nuts-and-bolts description of the highlights of McCain’s proposal, and even included comments from a spokesperson from “the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund.” The end of the story featured a familiar McRefrain: “families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control of care.” The kicker amplified the point, noting that McCain would use competition to improve the quality of health insurance and impart greater variety to better match people’s needs.

The story’s last few paragraphs provided a perfect opportunity for CNSNews.com to make the connection between family decision-making practices and the consumer health information business—a mushrooming industry searching for keys to the kingdom of health care consumerism. The CNSNews.com story, like all the others that mentioned McCain’s emphasis on family decision-making, didn’t make the link. Too bad—a very good story lies therein.

If health care competition is to work, shoppers need information—good information that will help them pick an insurance policy, doctor, hospital, or whatever. Then, there must be an incentive for shoppers to act on this information, instead of just sticking with their default options. Finally, the theory must work in practice—prices go down and quality goes up because people choose the best options for them. But real-world data indicates that buying health care may not be the same as buying an iPod, and that the empty talk about putting families in charge of their health care decisions may be just that—empty talk.

A few weeks ago, amednews.com reported on a poll done late last year by the California Health Care Foundation, a health care philanthropic organization based in Oakland. The poll showed that, although 80 percent of adult Californians use the Internet to find health information, only 22 percent looked at sites that rated physicians—and only 2 percent changed doctors based on the information displayed on those sites. The numbers were similar for online ratings of hospitals and health plans: about 25 percent of those surveyed looked at ratings, with only 1 percent making a change.

The survey didn’t try to explain why the numbers are so low. It may be that people are more comfortable making these decisions based on word-of-mouth recommendations; perhaps they are just plain confused by the number of sites and don’t know whom to trust. The federal Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) found twelve rating schemes for physicians, twenty-six for medical groups, eighty-one for hospitals, and eighty-six for health plans—numbers daunting for even the savviest consumer. They raise the question whether such data can ever influence family decision making in health care.

A study I did a few years ago, also with the California Health Care Foundation, offers another cautionary tale about McCain’s focus on competition in health insurance. We rated Medicare HMOs in California and found that one health plan offered a terrific drug benefit. Later reports we did showed that the plan no longer provided its great drug coverage. What it now offered was the same mediocre benefit its competition was selling. Being wise consumers, seniors chose the plan with the best drug coverage, but too many people with high drug needs and costs blew the plan’s bottom line, so it simply reduced coverage. In insurance jargon, the health plan was “selected against,” and it adjusted its policies accordingly. Some enterprising journalists need to tell us how McCain’s call for competition in health insurance will deal with that.

25 or 6 to 4

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

The New York Times’s Jeff Zeleny makes a tiny flub in writing up Obama June fundraising numbers, writing that:

..,the magnitude of [Obama’s] fundraising challenge—reaching a goal of $300 million—was underscored by Mr. Plouffe’s pitch for each of the donors to give $25 more.

In the print issue, the $25 number is even highlighted in a pull quote.

But as The Politico’s Ben Smith noted yesterday, the Obama appeal was more sophisticated. It seems that rather than ask all donors for another $25, the emails are microtargeted in tune with each recipients past donation record, and maybe other demographic data. Some report being asked for as little as $5 and others say they were asked to give the federal maximum of $2,300.

That’s not a surprising fundraising tactic, for a political campaign or any other kind of organization. But it does highlight the risk of reporters assuming that the campaign email in their inbox reads the same as the one in everyone else’s.

Earlier this week, we praised the outlets that are keeping the story of Myanmar's devastation in both the news and the American consciousness. Among the pieces we mentioned was CNN's on-the-ground report on the bleak situation in the Irrawaddy Delta, which depicted, in ways a print story simply cannot, the deplorable conditions so many of the cyclone's survivors have been living in for the past two months—and likely will continue to endure for a long time to come.

CNN has been airing an extended version of that segment, this one exploring in more detail the difficulty of reporting in Myanmar. "Forbidden Journey" features reporter Betty Nguyen narrating the journey she and her crew took to get from Thailand into Myanmar, sneaking past junta checkpoints and taking boat ride after boat ride after boat ride (twenty-one hours of travel). "Just getting into the country was half the battle," she notes.

As images of Nguyen—driving, sitting on a boat, waiting for another boat, sleeping—cycle onscreen, she describes the trip in more detail. "We slept in stifling conditions," Nguyen intones with a note of drama, "and lived off of little more than bottled water and Power Bars....We had to work quickly, capturing what we could, never knowing when we'd get caught, trekking though muddy fields, over makeshift bridges, and right into rice paddies."

Interesting stuff. "Forbidden Journey" is, on the one hand, a valuable look behind the scenes of a difficult reporting job (of encountering rotting bodies, Nguyen notes, "I knew we would find them; I just didn't know how haunting it would be"), not to mention a fairly scathing commentary on the absurdity of the junta's ban on foreign journalists. The reporting here, and the risks Nguyen and her team took to undertake it, are both commendable.

And yet. There's something wrongheaded—I'd say full-on offensive—about making Nguyen and her challenges, rather than the suffering of the Burmese people, the star of the show. Fetishizing the reporting here not only minimizes its subjects—the ones who, it should go without saying, deserve center stage—but it also sucks up air time that could have been used to tell their story in more detail. It's hard, given the context, to feel much sympathy for Nguyen and her team and their bottled water and Power Bars. And it's absurd that they would ask us to.

Sure, they faced challenges during their reporting trip. But they also had a home to go back to when it was over.

Drilling for Angles

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

Speaking of stretching for a newsy angle, The Wall Street Journal overreached yesterday with a story headlined "In California, Support Grows for Offshore Drilling."

That angle got the story prominent placement on page two of the paper. But the poll of Californians it cites showed an increase in support for offshore drilling of just four points from three years ago and a decrease in opposition of six points. The increase in support is statistically insignificant—the margin of error was 3.5 percentage points—and a clear majority of 51 percent to 43 percent still oppose it.

It's more surprising that the huge gas-price hikes of the last three years have barely moved the needle on the question.

In the wake of McCain's and Obama's appearances at the National Council of La Raza conference earlier this week, Jon Stewart institutes a new method of measuring their success in charming hispanic voters. (Who needs opinion polls?) "The best way to measure success in wooing the Latino community," Stewart says, "is by using the Dobbs-O-Meter: the angrier Lou Dobbs gets, the better you're doing."

Watch the video below; the NCLR segment comes about 6 minutes in.







No wonder Merrill Lynch is selling its Bloomberg stake.

The investment bank lost $4.7 billion in the second quarter on nearly $10 billion in new write-downs. That was double what analysts had feared, The Wall Street Journal says on C1. The New York Times in a C1 story on Merrill’s CEO John Thain’s difficulties says the write-downs bring its charge-offs to $41 billion since last summer.

The Journal has the Quote of the Day from the star analyst of the bear market:

"Merrill is a massive ship to right, and that is not going to be possible in a near-term timetable," said Meredith Whitney, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. "Revenue is going down, expenses can't go down fast enough, and he is now selling the sofa to pay the rent—and next month it will be the dining-room table."

Merrill is not only selling its 20 percent Bloomberg stake for $4.4 billion, it’s also unloading Financial Data Services for $3.5 billion to raise cash. Why? Here’s a Journal paragraph illustrating the litany of problems facing banks like Merrill:

The latest write-downs included $3.5 billion in collateralized debt obligations, which are securities backed by pools of mortgages or other assets, $2.9 billion in hedges with ailing bond insurers, $1.7 billion in Merrill's bank portfolio, $1.3 billion from residential mortgage exposures and $348 million on leveraged finance. Merrill also took a $445 million pretax restructuring charge to account for job cuts in the quarter.

The Financial Times on its page one quotes Thain saying he sees no end for the credit crisis.

That's a silver lining?

It wasn’t all abysmal for Wall Street though. JPMorgan Chase’s profit fell 53 percent—but it still made $2 billion in the second quarter.

The Journal on C1 says its results show a “chasm is opening between the strong and the weak” and reports that PNC bank of Pittsburgh actually increased its profit 19 percent in the quarter.

But in a reminder of the threats still facing the strongest of the banks, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said that its prime mortgage portfolio was weakening significantly and losses could triple by next year. Most of the losses in the financial industry so far have been in subprime mortgages. The Journal calls this “an ominous sign for the rest of the industry.” And let's face it, when a 53 percent decline in profit is treated as good news, you've got problems.

The Times on C2 says JPMorgan issued $1.1 billion in write-downs and its profits were lower because of credit card losses, as well as those in mortgages.

In other earnings news, Google and Microsoft reported results that were lower than expectations, the Journal says on A1 and the Times on C1. The Journal goes with the “Tech Firms Rise Above Economic Turbulence” angle while the Times headline says “In Surprise, 2 Tech Titans Disappoint.” The FT also uses the word “disappoint.”

Wachovia raided

State securities regulators raided a Wachovia office in St. Louis yesterday to gather information about its sales and marketing of auction-rate securities—the $330 billion market once sold as a cash alternative, but that’s now been frozen for several months. The Times and Journal both put the news on C3.

The agents were from several states, but Missouri officials said the office was raided because Wachovia hasn’t “fully complied with requests” for records, the Journal reports.

A raid, of course, (especially after something of a stonewall) usually means this story’s worth watching.

Freddie's fire sale

The Journal leads its page one with a report that Freddie Mac, the little brother of Fannie Mae, is planning to raise $10 billion in stock to shore up its capital and avoid a government bailout—and the regulation that would result. The question: Who would want to buy it?

A sale by Freddie of common and preferred stock could be tough to pull off. For starters, the preferred shares would require Freddie to offer a very high rate of return to attract buyers. The yield on one existing issue of Freddie's preferred stock, for example, is about 13.8%.

That’s what you call expensive financing. And the Journal says even if it’s successful it might only delay a government bailout. as the paper says “the housing crisis shows no signs of slowing.” Tell that to your cousins at Barron’s.

The two companies’ stocks have risen sharply in the last couple of days after plunging last week. Yesterday Freddie was up 22 percent.

Drip, drip, drip

In economic news, housing starts were weak for the month. They actually rose 9.1 percent in June but only because of a quirk in New York City building rules. Without that change, starts fell 4 percent, the Journal says on A3 and the Times on C7.

New unemployment claims increased to 366,000, up 18,000 on the week.

Good lord. The Washington Post, in the midst of rolling out its big, bold, incredibly odd Chandra Levy inquiry, fronts today's paper with another searing investigation: into the danger of DC's double decker tour buses.

Seriously. Here's the lede:

Passengers riding in a double-decker sightseeing bus ducked and brushed aside low-hanging branches yesterday as they toured the District while hearing frequent recorded warnings to beware of "obstacles" such as tree limbs, electrical wires and bridges.

The story comes with video footage of DC's DDD (Double-Decker Danger) in action (multimedia! visual dynamism!). And said video is pretty crazy: riders duck as the bus's top deck just barely skirts trees, and one guy's cheek gets a butterfly kiss from a tree branch.

DC's DDD is newsworthy—"the potential danger of riding on the top tier of a double-decker bus became clear a week ago when two passengers were killed after their heads struck an overpass along the Southeast Freeway," the article notes. But is it front-page news, in a paper that's much more than local? Don't think so.

Wow, who knew how many people love Rachel Maddow?? In the wake of Jacques Steinberg's New York Times profile of the MSNBC pundette—favored, Steinberg reports-slash-suggests, to get her own anchoring gig once Chris Matthews's contract expires next year—the often snark-laden world of media blogging has united in massive, fawning, and not-even-ironic adoration of Maddow.

Vanity Fair:

She has been top-notch. She’s no one’s cutesy sidekick. Openly gay, with looks that might be described as “handsome,” she’s fast-talking, geeky, flawlessly informed, and absolutely dogged in exposing scandal no matter how un-sexy it is for cable news....O.K., she’s been a bit relentless about McCain’s clueless-ness at the computer. But self-puffery by humiliation is not in her arsenal.

Gawker:

Rachel Maddow is pretty great, right? We had no idea she had a doctorate from Oxford! Also—she's gay? We learned those things and other things in a Times piece about how Chris Matthews better watch his back.

Jossip:

Very quickly, Maddow became MSNBC’s work horse, guesting on others’ shows whenever asked and filling in whenever necessary — even though she has her own daily 3-hour Air America show to attend to. Likely, she’d have to abandon that show to take a permanent MSNBC gig.

And then there’s Maddow’s little lesbian matter, as in, she is one! And except for accepted closet cases like Anderson Cooper and Shep Smith, Maddow would become the first out pundit on cable news. Big deal, indeed.

New York:

Phil Griffin (who you may or may not remember as being an awesome hippie) who just became the president of the network, loves her, and after reading today's Times story about her, we kind of love her too. (With apologies to Chris Matthews whose job she's probably going to get. Our love is fickle — what can we say?) Below, six reasons why Rachel Maddow is our new girl crush.

1. She once had a job that feels like one we would have had: "Less than a decade ago she was working odd jobs in western Massachusetts, including one at a Northampton coffee-bean factory where she cleaned out buckets."

2. In another job, she wore "an inflatable calculator costume at a local Ford dealer." (That feels like a job we would have had, too.)

3. Also, she has a bachelor's degree from Stanford and a doctorate from Oxford, which she attended on a Rhodes scholarship. She wrote her dissertation on AIDS in prisons. (Here is where we stop relating and start admiring.)

4. She is openly gay, but: “I will not dance the way Ellen does.”

5. She says "Duh" in an interview with the New York Times. Speaking about how Fox asked her to comment on Madonna kissing Britney Spears at the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards, she said: “They thought I had expertise, maybe,” she said. “I said no, duh.”

6. Despite being a total liberal, she's not one of those annoying Obama people. “I am not a fan of either candidate.”

Okay, we still don't want to kiss her or anything. But still: Swoon.

Sheesh. Perhaps Maddow's MSNBC show should be called Everybody Loves Rachel.

The Us Weekly-ization of journalism might just be complete. On TIME magazine's Web site to check out the candidates' takes on Afghanistan, I saw this:












Love it. And I'm already looking forward to TIME's analysis of the Bush/Cheney bromance.

Lately, John McCain and the GOP have been attacking Barack Obama for not having recently visited Iraq. (The RNC’s Web site features a running clock showing the amount of time that has elapsed since Obama’s last visit.) Now that Obama has announced he’s planning a trip, McCain is hitting him for, before the visit, allegedly having already made up his mind about withdrawing troops, telling a crowd in New Mexico on Tuesday: "[Obama] is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to Gen. Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time."

The press has, almost uniformly, transcribed this line of argument (see this from CNN, this from the Associated Press, and this from The New York Times, among many other examples). In doing so, it has helped promote the notion that physically traveling to a war zone is close to the be-all-and-end-all of setting war policy.

But that notion could use some closer scrutiny. It’s not just that we don’t yet know what Obama’s visit will entail. (Will he be speaking to commanders on the ground who can genuinely give him a better sense of the situation than he gets from Washington? Will he visit genuine combat areas, or just drop in for a photo-op in the Green Zone?) Those questions will likely be answered in due time.

Rather, it’s that the press doesn’t seem interested in assessing how and in what ways, exactly, visiting Iraq might help a candidate formulate his Iraq policy. What will it tell him that he couldn’t have learned in Washington? How might Obama incorporate what he learns with his long-standing belief that, tactics aside, even victory in Iraq—however that’s defined—isn’t worth the costs, and that America’s finite resources could more profitably be spent in places that are more central to the fight against al Qaeda (like maybe here)?

Obama’s decision to visit Iraq proves only that he thinks that there’s a PR value to being photographed in Iraq. It says nothing about the underlying substance of the issue.

To be clear, I’m not arguing that visiting Iraq couldn’t help a candidate set policy. But right now, by uncritically repeating McCain’s assertion that it’s irresponsible to set policy before such a visit, the press is allowing the debate to be waged on a level so superficial that it becomes hard for the public to assess the question for itself.

And since John McCain has chosen to make this issue the centerpiece of his recent attacks on Obama, that means the press is failing to give people the tools they need to evaluate a crucial campaign debate.

Matt Yglesias, Atlantic reporter and uber-blogger, announced last night—after his news was outed by colleagues—that he'll be leaving the world of journalism for the nearby-yet-also-worlds-away realm of the think tank. The Center for American Progress, to be precise, where he'll be working on ThinkProgress and its affiliates.

"I think CAP is a great organization, I miss the sense of collegiality that comes from working with like-minded colleagues on a shared enterprise, I think I can help advance their mission and when it turned out they felt I could too and were willing to make me an attractive offer, I was thrilled to take it—no beefs with existing employer required," Yglesias writes.

As Andrew Sullivan adds, "He wants to be more committed to the causes he believes in than an independent journalist can be, and so I respect his decision."

Yglesias will keep his blog, whose content will stay pretty much the same—"the blog will have a different URL and a different design so it'll fit in with the ThinkProgress family, but the blog has changed URLs and designs several times in the past so that's nothing new."

Yglesias-and-blog will make their official move over to ThinkProgress in early August.

Don't Bean Count Me

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

I’m sick of hearing about the bottom line. About cost benefit analysis, bean counting, profit margins, and soft markets. I’m sick of newsroom cuts, of reporters sent home, of newspaper teams—families, really—broken and torn. I’m sick of buyouts, of slashes, of cutting the fat.

Why do journalists put up with this? I’d love for every single reporter, from the tiny three-reporter office in a small town in Ohio to the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, to lay down their pens and notebooks, turn off their computers and recorders, and strike. Stand up, walk out, and show that we are a force. And we’re pissed.

This month, some 1,000 newspaper reporters have lost their jobs, with about 150 positions cut from the Los Angeles Times alone. Owners of newspapers big and small are splicing and dicing their workers, who, after dedicating their lives to the craft, to the people, are suddenly left unable to serve.

“You guys have given this place everything and asked for little in return,” one reporter at the Los Angeles Daily News wrote to his colleagues there, after twenty-two jobs were cut earlier this year. “You've sacrificed yourselves for love of the craft and love of the community…”

And it’s true; we are working for you, dear reader. We are your news.

We are stories and facts that people need to and want to know. We are the eye-opening adventures, the inspiring accounts, the watch-doggers, the justice-seekers, the tattle-talers, the unravelers, the explainers.

Most of America, I suspect, still gets its news from traditional sources. We are still how you know the election, the Oscars, the Super Bowl, and the war. We are how you know about international affairs, political revolutions, the economy. We are your eye on your city council, your school district, your mayor, and your president. We are who won, what’s playing, how to save money, and where to spend it. We are cures, we are disease, we are questions and answers. We are how you know—and, to our fullest capabilities, we are your voice. Without us, it would sure be one long game of telephone.

I’ve been a journalist for a few years now, though I’m only twenty-six. Along the way, I have found reasons to keep at it. Like a story my journalism professor at USC, Miles Corwin, wrote about a racetrack in Los Angeles. “I drove by that race track all the time,” I remember him saying, “and I wanted to know if people actually lived in those old falling apart buildings.” As it turned out, those were the track workers’ homes, and they were in appalling condition. After his story about it came out, the track was forced to clean up its act and provide the workers with a better place to live. By reporting the facts, we sometimes effect change, because people throw up their hands and say “what the hell.”

Politicians, victims, people in need; people who stop reading the article halfway through, people who mostly like sports or the arts or the health or business news—people need to know what is going on. They can take action. Or they can just think about it. But they are richer and more connected for knowing.

So to all the billionaires out there who own newspapers: many of you have enough money to burn for several years. This is something worth burning it for. This industry is worth it. This industry’s ideals—knowledge, choice, mutual understanding—are worth it. Don’t soothe me by saying that everything will get better in the future, when we learn how to market off of the Internet. Do not tell me your hands are tied because the beans have been counted and there just aren’t enough.

Take pride in what we are. Help us evolve. Replace our newsprint with Web pages for all I care. But don’t destroy what we do along the way.

Yesterday, for the first time during the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain issued a set of specific policy proposals for improving the country’s failing education system. Speaking at the NAACP’s annual meeting in Cincinnati, the presumptive GOP nominee promoted vouchers for parochial, private, and charter schools; alternative certification programs that would lower the barriers to teaching; school-level funding of merit pay for teachers; the continuation of federal funding for tutoring services; and federal funding for virtual schools and online learning.

You’d think all this would be worth some attention. Not only has McCain been basically mum about his education platform since he declared his candidacy, but his 2008 plans mark a significant, move-to-the-middle departure from the relatively bold positions he advocated in 2000. But no. Many of the major print outlets’ write-ups of McCain’s speech were relegated to those outlets’ blogs. And the ones that gave column inches to the speech often focused either on the kind words McCain had for Obama at the outset of his speech (breaking: McCain said something nice about the competition!) or on the tepid reception that met McCain’s appearance at Cincinnati’s Duke Energy Center:

Boston Globe: “McCain courts skeptical blacks at NAACP event”
USA Today: “NAACP gives low-key response to McCain”
San Francisco Chronicle: “NAACP gives McCain polite reception”
LA Times: “McCain wins some respect”
Seattle Times: “Respectful reception for McCain at NAACP”
Houston Chronicle: “NAACP gives McCain polite reception”

Et cetera.

It’s worth noting, on the one hand, how rude those headlines are. (A “polite reception” shouldn’t be news, after all, and the fact that such a reception comes from the NAACP doesn’t make it so. There’s something off-putting, if not fully offensive, in these headlines’ framings and assumptions.) And it's worth noting on the other, that, in their focus on the personal rather than on policy, they miss the point. Even the papers whose headlines mention the education component of McCain’s speech—The Washington Post, the International Herald Tribune, Newsday—use AP copy, rather than original reporting, for their articles. And the wire story, though it accurately conveys McCain’s proposals, mentions them only in the broader context of the “skeptical” reception the candidate elicited from participants at the NAACP conference. Save for some questioning quotes at the end, the AP story’s ed policy component lacks the kind of detail and nuance that most readers need to fully understand the policies being propounded.

The news outlets may have had their reasons for treating McCain’s speech this way. Given McCain’s none-too-stellar voting record on matters of legislative priority to the NAACP—in the organization’s most recent rating of legislators, Steve Benen notes, McCain tied for dead last in the Senate; and he’s received failing grades in every report card this decade—perhaps they figured his Cincinnati reception was as newsworthy as his plans for education reform. Or perhaps they figured there was little that was surprising in McCain’s proposals (shock: he still doesn’t love teachers unions; shock: he still advocates school choice). Or perhaps they figured that education has become such a back-burner issue on the campaign trail—compared with foreign wars, current and potential, the floundering economy, and Hillary Clinton’s new hairstyle—that McCain’s proposals are worth neither much column space nor much deep analysis.

Still, had more reporters written original copy about McCain’s speech, paying attention to and parsing the details of the candidate’s proposals for fixing a broken education system, they might have noted the following line, which McCain unveiled after noting that “it is surely time to shake off old ways and to demand new reforms”:

In Washington, D.C., the Opportunity Scholarship program serves more than 1,900 boys and girls from families with an average income of 23,000 dollars a year. And more than 7,000 more families have applied for that program. What they all have in common is the desire to get their kids into a better school.

Had on-the-bus reporters and their editors focused on McCain’s policy proposals, they might have checked, as The American Prospect’s Dana Goldstein did, last month’s Department of Education report analyzing the Opportunity Scholarship program’s impact over the past two years. Had they done so, they might have been a bit surprised to read the study’s findings:

• After 2 years, there was no statistically significant difference in test scores in general between students who were offered an OSP scholarship and students who were not offered a scholarship. Overall, those in the treatment and control groups were performing at comparable levels in mathematics and reading.

• The Program had a positive impact on overall parent satisfaction and parent perceptions of school safety, but not on students’ reports of satisfaction and safety.

In other words, the program McCain mentions to highlight the desire parents have for “better lives for their children”—and, more to the point, to suggest his belief that vouchers are the means to those better lives—works for parents more than it does for children. Most would agree that, in education as in most things, the welfare of children trumps all else—and as far as the kids are concerned, the Opportunity Scholarship program boasts no measurable benefits in academic achievement or overall wellbeing.

But it’s hard to explore the nuances of and discrepancies in McCain’s speech when you’re given only 730 words—and when many of those words are devoted, as they were in the AP’s case, to discussions of the NAACP audience’s “skeptical” reaction to, and “polite applause” for, McCain. We got, instead, mostly broad-stroked copy. If we were lucky, we got a blog post or two. If we were really lucky, those blog posts linked to the text of McCain’s speech, so we could see his proposals for ourselves, minus the middleman.

In this case, unfortunately, the text of that speech is much more instructive than most of the articles that try to summarize it—even if the speech provokes as many questions as it answers. Among them: When McCain proposes “to direct 500 million dollars in current federal funds to build new virtual schools, and to support the development of online courses for students,” what will be removed from the federal budget to free up those funds? When he says, “no longer will we measure teacher achievement by conformity to process. We will measure it by the success of their students,” what exactly does he mean? Sure, McCain is knocking-while-not-discounting NCLB…but how, exactly, does he propose to measure student “success” without the “conformity to process” that is, by definition, a test? If a McCain administration would adopt a school choice policy that would allow some children to leave the public school system, what would that administration do for all the children who would be left behind?

I’d add one more question to the list: Why aren’t campaign reporters asking those questions for us?

Shopping For Angles

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

USA Today repackages an old story about malls turning to entertainment to draw traffic and turns it into a sign of the bad economy. But it reaches too far. The “shoppertainment” phenomenon is nearly a couple of decades old and has been written about quite a lot—even in the boom times.

No doubt retailers and malls are in trouble. Consumer confidence is beaten down and real incomes are declining. But the traditional mall business has been in decline for more than a decade. Only a couple of new malls open each year and dead ones litter the landscape. That trend picked up steam in the go-go 1990’s as other shopping formats, especially big-box stores, became more prevalent and the Internet launched eBay and Amazon.

USA Today points to malls now having concerts to attract shoppers. Anybody remember Tiffany (not the one with the blue boxes)?

In contrast, The Wall Street Journal has an up-to-date mall story today reporting that lifestyle centers (basically outdoor malls that are what actually get built these days) are struggling with the economic downturn and the credit crunch. Retailers aren’t opening new stores and are actually closing some.

The big problem is there’s a lot of this stuff getting built, and some of it is opening half-empty, as the Journal shows—something that could end up further squeezing banks.

The Journal’s story is a much better picture than USA Today’s of what’s actually going on in the economy and with shoppers.

My Friend(s)

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

My friends, in discussing the verbal tics of certain aspiring presidents, I would be remiss to pass over the punishing repetitions of that other aspirant to the throne, our friend Arizona Senator John McCain. Recently, the Times reported that McCain’s campaign minions have been struggling to massage his style and make it fit into the tight corset of general election speaking engagements. Before he learns to read the teleprompter, however, something’s got to give, and that something is McCain’s favorite phrase: “my friends.”

Though McCain’s doesn’t friend his listeners with quite the same range that Senator Obama asks them to look, he cakes it on just as thick. To wit: in a twenty-two minute victory lap after the Michigan and Arizona primaries (mostly applause and hooting), McCain globbed on the icing seven times. (“Well, my friends--well, my friends, here's a little straight talk for you: What a difference a couple of days makes.”)

There are, to be sure, distinctions. There are the friends who endorse him, as when, early on, former presidential hopeful Kansas Senator Sam Brownback announced he was backing “my friend and true American hero, John McCain,” a platitude that solicited a reciprocal “my friend” from said American hero. This, however, seems to be a deviation from a pattern The Washington Post delineated in recalling McCain’s fist-pumping attack on Iowa Senator Charles Grassley in a 1992 meeting over the fate of American soldiers still MIA in Vietnam: “While the plural ‘my friends’ was usually a warm salutation from McCain, ‘my friend’ was often a prelude to his most caustic attacks.” (McCain apparently addressed Grassley as “my friend” before launching into such a friendly disquisition that Grassley stood up and demanded an apology.)

McCain has many friends and frenemies in Congress, yes, but his best and oldest friends are his voters, especially his Hispanic not-yet-voters. In a recent ad, McCain beckoned his Latino holdouts with his now familiar siren song: “My friends, I want you, the next time you're down in Washington, D.C., to go to the Vietnam War memorial and look at the names engraved in black granite. You'll find a whole lot of Hispanic names.”

The Senator is also especially kind to his more tightly-wound voters, who worry that, should he win the presidency, he’ll keep the United States military in Iraq for a century. “My friends, the war will be over soon, for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years,” he crooned. “But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us.” There. Feels better already, doesn’t it, friends?

And then there are the friends who secretly don’t want to be friends. Take Todd Haupt, a Minnesota Republican who just lost his real-estate business and makes a living selling health drinks. “I hate when he says, ‘My friends,’” Haupt told a reporter. “McCain is not my friend.”

Right. Then there are the friends who never were friends, like those who presumed McCain’s guilt in the Keating Five Scandal almost twenty years ago. “If you don’t believe that a 354-page document, my friend, is sufficient after a nine-month investigation… then you are different than most Americans.”

Those so-called friends, however, should never be confused with the friends who know McCain had a point when he called the Supreme Court’s recent habeas corpus ruling “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” “We made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have,” McCain explained. “And my friends, there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people.” And, to clarify, these “people” are not friends who, obviously, do have such rights.

This speechifier seems to be a recent acquisition, however. McCain rarely used the phrase before his failed 2000 presidential bid and, back when he was a first-term Congressman, he was quite spartan in his use, referring to “my friends who didn’t return” in a 1985 Vietnam War special with Walter Cronkite called “Honor, Duty, and a War Called Vietnam.”

But I won’t leave you on such a dour note, my friends. Instead, please enjoy the following montage, courtesy of the Internet, which John McCain has yet to befriend.



iPhones for the Poor

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

Big wireless companies. I feel bad for them, don't you? After all, did you know that one in seven Americans still doesn't have a cell phone!? How are these corporations supposed to stay in the black if people continue digging in their heels and saying no to iPhones, Razers, and Sidekicks.

Since Newsweek offices are probably abuzz with the release of Apple's new iPhone, their technologist Daniel McGinn wonders about "the group at the other end of the wireless bell curve: the one in seven Americans who still don't have a cell phone."

It turns out that parents don't want their five-year-olds running around with BlackBerrys, seniors are confused by intricate cell phone options, and some people just can't afford them.

Well, duh. And I'm betting that with rise in living expenses for these groups -- fuel, health care, food -- a cell phone isn't exactly priority number one. Not to mention that not everyone needs a cell phone in the first place.

Meanwhile, Apple said it sold one million iPhones in the three days after the release.

And, as one of the comments on the piece rightly pointed out, isn't it nuts that 6 in 7 Americans does have a cell phone!?

Running On Faith

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

With all the rumors swirling around Barack Obama's faith, the teaser for Newsweek's July 21st cover story—"The Truth about Barack Obama's Religious Faith"— promises more revelations about the candidate’s links to radical African-American theology and/or to Islam. Instead it delivers something far more surprising: a look at the threads of faith that a serious person has woven together from his idiosyncratic life. The article describes how Obama, the child of an ecumenicist mother and a Muslim-turned-atheist father, became a Christian as an adult. "I'm on my own faith journey and I'm searching," the presumptive Democratic nominee tells Newsweek. "I leave open the possibility that I'm entirely wrong."

It’s a unique angle for a mainstream publication to take. A new study from the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism shows that, when when the press has covered religion this campaign season, it has generally focused on candidates' affiliations and/or their relationships with controversial religious leaders. But another study from PEJ's sister organization, the Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life, shows that such coverage bears little resemblance to how Americans actually live their faith. Instead, most Americans are far more similar to Barack Obama: open to religious pluralism and non-dogmatic about translating their faith into politics.

The top religion story of the 2008 presidential elections concerned the political ramifications of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's Mormon faith in his bid for the GOP nomination. Stories about Romney's Mormonism accounted for 35 percent of religion-related campaign coverage in this cycle, and a whopping 50 percent of such stories in 2007. The Romney storyline, PEJ suggests, was framed even before he entered the race. The study quotes a Boston Globe headline from 2005, when Romney first confirmed he was contemplating a White House run: "Are we ready for a Mormon president?" Even when concerns about his Mormonism forced Romney to give an entire speech about his beliefs, he primarily addressed questions about his views on faith in public life, offering little insight about his personal relationship to and maturation in his faith.

Romney shuttered his campaign around the time that incendiary clips of Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, caught the media's attention. Thanks to his association with the now-controversial Wright, Obama went from being the focus of 5 percent of religion-related campaign stories to the focus of 55 percent. According to PEJ, half of these stories also featured Wright as a leading newsmaker, often "accompanying Obama in the headline or lead." During the two months after the story first drew media attention, stories concerning Rev. Wright accounted for 12 percent of all campaign coverage. (John McCain’s relationship with Rev. John Hagee largely passed unnoticed.)

Neither the coverage of Romney's Mormonism nor the Obama/Wright controversy went very deep into the candidates’ personal relationships with their beliefs or how they arrived at those beliefs. Many will object that candidates' personal beliefs are not relevant in a country whose constitution bars a "religious test" for elective office. But voters clearly care about their office holders' faith—69 percent of Americans say they think it is important for a president to hold strong religious beliefs.

If voters take politicians’ religions seriously, perhaps the press could do a better job of covering the issue in a way that takes seriously the way Americans live their faiths. By that measure, the PEJ study of the Romney and Obama religion coverage shows that the press is doing a terrible job.

Another recent study, based on a survey of 35,000 Americans from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, depicts a country with diverse and nuanced beliefs. The Religious Landscape Survey concludes that religion in America is "Non-Dogmatic, Diverse, and Politically Relevant." An overwhelming majority of people with a religious affiliation—70 percent—say "many religions can lead to eternal life." (This includes 57 percent of evangelical Protestants, a fact that is important to note in light of the question that Rev. Franklin Graham reportedly put to Obama about whether Jesus was the only “way to God.”) Almost as many, 68 percent, say that "there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion."

Assuming politicians' relationships to their faiths are similarly nuanced, reports on candidates' religious affiliations give little insight into what they actually believe. And while polling shows that voters are uncomfortable with candidates of certain affiliations—especially atheists, Muslims, and Mormons—this election cycle provides evidence that voters will accept candidates who have a nuanced relationship with their faith. Obama and Rev. Wright might be a case in point: as the media whipped up a frenzy about Rev. Wright, Obama suffered no appreciable drop in the polls, even at the height of the controversy. Voters seemed to accept his explanation about his differences with his pastor—maybe because they have plenty of differences with their own pastors.

The Newsweek story may make some readers uncomfortable—it is an especially intimate portrait of the possible future president's faith. But it is one of the few stories of this campaign season that actually shows a candidate living his faith in a way that would seem familiar to most Americans. Spiritual life is often described with travel metaphors: "faith journey," "walking with Jesus," "spiritual quest." Such language is, in part, an acknowledgement that beliefs change over time, that people of faith are engaged in ongoing projects of discovery as their lives present them with new circumstances. Perhaps it is the sort of language that reporters should start to use more often.

Like my colleague Katia, the LA Times' James Rainey, too, called up some editorial cartoonists recently (we did it in the wake of Cover-Gate; Rainey had been working prior to Cover-Gate on a piece about how "cartoonists are disappearing like brunet anchors at Fox News" and how the loss "continues to numb- and dumb-down an audience that doesn't need any help sinking into complacency".)

Reading Rainey's piece, I see that we're also not the only ones who don't necessarily think of John McCain, as Maureen Dowd described him in her New York Times column yesterday, as “a guy who can be teased harmlessly.”

When asked by Rainey which presidential candidate they'd prefer to work with (and how/why), here's what one cartoonist said:

"McCain's reputed explosive temper is a tantalizing prospect," said Steve Kelley of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, "as is Obama's abiding belief that there is no problem so simple that government can't find a way to waste enormous resources failing to fix it."


On the visual side, Kelley sees something of a replay of the 1996 election between President Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole. In shorthand: "Mr. Charisma against the guy who yells at kids to stay off his lawn."

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s move to damp short selling earlier this week is yet more proof that the market-is-God Bush administration is losing its religion.

While the SEC’s order only limits so-called “naked shorting”, which is already against the rules anyway, there’s no doubt it’s scrambling to do whatever it can to staunch the bleeding in the financial industry and this is meant to chill short sellers and others who see more room to drop. Washington, of course, is also vilifying hedge funds and other investors for manipulating the price of oil, as if there isn’t a rational basis for it being so high (like the weak dollar, worries about new supply and soaring demand from developing countries, the usual fears about the Middle East). And the SEC intends to chill information trading in the markets by saying it will investigate rumor-spreading, which is sort of like investigating farmers for spreading manure.

As The Wall Street Journal says today in a good Ahead of the Tape column, our supposedly free-market-loving government in Washington is signaling that “Some free markets are apparently freer than others: The price of oil is free to fall, while the stock price of a bank is free to rise.”

Here’s how The New York Times today describes what’s going on with the SEC’s move against short selling, which the Times notes is essential to functioning markets:

Quietly people suggested the S.E.C. was struggling to appear effective after looking asleep at the switch after the collapse of Bear Stearns, an S.E.C.-regulated firm whose demise was largely managed by other regulators. Others took a broader view.

“It’s 19 issuers that form a large part of the backbone of the American financial system,” said Jay G. Baris, a partner at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel. “The S.E.C. is attempting to stabilize trading in these shares so as not to cause panic.”

The press hasn’t done a tremendous job of countering the political claptrap out of Washington about “speculators.” The Journal in so many words puts the issue in perspective. But reporters ought to make clear that every investor in a market is essentially a speculator, not just those who make bets we don’t like.

What the reporting and analysis is missing here is that “free” markets have always needed a regulatory framework to function properly. Absence of adequate supervision of financial markets led to a bubble in one sector, just as, one could say, absence of a public energy policy led to a bubble in the other. The press hasn’t quite caught on to the idea that if government doesn’t regulate before the fact, it will have to do so afterwards. That’s what everything from the mortgage bailout to the Bear Stearns sale amounts to. It’s kind of like fixing your car at 60 miles an hour.

Washington had its free market cake. Now it has to eat it. The media ought to do more to help remind it—and readers of that.

A Shrine to Hackery

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

In a New Delhi bylined piece, the Telegraph passes on the tale of an Indian temple where worshipers show their reverence for the enlightening power of journalism by bowing before a pile of newspapers. (And, no, it's not the Newseum.)

Alas, amid all the adulation, ugliness rears its head:

According to [a temple priest] all newspapers, irrespective of their language, were revered in the temple unmindful of the mounting criticism over the media's overall loss of credibility, dishonesty and unreliability.

It's not so weird to see that kind of self-hating dig in a British press story--lazy sods all of them--but the outrage seem perfunctory and a little hard to believe given that the Telegraph's piece was very clearly ripped, quotes and all, from a Hindustan Times story that ran two days earlier. Let the eye wink at the hand.

Bought out? Laid off? Leaving the business? If you are among the members of that very large group, which hundreds of journalists joined in the last few days alone, your colleagues would like to hear your thoughts about the state of our business. What are your hopes and fears in this time of incredible transition? What do you see coming in five or ten years? Who or what do you blame for what is happening? What can be done about it? What would you like to say to the young journalists coming up, in old forms and new ones? Columbia Journalism Review invites you to deliver your parting thoughts in the form of a letter to your journalistic colleagues; we would be delighted to publish those letters that offer a fresh perspective here on CJR.org. We’re looking for any length under 1,500 words; please send them to editors@cjr.org. Thank you.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from July 2008 listed from newest to oldest.

August 2008 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.