December 2008 Archives

1) The Anglo-ization of The Wall Street Journal Dean saw the Journal moving toward a more British/Australian style of journalism—one that doesn't dig as deep—and didn't like it one little bit. He was right, alas: See his latest analysis of how the WSJ has lost its way at precisely the wrong moment in history.

2) The WSJ's Little Committee That Failed... That column was set up a few weeks earlier by Rupert Murdoch's sacking of the Journal editor Marcus Brauchli. Everybody including Brauchli, but especially the well-paid pooh-bahs on the paper's "editorial independence" board, came out looking very bad.

3) The Language of Calamity If September were a movie still, it would've been one with the camera looking down at spit-polished shoes on a ledge over Wall Street. Dean praised the press for capturing the urgency of the moment.

4) The Audit Speaks! Dean told NPR's On The Media a few days later that the press was rising to the occasion but that it still had much to answer for its failures in the run-up to the crisis.

5) Another Baseless Screed In the wake of Eliot Spitzer's ignominious demise, the Journal's editorial page jumped on the press for being "biased" in favor of the governor when he was a crusading attorney general. That didn't fly.

6) Access Uber Alles A problematic Citigroup story from The New York Times gave Dean an entry point to explore one of the major structural problems of the business press: Its over-dependence on access to the powerful for stories.

7) Mad Money, Bad Blood Dean went behind the scenes of a feud between CNBC and Barron's over the latter's publication of a story that questioned the investing prowess of the network's star, Jim Cramer.

Best of 2008: Megan Garber

| 1 Comment

1) The People vs. Jeremiah Wright The media's general condemnation of Jeremiah Wright wasn't just about race or politics or the intersection between the two. It was also about dissent. The treatment of Wright, I thought, highlighted just how uncomfortable—distressingly uncomfortable—we've become with ideas that challenge the mainstream.

2) Notes on a Scandal Remember twelve or so Big Political Scandals ago, when Eliot Spitzer was the shamed governor du jour? During SpitzerGate, I was fascinated by the way the media covered Silda Wall Spitzer...and struck by how many of them attacked the governor's wife for literally and figuratively "standing by her man" during the scandal.

3) Of Love and Other Demons The media's affinity for Obama has been part of the president-elect's mythology since long before "in the tank" became a nearly permanent preface to his name—and since long before the Illinois senator declared his presidential candidacy. This piece considered the wider implications of the press's (in)famous enthusiasm for Obama. (It also gave me an excuse to describe the future president as "a Men’s Vogue-certified hottie." So.)

4) The Media's Harry Situation In February, news broke that Britain’s third-in-line-to-the-throne, Prince Harry, had been serving in active duty in Afghanistan since December—and that the British army had brokered a deal with British and other media not to report about Harry’s deployment until he returned home in April. A look at the ethics of the agreement.

5) The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantyhose This summer, Michelle Obama embarked on a series of appearances—on The View, in the pages of US Weekly, and elsewhere—that came to be known as her "Reintroduction Tour." The appearances, apparently designed to "soften" her in the view of the voting public, emphasized Michelle's femininity—her clothes, her kids, her shopping and cooking habits—and, in that, they reemphasized the complications of the relationship between strong women and the media.

6) Moonlight and Valentino In which I defended Sarah Palin's freedom to shop.

7) Another Two Against the One Just for fun: a response to one of Maureen Dowd's particularly inventive NYT columns. (Sorry, MoDo: We tease because we love.)

Yes, He Does

| No Comments

This, from today's Wall Street Journal, struck me as (unintentionally) funny:

"Claiborne's CEO Crams Into Coach to Cut Costs"

And there's even photographic evidence. ("Crammed," but still cheerful!)

Governor, Grandmother

| No Comments

Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, Gov. Sarah Palin's grandson, is born.

People Magazine, according to MSNBC, has won the bidding war for the first photos of the infant.

The bidding started well before the baby was born, but once Levi’s mom was arrested — well, then you had a story,” says one [celebrity magazine] editor.

1) My Foreclosure Two years into the housing bust, with millions put out of their houses, we sometimes go numb to the reality of what it means to lose your home. So I wrote about—with the benefit of hindsight and the perspective of a business journalist—my family losing our house fifteen years ago.

2) My Foreclosure: Judgment and Empathy That story drew a lot of feedback, so I wrote this response.

3) The Grave Dancer Sam Zell's deal for Tribune was in trouble from the beginning. This story (along with a great infographic by The New York Times's Hannah Fairfield) looked at the crushing debt he loaded on the company and how the complex leveraged buyout worked.

4) Tomato, “Toe-mahto,” TIAA-CREF Malcolm Berko has been writing his financial-advice column for years. But a review of his columns caught him making some major factual errors and found the disclosure on his potential conflicts of interest was out of date.

5) 5 Crisis Questions for the Press As Wall Street collapsed in September, I listed some questions the press should be asking in its coverage. I'm still waiting on some of them.

6) Note to CNBC: Breathe I did a double-take when I heard Jim Cramer and Erin Burnett on CNBC going off the deep end during the September stock crash. Cramer wondered whether the woes were due to "financial terrorism" and Burnett called short sellers "unpatriotic." Fortunately, I had Tivo or I might not have believed what I'd heard the first time.

Kennedy (Huffs)

| No Comments

Did you read that Caroline Kennedy article in yesterday's New York Times, based on an interview the Times's Nicholas Confessore and David M. Halbfinger conducted with Kennedy at a diner? Sense a little tension all around? (Like, in the way the reporters chose to end the article: "As things wrapped up, a reporter tried to pose another question, but she interrupted him. “I think we’re done,” she said.")

Then there's the transcript of the entire interview, online, which has Kennedy at one point "huffing" in response to a question.

NC: Do you think [your husband] will be around the state with you a little more than he was last year?


CK: Well it depends on what’s going on in his office. (Huffs.)

("Huffs." I wonder: Was that a weary sigh or a haughty harrumph? An irritated exhale or a snort -- or sniff-- of indignation?

Also: What? Still sore about that whole fake Mayor of Paris letter thing? Or the reporting that Sen. Ted Kennedy called Gov. Paterson to "politick" without confirming this with Kennedy or Paterson?)

More transcript highlights (defensive crouches, everyone!):

NC: Could you, for the sake of storytelling, could you tell us a little bit about that moment, like, where you were, what you said to [your husband] about your decision, how that played out?


CK: Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman’s magazine or something? (Laughter)


DH: What do you have against women’s magazines?


CK: Nothing at all, but I thought you were the crack political team here. As I said, it was kind of over a period of time, you know, obviously we talked about politics, we talked about what’s going on, we’ve been watching the team that the president-elect is putting together — Hillary Clinton is going to be a spectacular part of that team, you know, then there was a vacancy here, you know, just like everybody else, you know: who’s going to fill it, isn’t that interesting, there’s a lot of great candidates, you know, obviously I have become much more politically involved than I have in the past, so you know, I figure, why not try, I really think I have something to offer.


NC: But there was no one moment you can draw on —


CK: I know I wish there was, I’ll think about it.


NC: If there isn’t, that’s what it was, that’s fine too. We’re not the crack political team, we’re always looking for good anecdotes and good stories.

Best of 2008: Clint Hendler

| 1 Comment

1) The Edwards Slog Long, long ago, when John Edwards was just another Democratic candidate with an even shot to win the Iowa caucus, I joined his press retinue as he crossed the state in the last hours before the nomination season's first contest. They weren't happy to see me.

2) There's Always Hope in Hillaryland When the never-say-it's-over Democratic primary came to Pennsylvannia, Hillary Clinton's campaign hoped a big win there would... well, it was never exactly clear what they hoped it would accomplish, as her party's delegate allocation formulas made it virtually impossible for her to reclaim a lead in the
race. With that in mind, the rhetoric at her Philadelphia victory party was a staunch effort in denying the truth, waging what I saw as a "War on Math."

3) Rejecting Post-Rationality The press didn't really call the Democratic Primary until May 6, the night Clinton was trounced in North Carolina and eked a narrow victory in Indiana. The next morning, I tried to explain why it had taken so long to say what the numbers had augured for so long. Today, the piece reads like a wistful look at the sunset of a truly incredible nomination season.

4) McGambit Moments after John McCain announced, on the eve of his first debate with Obama, that he was "suspending" his campaign to return to Washington to tackle the economic crisis, I challenged the chattering classes to unleash their most cynical, superfical analyses of the move, to dissect it as if it were pure politics. I'll admit it now: I knew they'd be up to the job!

5) E-gads! A Blog!Minnesota senator Norm Coleman, knocked through his reelection campaign with one accusation of petty corruption after another, refused to respond to—even to deny—one such allegation that surfaced in October. His reasoning? It relied on anonymous sources and was posted on "the blog." This excuse was especially odd considering that the blogger in question was Ken Silverstein, an award winning reporter for Harper's, one of the nation's most prestigious magazines. The bottom line: bloggers—yes,even those not writing for fancy pants magazines—can do reporting too.

6) Palin and her Press When the political world was introduced to Sarah Palin, the first reaction was a universal head scratch. But within days, major national news organizations produced vital profiles and political histories of the Republican vice presidential nominee, uncovering or fully airing unsettling episodes that had been missed,
ignored, or undercovered in her home state. Alaskan journalists told me about being charmed by their governor, and of lacking the resources to do the kind of thorough vetting Palin received in the national spotlight.

1) Media's Mixed Nuts I personally enjoyed cataloging how reporters handled Jesse Jackson's open mic moment. So prudish. Also, I learned a new word: orchiectomy.

2) Lara Logan This is one example of an ongoing issue in media criticism: (Howard) Kurtzian buck-passing. Does the WaPo's media critic ever actually...criticize?

3) The Anti-Chris Matthews Vote Of all the ways Chris Matthews imagined he was/might impact election 2008 with his Hardball, was the emergence of an "anti-Chris Matthews vote" one of them? A look back at the fleeting media soul-searching prompted by the NH primary results.

4) Who's Afraid of 60 Minutes? In light of all the attention (and ratings) Steve Kroft's post-election 60 Minutes Obama interview recently received, it is interesting to revisit Kroft's Obama interview from back in February, during which Obama basically had to prompt/invite/beg Kroft to ask him a damn question already:

KROFT: You talk about big ideas and often with a lack of specificity. And it’s been one of the complaints about your campaign.

OBAMA: … You know, if there are issues that you want to cover right now, I’m happy to.

KROFT: Yeah, I have a—actually, I have a …

OBAMA: So why don’t we work those through?

(And Couric's accompanying interview with Clinton was also not good. Where was the Couric who interviewed Sarah Palin later in the election season?)

5) Drudge Raises a Point For personal/professional gratification: seeing CJR on the Fox News ticker because I pointed out the appearance of conflict in Gwen Ifill moderating a debate. (Relatedly, I think my pieces Fantasy Brokaw and Reality Brokaw are worth revisiting, as I think the Way Debates Are Handled needs to be revisited.)

In the Crisis, the Journal Falls Short

| 7 Comments
"...The last great newsman. He may be the greatest newspaper man of all time"—Michael Wolff, author of The Man Who Owns the News: Inside the Secret World of Rupert Murdoch, on Murdoch, in an interview with Marketwatch, December 1, 2008.

The Wall Street Journal, once the dominant force in financial news, is failing, and failing badly, in key aspects of its coverage of the credit crisis and the financial bailout.

This isn't all Rupert Murdoch's fault, just partly. But for all our sakes, the paper needs to find its way, and soon.

Senior Journal leadership may dismiss this idea, but at least a few among the rank-and-file have expressed to me a gnawing sense that paper has buried itself in the weeds of this unprecedented financial story and lost sight of the big picture. That's certainly my view: its coverage is too incremental, overly geared toward those already in the know, and too willing to trade arms-length scrutiny for access. At this point, for instance, the paper isn't so much as covering the Treasury Department as channeling it.

The problems are two-fold, as I see them. The paper’s leadership has not shown the vision needed to stop, take a deep breath, and take control of the narrative. Absent has been an effort to explain in a coherent way what just happened—how a few publicly traded companies managed to siphon a trillion dollars from the U.S. Treasury and tip the world into recession—and who is to blame.

Let’s put this part on Murdoch and his top editor, Robert Thomson. Sending the staff to chase news like so many hamsters on a wheel is not the same as editing a great newspaper. Neither is festooning page one with the news everyone else already has. The net result is that much great work is lost in the news gusher.

But this is not all about Murdoch, not by a long shot. Old Journal formulas—inside-the-boardroom narratives—seem anachronistic now. Old rules—not revisiting a topic once it has been “done” in a single story—should be irrelevant. I wonder, too, if the Journal’s general we-don’t-rake-muck attitude quite fits the moment.

As it is, the paper offers flashes of brilliance, of which its Lehman and Bear Stearns coverage are prime examples. But these are pockets of resistance. What is needed is a general mobilization.

This is not, strictly speaking, a matter of opinion. The record speaks for itself, and we'll get to it. But for the shorthand version of this argument, readers might want to examine the different approaches represented by the forthright, relentless, and relevant New York Times series, "The Reckoning," which has hammered at regulators, rating agencies, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, American International Group, yes, even President Bush, the person actually in charge, and The Journal's listless recent series, "The Fallen," which chronicles the lost fortunes of the rich (!?).

The Journal series, which has zero relevance for public policy purposes, fails to deliver even compelling narratives—supposedly the paper's strong point. The best inside information we learn about John Bucksbaum, the mediocre mall heir who blew up mall giant General Growth Properties, is that he is an avid bicyclist. A Mexican cement mogul comes across in a Journal profile with all the grit and pluck of an economic indicator.

He has long come across as a hands-on corporate boss. A decade ago, displaying a battery of computers to a visitor, he demonstrated how he monitored the heating temperatures of industrial kilns an ocean away in Spain.

This is your capstone series in this of all years? I hope not.

Winners & Sinners

| 6 Comments

Sinner: When Lesley Stahl profiled House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank for 60 Minutes earlier this month, she seemed shocked that the politician didn’t show more deference to such a famous television correspondent.


The following line was used twice—in the opening teaser and in the body of the piece—as an example of Frank’s rudeness:

Frank: "Let me start with that second despicable comment you just made; I am surprised at you that you would do something like that."

The trouble was, nowhere in the piece did the viewer learn what Stahl had said to provoke such a sharp reaction. So it was impossible to know whether Frank really was overreacting, or if Stahl had said something genuinely outrageous.

FCP decided to satisfy its curiosity by calling its old friend, Lesley Stahl. But she refused to repeat the question that provoked the congressman. “We decided it didn’t belong on the air,” she said—and that was all she said.

FCP’s old friend Barney Frank was much more forthcoming: “She said, ‘Some people say the reason you were soft on Fannie Mae is that you had a relationship with a high level official of Fannie Mae.’” Frank added that his ex-boyfriend, Herb Moses, was a low level official, not a high level official; that he left his job at Fannie Mae ten years ago; and their relationship also ended more than a decade ago. Naturally, places like Fox News have repeated the “high level official” accusation without contradiction. Stahl apparently decided her piece was better off without it—but, in that case, she should have omitted Frank’s response to the invisible question as well.

Sinner: Ruth Marcus, for an exceptionally nonsensical Washington Post column in which she started by equating the illegal break-ins of the Watergate years with the war crimes to which Dick Cheney has copped, and then implied that she would prefer to see Cheney pardoned than face any punishment for his crimes, because it’s “more important” to ensure "that these mistakes are not repeated" than it is to punish “those who acted wrongly in pursuit of what they thought was right.” So, because Cheney didn’t think it was wrong to torture—and murder—prisoners in American custody, why not forget the whole thing? FCP thinks the only way to ensure that these things don’t happen again is to punish everyone who was responsible for them this time. Wasn’t that the theory behind the Nuremberg Trials? They actually worked quite well as a deterrent for several decades—until the current administration took office.

Winner: The New York Times, for another fine editorial dissecting several (space did not allow them to cover all of them) of Cheney’s more outrageous lies in the series of farewell interviews he has been giving this week.

Sinner: Chris Wallace, who conducted one of those interviews and managed to let Cheney get away with nearly all of the lies the Times called him on. But Chris did manage to get one extraordinary answer out of the vice president:

CHENEY: Highest moment in the last eight years? Well, I think that the most important, the most compelling, was 9/11 itself, and what that entailed, what we had to deal with, the way in which that changed the nation and set the agenda for what we've had to deal with as an administration.

So there you have it: Cheney’s favorite day was the one when thousands of innocent Americans were murdered by terrorists—because it made it possible for him and his henchmen to wiretap innumerable Americans without obtaining warrants, commit war crimes, and destroy America’s reputation in every corner of the world.

Happy Holidays.

10. Obama's Lobbyist Line: Trudy Lieberman examined what Barack Obama really meant when he said he wasn't going to take any money from lobbyists.

9. Bubble Trouble: Megan Garber on how, as of April, the recession had yet to be profoundly felt in Washington, D.C.

8. The Inestimable Popular Vote Estimates: Clint Hendler on how to account for different popular vote counts.

7. Secrets of the City: Lawrence Lanahan's January/February 2008 cover story on the television series The Wire.

6. Hey, 'Gotcha'! Caughtcha!: Megan Garber announces the release of 'GotchaWare,' a tool to catch journalists who insist on posing tough questions to politicians.

5. The McCain-Hagee Connection: Zachary Roth wondered why John McCain's connection to controversial minster John Hagee wasn't getting more press.

4. The 15,000: Justin Peters reported from Denver on what, exactly, 15,000 journalists were doing at the Democratic National Convention.

3. What Can You Buy for $700 Billion?: Megan McGinley examined exactly what you could buy for 700 billion dollars.

2. "Attacking" McCain's Military Record: Zachary Roth slammed those commentators who said that Wesley Clark's criticisms of John McCain's presidential qualifications were out of bounds.

1. Army Alters Photographs, Issues Them To AP: Megan McGinley reported that the Department of Defense had digitally photographs of two dead soldiers before issuing them to the AP.

Beyond Two Percent

| No Comments

In a recent New York Times column, Thomas Friedman laid out the current conventional wisdom about the war in Iraq:

In 2003, the United States, under President Bush, invaded Iraq to change the regime. Terrible postwar execution and unrelenting attempts by Al Qaeda to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war turned the Iraqi geopolitical space into a different problem — a maelstrom of violence for four years, with U.S. troops caught in the middle. A huge price was paid by Iraqis and Americans. This was the Iraq that Barack Obama ran against.

In the last year, though, the U.S. troop surge and the backlash from moderate Iraqi Sunnis against Al Qaeda and Iraqi Shiites against pro-Iranian extremists have brought a new measure of stability to Iraq. There is now, for the first time, a chance — still only a chance — that a reasonably stable democratizing government, though no doubt corrupt in places, can take root in the Iraqi political space.

That is the Iraq that Obama is inheriting. It is an Iraq where we have to begin drawing down our troops — because the occupation has gone on too long and because we have now committed to do so by treaty — but it is also an Iraq that has the potential to eventually tilt the Arab-Muslim world in a different direction.

Friedman's simple summary pretty much hits the nail on the head, orthodoxy-wise. The larger story of Iraq right now—the story that's emerged from a melting pot of individual dispatches and analyses, bubbling up from blogs and wire reports and magazines to radio and broadcast and cable news to permeate the general cultural atmosphere—is basically Friedman's things-in-Iraq-were-really-crappy-but-they're-getting-better-now narrative. Indeed, the only thing the columnist's succinct little recap really omits is the truism, repeated so often that many of us have stopped questioning its truthfulness, that The Surge Is Working.

None of the above is to say that the press hasn't been skeptical when it comes to the situation in Iraq. But our skepticism, in many ways, has turned into apathy. The fact that President Bush's surprise visit to the country last week—one the administration apparently intended as a valedictory, a more subdued version of "Mission Accomplished"—received, overall, such a tepid response suggests that transformation. As does the fact that the coverage Bush's trip received was extensive only because of The Shoe Heard 'Round the World. Indeed, the press's lame-duck treatment of the president—which often translates into an ignore him until he goes away attitude—seems to have filtered into its treatment of that president's war.

And that, in turn, translates to a bigger problem in the war's coverage—there’s not enough of it. The media are simply not providing—and the American public, therefore, is simply not getting—enough coverage of events in Iraq. Yes, it's been said before; but the fact that that's so shouldn't make us stop saying it. Complacency shouldn't stop us from being indignant at the fact, for example, that, per studies from the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the war regularly wins less than two percent of the weekly U.S. news hole. (For the week of December 1-7, PEJ reports, coverage of the war rang in at a high point of a full two percent—tying the attention it received with the attention given to O.J. Simpson.) And complacency shouldn't keep us from being fairly shocked when, after Iraq’s cabinet approved a 2011 deadline for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq—suggesting a measure of resolution to the "timetable" debate that had been raging in Washington for years, not to mention a de facto end to the war—the agreement was all but ignored in the media. (It was beaten out for press attention, in this instance, by the all-important Somali pirate story.)

The problem is partially logistical: on-the-ground reporting from the country is both exceptionally expensive (The New York Times's Baghdad bureau cost, last year, over $3 million a year to maintain) and incredibly dangerous (Iraq, for the sixth year in a row, has been named the deadliest country in the world for journalists). Still, while those facts may explain for the dearth of original, on-the-ground reporting from the country, they don't explain the paucity of general coverage. We could still use much more—and much more thorough—analysis of the Iraq war; what we need nearly as much as hard news reports are explanations of the situation there from perspectives political, military, and cultural.

We're largely missing, in other words, the nuanced treatments of Iraq that would flesh out our simplistic things were bad but they're getting better narrative into something more substantial and therefore more valuable. (And, therefore, more accurate.) Treatments that measure "success" and "victory" in Iraq not by a reduction in human casualties alone, but by the much more complex—and much more viable—metric of political stability. We see commendable examples of this kind of journalism every so often in our Iraq coverage; we need, however, to see more of it. And, in turn, the cable news networks and aggregative Web sites and other Gatekeepers to the National Zeitgeist need to do a better job of filtering it to the general public.

In November 2006, The New York Times published ninety stories whose headlines included the word "Iraq." In November 2008, that number dropped to thirty—a decline of 67 percent over a mere two years. For The Washington Post, the breakdown was ninety-six stories in November 2006 to thirty-three stories in November 2008. The numbers are striking, but they're hardly necessary here: even the most casual and passive of news consumers would likely agree that story of Iraq is, if not fading altogether from our collective consciousness, then at least fading generally from our collective conscience.

And while the decline in the urgency of our coverage implies that the situation in Iraq is currently improving, long-term success there—which is to say, long-term stability—is by no means a given. While, in terms of casualties alone, we may be seeing short-term improvement in Iraq—the kind we've seen when it comes to the surge, the kind that has led to the proliferation of "the surge is working" truisms—it's an open question whether the relatively low levels of violence in Iraq will last. Just as it's an open question whether we'll achieve some semblance of victory in and for that country—and an open question how, ultimately, we'll define that victory. There may well be hope for Iraq's future, as Friedman and so many others have said. Or it could be that the 150,000 U.S. and coalition troops currently stationed in Iraq are serving as, among other things, a collective keystone, keeping Iraq's precarious, faction-dominated political structure intact—and that, when the keystone is removed, the archway will topple. We don't yet know. But while the history of Iraq is being made, and the history of its most recent war written, let's make their first drafts as extensive and as nuanced—and, therefore, as valuable—as possible.

God Bless Us, Every Ten

| No Comments

Gotta love the end of the year. A time for celebration, a time for reflection, a time during which, no matter what our creed--whether we celebrate Christmas or Hanukkah or Kwanzaa or Festivus or the simple arrival of a New Year--we come together to clasp our hands, raise our voices, and worship at the altar of itemized aggregation.

Yep: 'tis the season...for lists! Long lists, short lists, funny lists, sad lists, lists with a point, lists with no point at all--and lists, most often, consisting of ten items! Because what's good for Letterman is good for us all!

But why read through all the lists out there--which might take, literally, minutes--when you can have the best collected for you? In the spirit of the holidays, then, we give you...our top ten of the Top Ten lists of 2008. Because Number 1 on our list, dear reader, is you.


1. Top 10 Newspaper Industry Stories of 2008 (Editor & Publisher)

2. Top 10 Media Blunders (Politico)

3. Top 10 Worst Media Moments of 2008 (Gawker)

4. Top 10 Stinkiest Media Performances of 2008 (The Huffington Post)

5. Top 10 Photos of 2008 (National Geographic)

6. Top 10 Quotes of 2008 (New York Daily News)

7. Top 10 Books of 2008 (New York magazine)

8. Top 10 Campaign Gaffes of 2008 (Time)

9. Top 10 Literary Magazines of 2008 (Virginia Quarterly Review)

10. Top 10 Stories You Missed in 2008 (Foreign Policy)

Beauty, in the Eye of the Reporter

| No Comments

Today's front-page New York Times story, "Some Hidden Choices in Breast Reconstruction" has some readers buzzing with disapproval over an issue of word choice.

The reason? Today's article, "Some Hidden Choices in Breast Reconstruction," about the availability of post-mastectomy options, is an installment in the Times's "Price of Beauty" series, and some readers are objecting to the B-word:

Writes commenter M.H.:

"The Price of Beauty"? I can't recall many discussions of other types of post-cancer reconstruction, for example, testicular prostheses, in terms of "beauty." TRAM or any procedure made necessary by a mastectomy is an attempt to improve upon an amputation, but for some reason replacing a breast after cancer is related to "beauty" and "improving appearances" instead of restoration.

Previous articles in the series have focused on the advantage patients who seek cosmetic dermatology have over others with medical dermatological needs and the increase among medical students applying to dermatology residency programs.

Although the series aims to examine "the growing popularity and impact of medical treatments designed to improve appearances," the tagline does seem tone-deaf when applied to medical procedures intended to restore, not improve, appearance.

The Times has been on a series binge of late—"The Long Run," "The Reckoning," and "The Evidence Gap" come to mind, and certainly there's something to be said for packaging articles together. It can provide continuity of coverage, a sense of cohesion, and deep and sustained reporting of multiple angles. And sometimes a well-chosen name can tie the elements together and present an attractive whole. Unfortunately in this instance, the quest of cleverness has gone off course.

On November 20th 2008, nearly 100 participants from several regions of the United States and from Denmark, Norway and Ireland as well attended a one-day conference at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism
focused on the pressing topic: "Consumer Revolution on the Web: Opportunities and Dangers for Journalism." Co-sponsored by Columbia Journalism Review and Consumer Reports, the gathering featured a lineup of distinguished experts and journalists from mainstream media and online media who presented their views and experineces in various forms. These included case studies, panel discussions and a keynote address. Senior staff from Columbia Journalism Review and Consumer Reports served as moderators and helped advance the dialogue between the speakers and the attendees.

The conference was designed to address questions about how professional journalists should cover consumer issues at a time when big-name bloggers, online vigilantes, and anonymous user-reviewers have turned word-of-mouth into a powerful weapon and traditional consumer reporters are falling victim to budget cuts. Questions included: how are peer-to-peer opinion leaders using their influence? How should journalists cover them-or even work with them to effect change? And what is the future of consumer reporting in areas such as business, healthcare, economics, politics and law?

The conference was the first, as far as conference organizers could determine, to bring together many of the key players to address the impact of the "consumer revolution" on consumer reporting. Speakers from Consumer's Union, The New York Times, USA Today.com, NPR, CNN, WNYC radio, the Center for Media and Democracy, the Media Bloggers Association, Consumerist.org and a number of other pioneering consumer Web sites
addressed the conference.

Welcome and Introduction

Nicholas Lemann, Dean of Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism, opened the conference by saying that it was an "attempt to grapple" with issues in consumer journalism. He called the Web a "liberating and disruptive
technology," that was helping to change the traditional roles of professional opinion versus the so-called "wisdom of the crowd." There is now an unfortunate distrust of the former, and of journalists generally, he said. Although the public should not be "starry-eyed" about professional consumer criticism, the "many-to-many model" and "open mic operation" of social media does not suffice either. "[Journalists] are still in the business of ordering the world for people," he said. Lemann then introduced Jim Guest, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Consumers Union.

Guest explained that Consumer Union's mission has three parts: testing products and evaluating services; getting that information to the public; and advocating for consumer protection in Washington, D.C. and, "increasingly," state houses around the country. He said that "systemic change" is the goal and pointed to accomplishments that Consumers Union has made relating to cigarettes, car seats, seatbelts, and SUV rollover standards.

Given the changes in consumer reporting and information, Consumers Union is currently facing two challenges, Guest continued. The first is finding the right business model: he said it was "shrewd judgment or good luck" that led Consumer Reports to charge for online subscriptions, an approach that has not worked well for many traditional media outlets. The second is concern about moving away from testing in order to beef up information distribution via podcasting, mobile devices, and the Web. Consumers Union is striving for a "more interactive" relationship with consumers. It has mobilized a network of 700,000 "e-activists" around the country. Consumer Union's stature gives it a competitive advantage: its annual questionnaire is likely the second largest survey in the country next to the United States Census, Guest said.

Keynote Speech: A Reviewer Reviews the Users

New York Times technology columnist David Pogue, an Emmy Award-winning correspondent for CBS News's Sunday Morning, delivered the conference's keynote speech, "A Professional Reviewer Reviews the Users." Pogue began by explaining that the biggest advantage of the Web over traditional media is not the expanded user feedback, but rather that users themselves are beginning to be the source of content. He cited a number of popular social networking and user-generated information Web sites, many of which had sold shortly after their creation for extravagant sums. These included giants like Facebook, YouTube, Prosper, Kiva, GoLoco, E-Petitions, and Who is Sick? It's almost illogical, Pogue said, when referring to Wikipedia, that a user-edited encyclopedia should be so accurate: "It just doesn't seem like it should work, does it?" he mused. But, of course, it does, he asserted. Pogue said that, according to Technorati, seventy-five blogs are created every minute. Although most of them are probably never used after their creation, he said, "This is the new status quo; it is expected you will have a voice on the Web."

There has been institutional resistance among traditional media outlets toward using the full potential of the Web, Pogue said. His early efforts at Web reporting for The New York Times were an example of that resistance.
Editors were reluctant to invest in videos, graphics and blogs; there was poor interactivity and Pogue received very little feedback on his work. The paper's mentality was that such efforts did not sell ads and generate
revenue, but Pogue argued that they would "improve the brand." Then the Times "opened it up ... and everything changed." The Times added a comments section under blog posts, for example, and Pogue received 1,335 comments over the first weekend.

Citing the value of "instant feedback," Pogue then returned to his main point about user-generated reviews, showing a slide of stampeding buffalo that drew laughs from the crowd. He then listed a number of Web sites that
review everything from consumer electronics, to doctors, to cars, to boyfriends. One of the best, he said, is the Internet Movie Database (imdb.com), which includes user reviews of movies. This is where the illogical becomes logical. Even if there are a few "jerks" and bad reviews, they will be marginalized by the thousands of reviewers chiming in. "The cumulative wisdom will steer you in the right direction," Pogue said. Yet there are still poorly managed comment and review sites, he added, citing YouTube as one example. But the advantages of social media are clear. Even in the case of fake reviews and businesses trying to "game the system" for their own benefit, Pogue said, "the real stuff greatly overwhelms the bogus stuff." And innovations that address these problems keep coming, Pogue explained. TripAdvisor, for example, is a Web site where "you can search and
sort not just for how good a hotel is, but for how good it is for your kind of person." Pogue also cited Shopping.com, where consumers are not only able to search for the cheapest products, but for the cheapest products from reliable vendors. "There are technological solutions to a lot of this stuff," he said.

None of this, however, means that professional reviewers are obsolete, Pogue cautioned. One of the advantages of full time critics is that consumers can get to "know his tastes," he said, adding that he and his wife "steer their
ship" by a New York Times film critic whom they think is reliably wrong about children's movies. When it comes to the relationship between professional and amateur consumer reporters, Pogue said, there has not been
as much displacement as most people think. Most user reviews are simply "add-on," he said. Plus, he added, there are inherent problems with user reviews, which tend to be self-selecting for people who have had particularly bad experiences with a product or service. This is known as the "Squeaky Wheel Syndrome." And no matter how hard we try, there will always be some gaming of the system, Pogue warned, citing Microsoft's practice of sending laptops to reviewers and asking them to "dispose of them as they saw fit" when finished. Of course, most kept them, so the practice amounted to a form of payola. It is also easy to disseminate false, but incredibly damaging, rumors about products and services anonymously on the Web.

Pogue closed by calling for the development of a "Code of Ethics" among user review Web sites: take responsibility for words and comments you allow; when you believe that someone is unfairly attacking another, take action; and do not allow anonymous comments. Pogue noted that this has worked at many Web sites and that, employing another technological innovation, some sites now allow reviewers to review each other and the quality of comments, so that only the best rise to the top of the page.

Panel Discussion: Are Consumers the Right Watchdogs?

After Pogue finished, Kevin McKean, the vice president and editorial director of Consumer Reports, took the stage to moderate a five-person panel discussion on the question, "Are Consumers the Right Watchdogs?" McKean
started by noting that the "financial collapse" has made consumer reporting and protection issues "even more timely." He then introduced Mike Hoyt, the executive editor of Columbia Journalism Review, who outlined a three-part package in the September/October 2008 issue of the magazine called "The Rise and Fall - and Rise - of Consumer Journalism." The authors of the three articles - Evan Cornog, David Cay Johnston and Trudy Lieberman -- all took part in the conference. (The articles can be found at www.cjr.org )

Turning back to the panel, McKean posed a question to Trudy Lieberman, who is a consumer affairs and health reporter and author of the CJR article, "How the Press Fueled the Birth and the Decline of the Consumer Movement."
McKean asked about the "heyday" of that movement forty years ago. Addressing the decline instead, Lieberman said that, "The business community killed the Consumer Movement." She advised that as journalists think about the changes happening in consumer reporting, they think about "our economic system and what is allowed in it." She said that the decline of the Consumer Movement was a "graphic" demonstration that with the business community, "you can only go so far in reporting on serious malfunctions in the system." In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the business community "said 'enough,'" and began to organize against groups like the Michigan Consumers' Council. When those folded, consumers lost protections being enacted at the state level.

Right now, we are trying to figure out how far the mix of professional and crowd reporting can go, Lieberman said, and we should think about the "tension between education and regulation" that exist on the Internet. The
business community wants to simply educate consumers to be "better buyers," according to Lieberman, who thinks that that is not enough and that the system needs more regulation and oversight of business. "We gone from a Consumer Movement to Consumerism," Lieberman said. She defined Consumerism as the art and act of buying, but also as a celebration of shopping and the belief that it will fix economic problems. Yet now the marketplace is even more complex, from personal electronics, to credit instruments, to "hidden stuff" in our foods. "We need a Consumer Movement more than ever right now," Lieberman said, adding that the challenge will be "finding a home for this movement on the Internet" and moving away from the "herd mentality" of user reviews. She disagrees, to some extent, with the "wisdom of the crowds" and is a "Consumer Reports person at heart" who believes in the value of expert opinion, especially when it comes to things like healthcare. She thinks we need to translate the long-form journalism of traditional media to the Web in a way that will replace some of the "constraints on business" lost to deregulation.

McKean then introduced Bob Garfield, a columnist for Ad Age magazine, host of National Public Radio's On the Media, and creator of Comcast Must Die, a Web site devoted to letting customers "vent their grievances" against the company. Garfield then told the story of how he'd been receiving "horrendous," yet "run-of-the-mill" service from Comcast, so he decided to write about it at work under the headline, "Comcast Must Die." "Nobody read my AdAge blog until that day," Garfield said. He had so much feedback that he decided to create a Web site under the same name. "Evidently, I touched a nerve," he said. Now, a year later, he is "amazed" that the site has been able to hold Comcast's attention and generate positive change. Garfield says that he now has "the most delicious cable service in the United States of America." Yet the more Comcast has tried to appease him - the more it has tried to "smear grease on the squeaky wheel" - the angrier he has became. Garfield pointed to BuzzMachine's Jeff Jarvis, who was sitting in the audience, and credited him founding that approach with a blog post on his site titled, "Dell Sucks."

McKean then turned to David Cay Johnston, who is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter and author of the article in CJR's package on consumer reporting entitled, "The New Consumer Vigilantes and Why They Matter." With the rise of amateur reporting, McKean asked, "What's going to happen to investigative reporting - the muckraking journalism of the 20th Century?" Johnston immediately replied that he thinks there is more investigative reporting now than there was four years ago, even at small and medium-sized papers. "Clearly the financial model of newspapers is being destroyed by the Internet," he said, "but readership has been rising tremendously." And people are very well informed these days, but it's true that "there is unbelievable pressure" on news organizations. To compete in the market, they need to do a better job of "telling people that which they do not know" and "stop listening to company PR people." In particular, he said information that is useful to small businesses is rare, and that newspapers tend to ignore small, but important, stories like the excessive surcharges that banks are imposing on debit-card holders. McKean chimed in to say that he's noticed that "power follows the money" and considerations for advertisers, one of the only revenue sources available on the Web, can outweigh editorial decisions.

McKean then introduced Ben Popken, the editor of Consumerist, a citizen-journalist Web site covering a wide variety of consumer issues, products, and services. McKean noted that Consumerist, which is only two-and-a-half years old, gets roughly 15 million page views a month whereas Consumer Reports' Web site gets only 5 million. But he wanted to know if independent sites and blogs such as Popken's follow a code of ethics and do
"actual reporting." Popken said that Consumerist offers "a panoply of information," from breaking stories, to tips and insider confessions from company employees. It publishes 18-24 stories per day, 95 percent of which originate from reader tips. One of the most successful user-generated stories was one about "shrinking" products at grocery stores. Readers sent in before-and-after pictures from supermarkets around the country as companies downsized their wares. As popular as Consumerist has been, however, Popken noted that the site is for sale. "It's hard to survive on an advertising revenue model," he said, because Consumerist doesn't "pull any punches" in its reviews.

McKean turned next to Harry McCracken, a former editor at PC World magazine and now the founder and editor of Technologizer, a new Web site and community about personal technology. McKean asked why McCracken had made the shift from "old to new media," and if new media could fill the shoes of the old. McCracken responded that he disliked being an editor at PC World because it did not allow him to think, report, and write. What he likes about online publishing is that he can do all of that and didn't need a lot of start up capital, a large staff, a circulation desk, or administrators. "I deeply believe that the Web is an equal-opportunity newsstand," he said, "and if your content is compelling people will find it and you'll do well. And if it's not compelling, nobody is going to read it whether you're a big company or an individual."

The conversation then opened up among the panelists with McKean, following up on McCracken's point, asking whether or not good journalism would always rise to a place of prominence on the Web. The panelists agreed that that would depend on whether or not traditional news outlets find a sustainable business model for online publication. Johnston and McCracken were optimistic, but Garfield said the model would "never" come. There was some discussion of micro financing a partial, but perhaps inadequate, solution.

McKean opened the floor to questions. Bill Sobel of SobelMedia, a digital media connections company, told Garfield a story about how he'd met a Comcast executive at a urinal and complained of his parents' poor service. The next day a truck arrived at his parents' home to fix the problem. Garfield replied that his site, Comcast Must Die, is "a string of 40,000 urinals," on the Web. Then Jeff Jarvis stood up to ask McKean if he and Consumer Reports considered Popken and Consumerist to be their competition. McKean replied that by sheer size, Consumer Reports was a much bigger operation, with 100 journalists and 150 product testers. Ultimately, though, the two publications are operating on different business models. The decision in 1997 to make Consumer Reports' Web site pay-only was "gutsy to say the least," McKean said, "but it as turned out to be phenomenally correct." Since then, Consumer Reports' site has grown to 3.2 million subscribers. "The pay model is actually viable," McKean said.

Before concluding, the panel turned to brands. Some thought they were "obsolete," but others argued that only their nature had changed; in particular, it is now possible to build and/or destroy a brand much more rapidly than in the past. The conclusion of the conversation seemed to be that there is room for professional and amateur consumer reporting in some areas to exist symbiotically (with certain exceptions in critical markets like healthcare).

Case Studies 1 & 2

Gayle Williams, an associate editor at Consumer Reports, took the stage next to introduce two speakers to present case studies. The first was Steve Rubel, vice president at Edelman and author of the PR industry blog, MicroPersuasion, who laid out six trends in the blogosphere:

1) "The Cut-and-Paste Web," by which consumers demand access to information anytime, anywhere via mobile devices. "If you don't go where they are," Rubel said, "you'll never be relevant in their lives."

2) "The Attention Crash," by which individuals now have access to far more information than they are capable of processing.

3) "Digital Curation," by which there is a growing role and need for information "curators" online that can find, sort, and display, as Rubel put it, "what's art and what's junk."

4) "The Numerati," by which traditional media, entrepreneurs, and PR companies can "mine" the Web for data and use analytical tools to more effectively build "media properties." Data on reader and audience interests is underutilized, Rubel said. But whether or not using such information results in "a better editorial product is a very big debate."

5) "Collaboration," by which the "Web is not just a platform for communication, but for action; it's a place where stuff gets done." There are many levels of engagement with audiences: from open to controlled, from
communicative to collaborative.

6) "Hacker Journalists," by which there has been a rise of programmers in the newsroom who are familiar with Web site management and digital media operations. They are "cross-trained in programming and journalism," Rubel
said and are well worth hiring.

Diane Farsetta, senior researcher at The Center for Media and Democracy's PRWatch.org and producer of their "No Fake News" campaign, delivered the next case study on "exposing the spin" online. The Web's first problem is
anonymity, Farsetta said, because "it makes it easier to misrepresent your identity." She then listed a number of seemingly independent Web sites that were, in fact, created by business groups with a vested interest in swaying
consumer opinion. These included RottenAcorn.com, UnionFacts.com, FishScam.com, and The Center for Consumer Freedom.

Though not necessarily involved in those sites, companies ranging from Burger King, to Sony, to Wal-Mart have misrepresented themselves online. The Web also connects marketers to bloggers, Farsetta continued. PayPerPost.com, for examples, pays bloggers to place reviews on various Web sites. These are similar to Video News Releases (also known as VNRs) put out by PR firms, which some broadcast outlets misrepresent as original, unbiased reporting. If such practices are going to become more common, Farsetta argued, they should be clearly labeled as "sponsored reviews" or pre-packaged news.

Some companies, such as Ford, Dove, Kraft, Crystal Lite, and ConAgra, have created their own online communities, which offer product tips, finders, and a lot of publicity information. But if you read their privacy policies, Farsetta said, you will see that the companies are collecting and sharing your personal information as you participate in their communities. Even the United States Department of Defense's regional command centers have hired journalists and created their own "news" sites. "There is a lot of blurring of roles," Farsetta said, "a lot of uncharted territory, and a lot of vested interests taking advantage of that grey area." Reporters, she concluded,
must work to raise "online media literacy."

Panel Discussion: The New Age of Citizen Journalism

After a brief lunch break, the conference resumed with a panel moderated by CJR publisher Evan Cornog titled, "The New Age of Citizen Journalism: 'Can't We All Just Get Along?'" The two-member panel included Jeff Jarvis, a media and news blogger for the Web site BuzzMachine and director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York, and John Darton, who worked as a reporter, editor and foreign correspondent for The New York Times for over forty years. Cornog asked each man to "lay out the case for the other side," with Jarvis touting traditional media and Darnton digital media.

Jarvis began by saying that "old media has to update itself... but the point of that is to carry over the value of journalism" to new media. Likewise, Darnton said he had learned a lot, especially during the presidential campaign, about new media. Both men agreed that each operation has its place. Darnton said that traditional media is like a "spine" and new media "fills" in the gaps. "We're in a good position now," he said. "What I worry about is the future and the possibility we'll go online only." Both agreed that the term "citizen journalist" isn't a good one because journalism and information should be judged upon their own merits and not upon job titles.

Cornog asked if the professional news media are "under attack" and mistrusted. Jarvis replied that stories are becoming "more of a process" rather than a one-time, one-way explanation. Jarvis cited the example of Gawker Media founder Nick Denton, who pioneered the act of publishing "half-baked posts" in which reporters lay out what they know and what they don't, and then ask readers to contribute their own intelligence. That approach can be very useful in consumer reporting, he said, citing the example of The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC Radio, which mobilized its audience to report back on the price of food items around New York City. The input from listeners created a valuable database. Out of such mobilization "come new efficiencies and new business structures," Jarvis said.

Darnton agreed with Cornog that, "Somewhere journalism got a bad name." The first indication that amateur reporters were picking up the slack for professional news, in his opinion, was the Rodney King beating in 1991.
Newspapers need to find a business model for such Web reporting that will allow them to stay current, Darnton said. He cited VoiceofSanDiego.com and MinnPost.com as good examples of traditional journalism start-ups on the
Web, but cautioned that their business models "aren't replicable everywhere," and that those operations are still very limited. Jarvis chimed in to add ProPublica to the list of start-ups doing traditional journalism on the Web.

Jarvis said that at a recent event at CUNY's Graduate School of Journalism, students looked for a news business model for online reporting. One of the unique positions that they came up with was that of "community manager," a
person whose fulltime job would be to integrate citizen reporting into the site. He said that traditional media outlets should be more willing to experiment and share the results of those experiments. "There is no time to lose," he said. Jarvis added that he is confident that there is still market demand for professional, investigative reporting, but that the journalism industry is still transforming into an undetermined size, scale, and shape. There will probably be a smaller core of journalists at the center, and news outlets will be more collaborative. He also noted that startup outlets "won't be able to access big amounts of capital anymore. Darnton agreed, saying that advertising revenue is "particularly tricky" right now, charity funding is unreliable, government funding almost out of the question, and
subscription revenue is unsustainable.

Darnton said there is a misperception of professional journalists as being "up on Mt. Olympus," rendering thumbs-up, thumb-down verdicts," when in fact they are there to "enhance the experience for the user." He also said he favors large news operations because they have the money to pay for revenue-losing operations such as investigations. Amateur operations could not do that, he said. On the other hand, Jarvis pointed to citizen-generated
Web sites in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the Indian Ocean Tsunami that provided valuable, highly localized information about safety, rescue, and support operations. Relying on amateur reporting does not always work out
during emergencies, however, Jarvis noted. After the bombing of the London Underground, one of the first citizen reports said incorrectly that there had been a power blackout. But with so many camera phones on the ground,
Jarvis concluded, news outlets must find ways to motivate and educate audiences and pay a professional to manage that community.

Case Studies 3 & 4

For the final case studies session, Columbia Journalism School professor, CJR contributor, and New Republic music critic David Hajdu introduced two men "whose work "illuminates how the very nature of journalism is changing."

The first to speak was Robert Cox, president of the Media Blogger Association (MBA), whose case discussed increasing legal threats to bloggers and resources at their disposal. The MBA provides legal resources, helps
arrange blogger press passes, and provides media liability insurance, among other services. Cox told the previously undisclosed story of a blogger and Huffington Post contributor who had called the MBA when she found out she was being sued for defamation. The blogger had wrongly reported that a schoolmistress had been charged in a sexual abuse case. When the blogger called Cox, however, she seemed defensive and complained that the schoolmistress had not called her to correct the mistake, so she had done nothing wrong. Cox believes the case against the blogger has been dropped. But misunderstandings are "very typical of the bloggers I've talked to," he said. "They don't have any understanding of the laws that relate to what they're doing." That's not always the case, Cox added, but blogs clearly have the power for "transformative good" or "great harm."

Cox then described the MBA's history and work. It was founded in 2004 as a "mutual defense pact" for bloggers, who have "inherent legal and operational risks." Though they're often one-person or small operations, they are just
as exposed as any major media company. Cox said that blogs took off in earnest four years ago, and lawsuits "immediately followed." The MBA has been involved in over 400 cases. The vast majority have been defamation
cases, like the blogger from Wisconsin, but there have also been a number of privacy and copyright violations. Sectors like pharmaceuticals, real estate, and government "tend to be" the most litigious. "But the good news is that
bloggers mostly win," Cox said. Thirty-five percent of cases "go away," and bloggers win 92 percent of judgments and settlements. But the cost of defense has been going up and settlements have been as high as $20 million.

The MBA has a multi-faceted response to this trend. It offers education and training, and partnered with the Poynter Institute and News University to create an online media law course. It also provides a hotline, tips and
referrals. It created the first-of-its-kind media liability insurance that covers defamation, invasion of privacy and
copyright infringement that is cheaper than market rate. The MBA also provides peer-to-peer support networks.

Delivering the second case was Brian Lehrer, a Peabody Award-winning WNYC radio journalist and host of the The Brian Lehrer Show, who talked about some of his recent "crowd sourcing" projects. Lehrer said that as host, he is less interested in telling listeners "what he thinks" than in "starting a conversation." One of his core principles, he said, is to "foster democracy." One of his first crowd sourcing projects was to solicit information from listeners in order to create a map of New York City showing what percentage of cars parked on various blocks were SUVs. It "didn't break any news," Lehrer said, but it engaged the audience and he was able to peg a
number of on-air segments to the SUV map.

The next project, again based on the creation of a map, was called "Are You Being Gouged," and asked listeners to report the prices of typical food items (lettuce, milk, beer, etc.) at their local markets. Here, Lehrer said, they ran into "one of the problems with crowd sourcing." When his team fact-checked some the outlier prices (i.e. excessively high or low), they all turned out to be wrong. Nevertheless, with 450 people participating, his program did get a lot of valuable mileage from this crowd-sourcing exercise. The show was able to frame a couple on-air segments around the map (people "talked about it for months"), and they were able to discern some pricing patterns and discuss issues like the difference between independent markets and supermarkets. After that, Lehrer asked listeners to help develop a quantitative and qualitative assessment of Bill Clinton's monetary value to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Lehrer also asked his audience to help scour the records of her activities as First Lady. It was too much for his staff to handle, he said, and to improve efficiency he advised listeners to review only the week of their birthday. After that, Lehrer did a more whimsical piece where people contributed their workday "nap strategies."

All these projects were "moderate successes, more interesting than revelatory," Lehrer said. But they helped lay the groundwork for the show's "30 Issues in 30 Days" series focused on the fall 2008 presidential election campaign. "No matter what "breaking news" was happening in the campaign on a given day, the idea, as Lehrer put it, was to create a "safe space" for the issues to be explored in depth. This was to make sure his program did
not get totally caught up in the more typical horserace coverage of the mainstream media leaving serious issues of consequence neglected. Listeners played an active and important role in creating the "30 Issues in 30 Days"
series. Lehrer encouraged listeners to send in their ideas of issues to be discussed, and experts to address particular issues. The show created online wikis for listeners to comment on six of the issues and suggest angles of exploration. The quantity of participation was very low, Lehrer said, but the quality of what listeners helped produce was very high. Yet for all that, Lehrer concluded, they've been "dabbling at the surface" of what's possible. The trick is to find opportunities for audience collaboration that will be "journalistically meaningful." One thing they've thought of, for example, would be crowd-sourced information about construction sites, accidents and safety.

Panel Discussion: Harnessing the Power of Your Audience

The last panel of the day, moderated by Marc Perton, executive editor of online media at Consumer Reports, was titled, "Harnessing the Power of Your Audience - Applying New Information and Tools to Your Journalism." Perton began by following up on the preceding case studies by noting that, in some way, crowd sourcing is not new. After all, he said, radio call-ins and letters the editor at newspapers have been common practice for a very long time. "What's really different today," he said, "is that collaborators expect to be given tools to create content on their own terms."

Perton then introduced Lila King, who is a senior producer at CNN.com and leads the cable network's iReports team at iReport.com. King gave a bit of history on the project, noting that when it was created in 2006, it drew 13
iReports from viewers on the first day. By the end of 2007, CNN was getting 10,000 submissions per month, of which about 900 would be fact checked and published. Now, however, viewers can register to be iReporters and upload video and audio contributions. Anything that is used by CNN is fact checked. Most reports are self-generated, but CNN also suggests assignments, such as covering the California wildfires or contributing questions to "The Situation Room", the CNN program. King spends a lot time pitching iReports to the network, in fact. On the day of the Virginia Tech shootings, for example, an on-the-scene iReport was the "key video of the day." Other significant iReport coverage has included the Minnesota bridge collapse and protests in Myanmar. During the campaign, iReporters were invited to discuss the presidential debates. King said that the approach produces a "different quality" of conversation that is more "raw." But now CNN and the audience are "all in it together," King noted, though, "Community management takes a lot more time than I ever thought it would." Her original estimation that it would only require a "few" hours per day was a bit "naïve," she concluded.

After CNN's King, Thor Muller, the CEO of Get Satisfaction, talked about his site, which provides "people-powered customer service." Get Satisfaction is an open, transparent, and "neutral" forum that connects companies,
employees, and customers in an effort to foster problem solving and efficiency, asserted Muller. He said he hopes what he's doing will be "materially useful" to journalists and then discussed four themes in customer service:

1) "Public is the New Private," whereby there are new incentives for engagement between companies, employees, and customers that are both social and monetary. Social media creates serendipity, expands the universe of
experts, and shames companies into responding to their customers.

2) "Honesty as a Prophylactic," whereby consumers use search engines and databases such as Google as a check on market accountability. Muller said that the Internet has given consumer more control over companies'
reputations. He noted, for instance, that it wasn't necessary for Bob Garfield to be a media figure to succeed with Comcast Must Die. Companies can no longer hide, Muller said; they respond and social media is "changing
the way they do business."

3) "Business is Becoming Personal," whereby individuals are taking responsibility for their reputations and will not carry out flawed policies.

4) "Kindler, Gentler Customers," whereby consumers are becoming less irate in their interactions with companies because they have forums where their concerns are being addressed.

Those forums also provide opportunities for consumer journalists, Muller concluded. They allow pattern matching and analysis, provide context for anecdotes, encourage re-humanization of the companies, reduce incentives for
bad actors, and demand better customer service.

The next speaker was Judith Meskill, the Chief Operating Officer of Crowd Fusion and former Chief Operating Officer of Weblogs, and a popular speaker on social media and online communities. Meskill said that she started in the business working at Pacific Bell's Web service. At that time, the customer service team wasn't prepared to receive customer feedback by e-mail, which seemed like a "no brainer" to her. On the first day, company employees were manning the phones while over 10,000 e-mails poured in, but no calls. This is evidence that consumers have moved on to the Web in overwhelming numbers.

Meskill's new project, Crowd Fusion, was created to develop the new tools and platforms necessary for Web publishing at scale. Its platforms leverage a number of social media components like IM, Skype, and Google Docs. They also work on search engine optimization and aggregating "conversations" from around the Web. There is a rating and quality control system that filters for the best information. Crowd Fusion can provide journalists with helpful tools by allowing them to search for stories that are "socially popular," and Meskill pointed to Twitter and Facebook as examples of social media that are particularly "potent" tools for journalists. The conversations that are
happening on each of these Web sites are different, she added, and there is a large incentive for companies and producers to pay attention to what is being discussed online. The same goes for journalists. Meskill said that it
is not so much that the potency of journalism is evaporating online, but rather that there is a poor "currency of trust." Journalists, she concluded, should leverage social media to bring readers and audiences in and improve
that trust.

The fourth and last panelist was Joel Sucherman, the director of product innovation at USA Today, where he recently took the editorial lead in the re-design and re-launch of USAToday.com. Sucherman explained that one of the founding principles at the publication was "opening its doors" to readers, and there was an early realization that those readers were an untapped resource. "Reporters will never understand the intricacies of something" as well as people who live and deal with that thing every day, he said.

Networked journalism is an important editorial mission at USA Today, but it is incumbent upon the Web site to provide the tools and the space for readers to help produce quality content rather than hollow chatter. Since
USA Today's site re-launched, for example, each headline includes a prominent comment and recommendation count, so that readers can see where the "buzz" is. They also created more space for user-generated content. They've had photo collections of opening day at Major League Baseball games around the country and impressive weather scenes. Getting published on the site is a "really big deal for people," Sucherman said. The site also has reader blogs such as the NFL Blog Squad, where readers in major cities around the country have set up home team blogs. In an effort to have the Web "give back" to the print edition, the newspaper now runs "Page 3.0," a user-generated sports page. Such trends in social media are altering roles in the newsroom, he added. In a variation on the "Long Tail" concept of business, Sucherman offered the "Fuzzy Tail" concept whereby staff employees now have to do "a little bit of everything," from print, to Web, to multimedia, to community management.

This new organization allows for more engaging storytelling, Sucherman argued. For example, USA Today created a "candidate match game," in which readers entered their political positions and were shown which candidates best matched their views. There was also a "presidential poll tracker" that aggregated all of the available election polls. Sucherman described the approach as "database reporting, a gift that keeps on giving" through constant updates and a live flow of data, and which stays active for long periods of time. The databases aggregate professional and public knowledge in all media, including blogs, videos, photos, and audio files. Once again demonstrating the changing roles in the newsroom, Sucherman added that reporters are now becoming more like "curators of information." An example of this is Gene Sloan's Cruise Log blog at USA Today, which aggregates professional and user information about cruises. Through a variety of comments, reviews, and ratings, the expertise behind that site in provided by the crowd.

The conversation then opened up among the panelists. Perton asked King about "damage control" for false iReports at CNN. King replied that they rely on community policing, which is very effective. In a few instances, however, inaccurate information has been picked up and disseminated by sites like Digg before it could be corrected. Sucherman jumped in to defend iReports and said that one bad incident should not destroy the system. Muller agreed that people spot and correct errors very quickly online.

Perton then asked how readers' ability to rank and recommend favorite stories affects news prioritization. Sucherman said he originally worried that with such a system, the top headlines would always involve celebrities
like Britney Spears, but that hasn't been the case. People want to talk about important things like the presidential election and be engaged, he said. And because of that, journalists have recognized the potential resources and talent their readers and audiences provide.

The conference closed by returning to a short discussion of business models for journalism and consumer reporting. All the panelists agreed that it is a difficult time to launch a publication or a career in journalism, especially
one that makes money. Nevertheless, there is a growing demand for reporters that have "grown up" with social media and are well versed in reporting, writing, and a host of multimedia skills from video and sound editing to Web
production. As Sucherman put it, if you don't mind being in an unsettled and uncertain world, "there has never been a more exciting time to be in this field. Historians will write about this moment."

The New Age of Citizen Journalism

| 1 Comment

On November 20, 2008, CJR and Consumer Reports staged a conference called "Consumer Revolution on the Web: Opportunities and Dangers for Journalism." The conference was designed to address questions about how professional journalists should cover consumer issues at a time when big-name bloggers, online vigilantes, and anonymous user-reviewers have turned word-of-mouth into a powerful weapon and traditional consumer reporters are falling victim to budget cuts. CJR publisher Evan Cornog moderated a panel discussion on the relative merits of citizen and professional journalism. Sitting on the panel were CUNY professor Jeff Jarvis and veteran New York Times reporter John Darnton. Audio of the panel is available here.

Are Consumers the Right Watchdogs?

| 1 Comment

On November 20, 2008, CJR and Consumer Reports staged a conference called "Consumer Revolution on the Web: Opportunities and Dangers for Journalism." The conference was designed to address questions about how professional journalists should cover consumer issues at a time when big-name bloggers, online vigilantes, and anonymous user-reviewers have turned word-of-mouth into a powerful weapon and traditional consumer reporters are falling victim to budget cuts. Consumer Reports editorial director Kevin McKean moderated a panel discussion on how to strike a balance between professional and amateur consumer reporting. Sitting on the panel were veteran consumer reporter Trudy Lieberman, On the Media host Bob Garfield, The Consumerist editor Ben Popken, Pulitzer-winning reporter David Cay Johnston, and Harry McCracken, editor of Technologizer. Audio of the panel is available here.

On November 20, 2008, CJR and Consumer Reports staged a conference called "Consumer Revolution on the Web: Opportunities and Dangers for Journalism." The conference was designed to address questions about how professional journalists should cover consumer issues at a time when big-name bloggers, online vigilantes, and anonymous user-reviewers have turned word-of-mouth into a powerful weapon and traditional consumer reporters are falling victim to budget cuts. New York Times columnist David Pogue delivered the keynote address, in which he discussed the rise of user-generated consumer reporting on the Web. Audio of his speech is available here.

Books for a Hard Season, Revisited

| 2 Comments

Last week, we asked readers to recommend a book to members of the journalistic community. Below, we present an alphabetized list of the recommendations we received, with a link to more information for each book. If you've left your shopping until the last minute like we have, you could do worse than to give one or more of these books.

The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism – Andrew J. Bacevich

Supermedia: Saving Journalism So It Can Save the World – Charlie Beckett

The Wealth of Networks – Yochai Benchler

The Bible

Friday Night Lights – H.G. Bissinger

Our Constitution: The Myth That Binds Us – Eric Black

Alphabet Juice – Roy Blount Jr.

Terror and Consent – Phillip Bobbitt

What Color is Your Parachute? – Richard Nelson Bolles

The Image – Daniel Boorstin

The New New Journalism – ed. Robert Boynton

The Gay Place – Billy Lee Brammer

The Path to Power – Robert A. Caro

Silent Spring – Rachel Carson

The Boys on the Bus – Timothy Crouse

Black and White and Dead All Over – John Darnton

Flat Earth News – Nick Davies

Return to Tsugaru: Travels of a Purple Tramp – Osamu Dazai

Anything by St. Francis de Sales

The New Muckrackers – Leonard Downie

Waiting for an Ordinary Day: The Unraveling of Life in Iraq – Farnaz Fassihi

The Forever War – Dexter Filkins

Economics for Dummies – Sean Masaki Flynn

The Predator State – James K. Galbraith

City Room – Arthur Gelb

The Tipping Point – Malcolm Gladwell

Personal History – Katharine Graham

Corrupted Science – John Grant

News is a Verb – Pete Hamill

Pulitzer’s Gold – Roy J. Harris, Jr.

Machete Season – Jean Hatzfeld

Economics in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt

Laura Ingalls Wilder, Farm Journalist: Writings from the Ozarks – Edited by Stephen W. Hines

B-Four – Sam Hodges

Anti-Intellectualism in American Life – Richard Hofstadter

Who You Are when No One’s Looking – Bill Hybels

In Search of Memory – Eric Kandel

The Shock Doctrine – Naomi Klein

The Elements of Journalism – Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel

Never Shoot a Stampede Queen – Mark Leiren-Young

Startup Guide to Guerilla Marketing – Jay and Jeannie Levinson

The Journalist and the Murderer – Janet Malcolm

The Road – Cormac McCarthy

Annals of the Former World – John McPhee

Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found – Suketu Mehta

The Vanishing Newspaper – Philip Meyer

On Liberty – John Stuart Mill

The Chicago Guide to Writing about Numbers – Jane Miller

Joe Gould’s Secret – Joseph Mitchell

The Tender Bar – J.R. Moehringer

Anything by Haruki Murakami

Innumeracy – John Paulos

The Truth – Terry Pratchett

Lush Life – Richard Price

Once Upon a Distant War – William Prochnau

The Shipping News – E. Annie Proulx

What Are Journalists For? – Jay Rosen

One More Time: The Best of Mike Royko – Mike Royko

Slats Grobnik and Some Other Friends – Mike Royko

Here Comes Everybody – Clay Shirky

Claim of Privilege: A Mysterious Plane Crash, a Landmark Supreme Court Case and Rise of State Secrets – Barry Siegel

The Creation of the Media: Political Origins of Modern Communications – Paul Starr

The Kingdom and the Power – Gay Talese

Hard Times – Studs Terkel

The Palliser novels – Anthony Trollope

A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again – David Foster Wallace

All the King’s Men – Robert Penn Warren

Taking on the Trust – Steve Weinberg

Legacy of Ashes – Tim Weiner

The Man Who Owns the News
Michael Wolff

The Purpose of the Past: Reflections on the Uses of History – Gordon Wood

Some Things Borrowed

| No Comments

For a 2007 New Yorker piece exploring how Picasso borrowed from Rembrandt, did Simon Schama borrow too much from an earlier, longer, essay (one which Schama does credit/mention in his piece)?

Peter Hellman argues that case at the Forward.

Why now (news hook)? "In Paris, art gazers have been lining up in droves for Picasso and the Masters, this season’s blockbuster show at the Grand Palais" among other current exhibits showing how Picasso cribbed from others, Hellman writes. Why/how this? Janie Cohen, the author of the earlier, longer Picasso essay, Hellman writes, "happens to be my wife's first cousin."

Writes Hellman:

[Cohen's] essay, never published in the United States and immune even to Google searching, can be called, fairly, obscure. But close and, it should be noted, explicit attention had been paid to it by Schama, who extensively relied on it. Twice in his own essay, Schama briefly credits Cohen, but a comparison of the two texts still raises certain questions: Did Schama reveal the true extent to which his own article relied on the work of a person not nearly so famous as himself? And, if Cohen’s article had been posted on the Web, where curious readers of Schama’s article would have noticed the similarities, would Schama have had second thoughts about the extent of his borrowing? Or maybe it is a fault of the looseness of the journalistic genre: Had Schama been writing as a scholar instead of as a journalist, would he have properly footnoted Cohen’s work?

All food for general thought: Are journalists too loose with "borrowing?" How much borrowing is too much?

Dispatches From Across the Pond

| 1 Comment

And now for something completely British: wise, heartfelt reflections on the demise of Woolworths in the U.K. from two ladies with the most stereotypical English names ever:

"It was just someplace you could come and get all those odd things — shoe polish, curtains, mops, safety pins, paintbrushes, pillowcases,” said Georganne Uxbridge, 56, waiting in line for the checkout counter and pushing her heavy shopping basket along with her foot. She had already bought “masses” on an earlier trip, she said, and felt slightly uneasy, benefiting from such obvious misfortune.

“To be honest, I feel like a bit of a vulture,” she said. She tossed a box of Bailey’s Irish Cream truffles, displayed near the toasters close to the checkout counter, into her basket. “I feel — well, sad.”'

So did Dolores Crummy, who was looking at the children’s clothes (toddlers’ fleeces: 50 percent off) and found herself struck by something like conscience, or nostalgia, or an inchoate combination of the two.

Alarm, too, at this tangible manifestation of the precarious state of the economy.

“As long as I’ve been alive, there’s always been Woolworths,” said Miss Crummy, who remembers shopping there as a child in Northern Ireland during the decades of “the Troubles.”

“It symbolizes longevity and memories that go a long way back, and it’s a sad reflection of the times that an old, established firm like this has gone to the wall,” she said.

Her eyes grew moist and she said she felt, finally, unable to buy anything.

“I suppose I just wanted to be here at the end,” she said.

Brilliant.

Report from the Tupperware Circuit

| 1 Comment

On Friday, we urged reporters to attend the community listening sessions called for by Tom Daschle, the President-elect’s health chief. Between now and the end of the year, there will no doubt be many such meetings in libraries, living rooms, and Elks lodges all over the country. Daschle wants ordinary folks to organize these meetings, but, as we reported, there’s a danger that they will be co-opted by the special interests which have a lot to win or lose depending on what happens with health reform. These groups, which include health plans, doctors, and businesses, say they will send employees and patients to the sessions to voice their thoughts on health reform, but attendees are not required to disclose their affiliations.

So, on Saturday, it was heartening to see the Marion Star in Marion, Ohio, dispatch its reporter to a session at the local public library that was organized by the advocacy group Health Care for America Now. From what the reporter, Kurt Moore, told us, it seemed that the people gathered had legitimate beefs about the health care system. Many participants agreed that the U.S. should follow the example of other industrialized countries and implement universal health care. We don’t know what kind of universal care they had in mind—a single payer system like the rest of those nations have or a scheme to get Americans to buy more insurance from private carriers. Moore did report that there were questions about whether insurance should be offered to everyone or just those who don’t currently have it. Sounds to me that the Marion Star might want to follow up on this and help readers understand the differences.

Some lawyers talked about clients who were bankrupt because of medical debt. Other townspeople related their own experiences. One woman told how hard it was to find a doctor when she moved to Marion, because physicians were not taking new patients. The talk turned to giving incentives in order to lure doctors into family practice instead of specialties. If there were HMO or AMA plants in the audience, it wasn’t obvious from Moore’s reporting.

We continue to suggest that media outlets send reporters to these gatherings over the next week or so, and use what they learn as the basis for some original reporting. Former House Speaker Tip O’Neill used to say “all politics is local.” The same goes for health care. All kinds of local health stories await audiences in the new year.

"Beach Body"

| 1 Comment

Perhaps you've seen, in some form, this image?






Politico has the background on who shot it (not a member of Obama's traveling press corps), which publications have run it, and what the experts (on abs, the editor of Men's Health, and on presidential imagery, Kathleen Hall Jamieson) have to say on what to make of it, who's being disrespectful of whom/what, and not.

And while all the cable news channels are talking about the photo (and the others snapped of the Obama family in Hawaii), Fox News's Fox & Friends thought to design a special rotating graphic for the occasion which lived, this morning, on the bottom right corner of the screen, flipping between an image of Obama's face (not the image in question) and the words "Beach Body," and continued to so flip even as the story above it moved on, reminding viewers, Yes, Plane Crash in Denver, but also,"Beach Body".

(But it's not like Obama can be mad, as Fox's Brian Kilmeade explained: "Twelve photos are out there, and I don't think Barack Obama could be even slightly upset, it obviously makes him look good, much like Matt Lauer was caught by surprise without a shirt on...")

OTS Mess Didn't Come Out of Nowhere

| No Comments

The mini-scandal at the Office of Thrift Supervision is big news this morning. Apparently, a regulator allowed IndyMac to fudge its books to make it look healthier than it was. This same regulator got in trouble in the S&L scandal twenty years ago.

The Washington Post reports that the regulator, Darrel Dochow, did the same with other banks.

The Times and Journal have stories, too, but the news reminds me that the Washington Post had an excellent front-page story just a month ago on the backward culture at OTS, which is a key banking regulator. Here was the headline then:

Banking Regulator Played Advocate Over Enforcer Agency Let Lenders Grow Out of Control, Then Fail

The Post raises similar points in its story today, but mostly through quotes from sources.

"It is their job to be a cop," said Bart Dzivi, a lawyer who represents financial services institutions in Northern California. "But Darrel Dochow and senior management take the view, 'We're working with these institutions to help them with their problems.' They see themselves as consultants, not cops."

It would have been nice for the paper to more clearly make the point in its own language that Dochow was not exactly a fish out of water at OTS. The same reporters already had the reporting to back it up.

The Times has some nice context here:

William K. Black, a senior bank regulator during the savings and loan crisis and the author of “The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One,” said Mr. Dochow’s lenience highlighted the longstanding unwillingness of the Office of Thrift Supervision to take charge.

“The O.T.S. did nothing effective to regulate any of the specialized large nonprime lenders,” Mr. Black said. “So what you got was what the F.B.I. accurately described as early as 2004 as an epidemic of mortgage fraud.”

Mr. Black said that the Office of Thrift Supervision had never put IndyMac on its watch list of troubled institutions before the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took it over in July and booked a loss of $8.9 billion to its insurance fund.

Morning Joe's Three "No's"

| No Comments

Howard Kurtz profiles Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC's Morning Joe, revealing that Brzezinski and cable go back a long time (before Joe, there was "Melissa"):

While attending Washington's Madeira School, she and a friend started the "Mika and Melissa Show," which aired on a cable-access channel.

Here is how Kurtz and Brzezinski describe Morning Joe:

As the presidential election unfolded, "Morning Joe" gained traction as a kind of political salon, with long segments built around pundits and campaign aides. "No cooking, no lingerie, no missing girls," Brzezinski boasts.

But, a story about lingerie and a missing girl? Yes. (And: there is, of course, the thong exception rule).

Forty-one journalists were killed worldwide "in direct connection to their work" in 2008, according to The Committee to Protect Journalists. This is down from last year's 65 killed, a decrease "largely attributable to Iraq, where deaths dropped from a record 32 in both 2007 and 2006" to 11 in 2008 (though Iraq remains the "deadliest country in the world for the press" as it has been since 2003). More:

In interviews with CPJ, journalists and analysts pointed to a variety of factors [for the drop in deaths in Iraq]: the increase in U.S. troop levels that began in 2007; the turning of Sunni tribal leaders against al-Qaeda and other foreign fighters in Anbar province and elsewhere in western Iraq; a cease-fire declared by independent Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr against U.S.-led coalition forces; and the consolidation of sectarian control of neighborhoods. A declining Western media presence also contributed to the drop in deaths in Iraq, journalists told CPJ...


All of those killed in Iraq were local journalists working for domestic news outlets.

And:

The 2008 death toll reflected a shift in global hot spots, as high numbers of deaths were reported in restive areas of Asia and the Caucasus. Conflicts in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and India together claimed the lives of 13 journalists, CPJ found...


More than 90 percent of those killed were local journalists...

On CPJ's blog, Iraqi reporter Bassam Sebti ponders the report:

Iraqi journalists are not fearful--as they never were. They will go on and take part in rebuilding their country with their pens and notebooks.

Absolutely Sensational!

| No Comments

The Godfather of Tabloid: Generoso Pope Jr. and the National Enquirer


By Jack Vitek


University Press of Kentucky


290 pages, $29.95

The Flash Press: Sporting Male Weeklies in 1840s New York

By Patricia Cline Cohen, Timothy J. Gilfoyle, and Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz


University of Chicago Press


278 pages, $20

In his entertaining but slapdash new biography of Generoso Pope Jr., who shepherded the tabloid National Enquirer to a circulation peak of over five million in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Jack Vitek entices readers as skillfully as any headline writer in the heyday of Florida’s “Tabloid Triangle.” And he, too, sometimes puts more tease than meat into his prose. Vitek, a former journalist who teaches journalism and English at Edgewood College in Madison, Wisconsin, likes to backpedal away from his own bombshells. That leads to the following disclosures about the man who, Vitek admits up front, had a “dull lifestyle” and a “dour personality.”

Pope might have had Asperger’s syndrome, but that tells us more about the syndrome than the man. Because he probably had Mafia connections, Pope might have attended the funeral of the mobster Frank Costello, but no one knows for sure. Pope invented modern tabloid culture, except that in all his years as editor, he wrote hardly a word of copy, nearly all of his editorial decisions were “intuitive” or “arbitrary,” and he didn’t like celebrity stories but ran them because otherwise readers stopped buying. If he hadn’t died in 1988, Pope might have thought of ways to boost the paper’s cratering circulation in the difficult 1990s, or the tabloidization of the mainstream press might have made that impossible.

Tracing Wall Street's WMDs

| 4 Comments

The Journal looks at how investments that were supposed to reduce risk by spreading it instead magnified it by spreading it to every corner of the globe, and this case to a town of 10,000 in Australia that has tens of millions in exposure to synthetic CDOs.

The linkage between Messrs. McCormack and Gahan demonstrates how far a vast superstructure of credit derivatives such as synthetic CDOs, built up over the past decade, has spread the risk of lending to U.S. companies -- and how far the pain is likely to reach. They're called derivatives in part because they don't entail any direct investment into companies. Instead, they're more like side bets on the companies' fortunes.

JP Morgan, which created this particular CDO, brought in half a billion dollars in revenue in 2006 on the stuff, the paper reports.

Here's a good explanation of what these complex things are and how they work:

Synthetic CDOs are vulnerable at this stage in the financial crisis, because of the way they work. They generate income by selling insurance against bond defaults, typically on a pool of 100 or more companies. One way they do so is by entering into contracts known as "credit-default swaps." Investors, such as the town of Parkes, receive regular payments from credit-default-swap buyers, which are usually banks or hedge funds.

In return for the income, investors agreed to make huge payments in what was seen as a highly unlikely event: a wave of corporate defaults greater than any experienced in the previous two decades. Now, though, as financial firms implode and a slump in consumer spending hits retailers and manufacturers, that event is starting to happen.

As a result, synthetic-CDO deals are poised to trigger a massive transfer of wealth from investors such as Parkes to hedge funds and the trading units of big U.S. investment banks. By various estimates, the amount of money set to change hands could be anywhere from tens of billions to hundreds of billions of dollars.

It's not the most elegant story, but you try to write one on synthetic collateralized debt obligations.

...is actually just "dental work," as he explained, in rhymes, on Face The Nation yesterday, h/t, FishbowlDC. (Is it me? I don't see anything different about Schieffer's face even as "apologizes" for his "Joker's leer," saying, "Mr. Christmas fat-face that's me this year...")

Caroline, or Change

| 12 Comments

In yesterday's front-page story exploring Caroline Kennedy's name recognition in her bid for New York's vacant Senate seat, The New York Times made an observation: "Ms. Kennedy, who declared last week that she would like to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as the junior senator from New York, is in many ways embarking on a test of the enduring power of her politically royal name."

Too true. Yet one can't help but pause for a moment, reading this meditation on the "enduring power" of Ms. Kennedy's name, and remember that, until recently, "Ms. Kennedy" was, per the Times, not "Ms. Kennedy" at all, but "Ms. Schlossberg"--the married name by which, for the past twenty-odd years, the media have generally designated the princess of Camelot.

Now that said princess is making movements toward reclaiming her crown...the media seem to be having a bit of a vicarious identity crisis on her behalf. What should they call Caroline? Should what they call her really matter? (Insert your favorite what's in a name? cliche here.) Technically, Caroline Bouvier Kennedy's name is...Caroline Bouvier Kennedy, or "Caroline Kennedy" for short: When she married Edwin Schlossberg in 1986, Caroline didn't become, strictly speaking, a Schlossberg. ("You don't use the name Schlossberg, do you?" Larry King asked her in a 2002 interview. "I mean, you do and you don't." To which she responded, "Right. Well, I never really changed my name.")

But Caroline's own Kennedy-uber-alles attitude toward her surname didn't stop the media from re-naming Jack and Jackie's daughter on her behalf. Between 1986 and early 2008, according to Nexis and newspaper archive searches, most publications generally referred to Caroline as "Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg." As if to solidify the point, they generally shorthanded her subsequent references not to "Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg"--but simply to "Ms. Schlossberg."

In answer to the what's-in-a-name question, then, the media have been suggesting: Caroline's a Kennedy, sure, but she's something else, too. For better or for worse.

And yet, of late, "Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg"--the name that tacitly represented Caroline as more than the sum of her ribonucleic parts, as a person independent of her famous family--has lost a limb. Now that Caroline seems to be embracing her Kennedy side--which is to say, her political side--the media have been engaging in a bit of selective amnesia when it comes to that whole, politically inconvenient Schlossberg thing. (Schlossberg: not too sexy-sounding. Not too Christian-sounding. Not too Camelot-sounding.) In that, they're showing Caroline de-facto favor: "Kennedy," star power aside, connotes innate political ability, talent that exists regardless of political experience; "Schlossberg," meanwhile, serves as a reminder of the largely apolitical existence Caroline has carved for herself for the past several decades. In hacking off the Schlossberg in their coverage of Caroline, the media are essentially giving her a free pass when it comes to the issue of her experiential preparedness to become a U.S. senator. Because, "let's face it," Amy Holmes declared on CNN the other day, discussing Caroline's legislative aspirations. "If we were talking about Caroline Schlossberg, this conversation would be absurd."

The media, perhaps aware of that fact, have occasionally come up with creative ways to dodge The Schlossberg Problem. To wit: the old Skirt The Issue With A Nickname trick (referring to her as "Princess Caroline" and the like); the Have It Both Ways approach (referring to her as "Caroline Kennedy" and "Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg" in the same article); the Parenthetical Compromise (referring to her as "Caroline Kennedy (Schlossberg)"); the Maiden Name Reversion (referring to her as "Caroline Bouvier Kennedy"). But for the most part, recent media coverage of the erstwhile "Ms. Schlossberg" has simply sawed off the inconvenient appendage with nary a nod to the phantom limb. (Caroline Kennedy...! Caroline Kennedy...! Caroline Kennedy...!)

For the record, Ms. Bouvier Kennedy Princess Camelot Mrs. Schlossberg Ms. Kennedy Caroline is still married to Edwin Schlossberg. Though the National Enquirer and other gossip sites have speculated about Caroline's de facto separation from her husband, those rumors are unsubstantiated. And, anyway, it's her political patrons who are compelling Caroline's nominal reversion to Camelot. At her appearance at the Democratic National Convention this summer, Caroline, introducing "Uncle Teddy" to a boisterous crowd, spoke with a giant marquee--emblazoned with CAROLINE KENNEDY in an all-caps sans-serif--behind her. Compare that to her speech at 2000's DNC, in which Caroline was deemed not "Caroline Kennedy," nor even "Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg," but rather "Caroline Schlossberg."

"People call me whatever they call me," Caroline told Time magazine in 2002 in response to a to-Schloss-or-not-to-Schloss query, her rhetorical shrug at once dismissing and enabling the media's surnominal free-for-all.

To an extent, fair enough: Names shouldn't really matter, after all; their value should be purely referential. And yet one doesn't need to be Jhumpa Lahiri to know that, for better or for worse, we're always judging people by their names, by those most personal of book covers. And the stakes of that judgment are particularly high in politics, where one's good name, literally and figuratively, can be a strong asset (just ask the Bushes, the Clintons, the Cuomos, the Patersons, the Bidens, the Bayhs, the Daleys, the Gores, etc.)--and where one's bad name can be a big liability (see Rod Blagojevich and the failed senatorial bid of Rep. Ima Commey).

If we can admit that names matter generally, we must also admit that names matter when it comes to Caroline Whatever-We-Call-Her...and that, furthermore, passively allowing for the streamlining of Caroline's surname smacks of pro-Camelot, if not pro-Caroline, bias. It glosses over the choices Caroline has made over the past several decades--choices that have moved her farther away, not closer to, her political legacy--and suggests that, of all the things that are in a name, the first of them is entitlement. As the New York Post's sports columnist, Hondo, declared late last week, "Caroline Kennedy might be the favorite to fill Hillary's double-wide Senate seat, but she wouldn't even be under consideration if her name were, say, Schlossberg."

Kicking the Can

| No Comments

In late November, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told the Big Three automakers that they needed to devise a better financial aid plan than the one they had presented to Congress, saying that any decision was going to be postponed until they did. “Yes, we’re kicking the can down the road, because that will give us the opportunity to do something positive,” Reid said.

A couple of weeks later, after the House approved a new plan that Senate Democrats seem to support, another foot kicked. Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, said the plan was offered by an administration that “basically wants to kick the can down the road and let some other administration and some other Congress deal with this issue.”

The image stuck. As the bill worked its way out of the Congress and into the White House, print and broadcast commentators discussed how any help was just “kicking the can” down the road.

The expression conjures several different images. One is a child’s game, either a version of hide and seek where people try to “kick the can” before they’re tagged, or one where a can is kicked around among a group of people. “Kicking the can” can also refer to dying, though the more common expression involves a bucket instead of a can. In neither case, though, does the can get kicked down the road. Instead, think of a bored young boy on a hot summer’s day, walking down a dusty road and discovering an empty tin can. He then kicks it down the road, continues walking, then kicks again when he gets to the can. The image suggests that he’s avoiding chores, or some other unpleasant task. So “kicking the can” down the road simply delays having to deal with the important matter.

That’s what people are saying about the proposed financial aid for automakers: Given the fundamental problems in the industry, any triage is just avoiding or delaying the inevitable—either a fundamental reorganization of the industry or a more permanent financial plan. It’s all just “kicking the can” down the road. Or, it could be that the can is being kicked to someone else to deal with it, like passing the buck.

Of course, there’s always the chance that “kicking the can” long enough can result in one or more of the automakers “kicking the bucket.” But that’s another kettle of fish.

Another day, another "Editor's Note" in the New York Times prompted by rushed ClintonSenateSeatStakes (Caroline Kennedy) coverage. On December 10, there was this (the Times failed to call and verify that a certain phone call actually occurred). Today, we have this (another forgotten verification phone call):

Earlier this morning, we posted a letter that carried the name of Bertrand Delanoë, the mayor of Paris, sharply criticizing Caroline Kennedy.


This letter was a fake. It should not have been published...

This letter, like most Letters to the Editor these days, arrived by email. It is Times procedure to verify the authenticity of every letter. In this case, our staff sent an edited version of the letter to the sender of the email and did not hear back. At that point, we should have contacted Mr. Delanoë's office to verify that he had, in fact, written to us.

We did not do that...

But it was just so juicy ("In my opinion she has no qualification whatsoever to bid for Senator Clinton’s seat...") and so French-sounding ("Can we speak of American decline?")

Reporting the Drug War

| No Comments

Props to the Los Angeles Times for its ongoing series, “Mexico under Siege,” which examines the complexities of that country’s drug war and its steeply increasing death toll.

A recent article looks at drug-related killings in Ciudad Juarez, a “sprawling border city that has registered more than 1,350 slayings in 2008, about a fourth of the country's total.” It’s a strong argument for in-person reporting, and a reminder that this sort of coverage is not seen nearly as often as it should be (at the LAT and elsewhere). (The explainer at the top of the article reads: “Two journalists visiting the border city for three days find that death is always just around the corner.”)

Reporter Ken Ellingwood, the paper’s Mexico correspondent, vividly contextualizes the ambush shootings and the war between rival cartels and the Mexican military that plague Juarez. He also manages to describe the deadening pall cast by the overwhelming number of such killings—more than 5,300 this year countrywide. Leading with an anecdote of two men killed in their car by gunshots (fifty-two of them, in broad daylight), Ellingwood places himself in the crowd that surrounds the bodies:

"That's 12 today?" a young man standing nearby asks, in the matter-of-fact tone of a baseball fan confirming the number of strikeouts. "Ten," I answer, meaning that 10 people have been slain in Ciudad Juarez so far on this chilly Tuesday. It is barely 3 in the afternoon. Seven more people will die later, bringing the day's total to 17 in the city of 1.3 million residents.

The young man nods. Around us, amid cut-rate dentist offices and bars with names like Club Safari, the looky-loos keep their rapt silence as workers from the coroner's office wrestle the newest victims from their car.

The series recently served up another small snippet, called “23 seconds of the Mexican drug war,” this one reaching back to the near past—the 2007 killing of four people in a small jewelry store in Monterrey, Mexico, by three gunmen. One of the victims was a police commander, Benjamin Espinosa, and journalist Sam Quinones, who won Columbia's Cabot Prize this year for outstanding reporting on Latin America, made it clear that these shootings were supposed to send a message.

Quinones, reporting directly from Monterrey, revisited the killings nearly two years after the fact, supplementing details of the crime with history about the buildup of drug activity in the area surrounding Monterrey. That’s commendable, because it brings some much needed sense to the daily-increasing number of dead. (The Washington Post’s William Booth, another reporter who is keeping tabs on the drug war, provided some grounding for that overwhelming number in a recent article about the murder of a top federal prosecutor in Ciudad Juarez. Writing about his visit to the city morgue, Booth brought readers closer to the city’s gruesome reality: “In the Juarez morgue, the three walk-in freezers are filled to capacity with more than 90 corpses, stacked floor to ceiling, in leaking white bags with zippers. After a few months, those who are not identified are buried in a field at the city cemetery at the edge of the desert.”)

To help readers visualize the steeply rising number of deaths in Mexico’s most drug-addled areas, the LAT series includes the same sort of interactive graphics that the paper used to successfully track California’s Proposition 8 contributions earlier this year: overlaying a map of Mexico with differently sized circles to indicate the number of drug-related deaths that have occurred in each state since January 2007. Accompanying the map are photographs, a comprehensive list of the articles written for the series (sixty or so since June), and a video forum where reporters can respond to reader questions (for responses from Quinones and LAT border reporter Richard Marosi, click here).

The manpower isn’t huge, but is nonetheless considerable. It incorporates reported and video efforts based out of the Mexico City bureau (headed by Tracy Wilkinson) and the multimedia skills of a group that includes Sean Connelley and Katy Newton, the couple behind Not Just a Number, an award-winning community journalism project that sought to put a human face on Oakland-area homicides.

The death toll continues to increase: today brings news of twelve beheadings scattered through the southern state of Guerrero, likely acts of retribution following a shootout in Guerrero during which soldiers killed several gunmen. In light of recent rumors that the LAT might begin to outsource its foreign coverage, the “Mexico under Siege” series could very well be a swan song for the Times’s international reporting. If it is, then it’s a strong final note.

Obamas-In-Hawaii Headlines

| No Comments

A look at some of the Obamas-Vacation-in-Hawaii headlines so far (keeping in mind Charlie LeDuff's "don't be boring" mantra):

ABC News gives us the uninspired, "Obamas Say Aloha To Hawaii" (which sounds no more inspired, Extra TV, with the greeting going the other way and the addition of an exclamation point: "Aloha, First Family!")

Why say "Obama Kicks Off His Vacation With Round of Golf" (Washington Post) when you can say, "Obama Brings 'Game' To Golf" (CBS News) or, "Before The White House, The Club House" (New York Times) or -- Hello!-- "Mr. Obama gets into the swing of festive family holiday." The last of which comes with the lead:

After 11 hard months on the campaign trail and with less than a month to go before he takes over one of the most important jobs in the world, no-one would begrudge president elect Barack Obama the chance for a little r and r.

"No one?" (Cokie)?

Also, is someone "begrudging" at WNCT in North Carolina or does the station have BlagoGate or WarrenGate information that no one else has, or is it just "Controversy could cut Obama's vacation short" with extra emphasis on the "could," (as in, you know, anything "could" happen)?

Bush Smacks Back at NYT Story

| 8 Comments

The New York Times added another entry to its "The Reckoning" series yesterday, this one focusing on the Bush Administration's role in the housing mess. Today, Bush fired back with a blistering press release accusing the Times of gross negligence.

So let's see how the story stacks up.

First of all, it's a necessary story and a good one with lots of quotes and new information from Bush officials—many on the record—about how the administration missed the problem, downplayed it, and helped to make it worse. While he didn't cause the crisis (and is not alone in sharing presidential responsbility for it—I'm looking at you, Bill Clinton) and some of the key factors were out of his control (like Greenspan's easy money policy), there can be no doubt that Bush has culpability here: It happened on his watch over several years—and the problems that led to it not coincidentally dovetail neatly with his laissez-faire philosophy of regulation.

“There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems,” said Al Hubbard, Mr. Bush’s former chief economics adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. “Had we, we would have attacked them.”

No kidding.

Bush flack Dana Perino has both barrels blazing in her press release saying "the reporters' myopic point of view that only Bush administration policies could possibly be responsible for the housing and finance crises." But that's a straw man; it's not what the Times says. For instance, this is up high, in the eighth paragraph:

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

Here is how the Times in the next graph sums up Bush's responsibility:

But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

This is uncontroversial, but I agree with Barry Ritholtz who says that the Times doesn't quite nail the heart of Bush's responsibility here, though it's certainly not incorrect in what it does report. Here's Ritholtz:

That philosophy, and the executive, administrative and legislative acts, including political appointments, is where we should focus our ire at the soon the be former-President Bush. The belief system that leads to the conclusion that really bad behavior in the corporate world needs no proscribing is where you should look to place blame.

That Bush had as a goal increased home ownership is, quite bluntly, irrelevant. It is a worthy goal, and certainly one that could be achieved without forcing the collapse of the financial system.

I agree that the story overemphasizes Bush's focus on increasing home ownership as a root cause of the crisis. That didn't cause Wall Street underwriters to push for "loans, loans, any loans" so it could bundle them, make millions in fees, and pass them off to others. It didn't cause subprime lenders and brokers to forget the basic rules of lending.

There's no question that putting somebody in a house without a down payment isn't a good idea, as Bush's program did for some. But that was, as the Times reports, $200 million a year. That doesn't even qualify as a drop in the bucket in the trillion-dollar mortgage industry, and the paper was wrong to give that so much emphasis.

It gets to the real issue down about halfway through the story:

But Mr. Bush populated the financial system’s alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.

The administration's response is bizarrely weak and almost not worth mentioning. Their essential beef is that the Times didn't know about or mention Bush's primetime address to the nation on the crisis. That address was on September 24—of this year. It was years after anything the Times was reporting about and was just utterly inconsequential, not only for this story, but of any impact, period. The cat had been out of the bag for two years—meaning the bubble had already popped—by the time of this speech.

And the Times shows how out of it the administration was:

Among the Republican Party’s top 10 donors in 2004 was Roland Arnall. He founded Ameriquest, then the nation’s largest lender in the subprime market, which focuses on less creditworthy borrowers. In July 2005, the company agreed to set aside $325 million to settle allegations in 30 states that it had preyed on borrowers with hidden fees and ballooning payments. It was an early signal that deceptive lending practices, which would later set off a wave of foreclosures, were widespread.

Andrew H. Card Jr., Mr. Bush’s former chief of staff, said White House aides discussed Ameriquest’s troubles, though not what they might portend for the economy. Mr. Bush had just nominated (CEO) Roland Arnall as his ambassador to the Netherlands, and the White House was primarily concerned with making sure he would be confirmed.

“Maybe I was asleep at the switch,” Mr. Card said in an interview.

Yes, that Ameriquest after they'd been nailed for screwing borrowers.

And Karl Rove bigfoots one of the administration's Cassandras:

Brian Montgomery, the Federal Housing Administration commissioner, understood the significance... When he arrived in June 2005, he was shocked to find those customers had been lured away by the “fool’s gold” of subprime loans. The Ameriquest settlement, he said, reinforced his concern that the industry was exploiting borrowers.

In December 2005, Mr. Montgomery drafted a memo and brought it to the White House. “I don’t think this is what the president had in mind here,” he recalled telling Ryan Streeter, then the president’s chief housing policy analyst.

It was an opportunity to address the risky subprime lending practices head on. But that was never seriously discussed. More senior aides, like Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political strategist, were wary of overly regulating an industry that, Mr. Rove said in an interview, provided “a valuable service to people who could not otherwise get credit.” While he had some concerns about the industry’s practices, he said, “it did provide an opportunity for people, a lot of whom are still in their houses today.”

The White House pursued a narrower plan offered by Mr. Montgomery that would have allowed the F.H.A. to loosen standards so it could lure back subprime borrowers by insuring similar, but safer, loans. It passed the House but died in the Senate, where Republican senators feared that the agency would merely be mimicking the private sector’s risky practices — a view Mr. Rove said he shared.

Looking back at the episode, Mr. Montgomery broke down in tears. While he acknowledged that the bill did not get to the root of the problem, he said he would “go to my grave believing” that at least some homeowners might have been spared foreclosure.

It finds that Bush killed a compromise that would have resulted in greater oversight of Fannie and Freddie:

Mr. Falcon lacked explicit authority to limit the size of the companies' mammoth investment portfolios, or tell them how much capital they needed to guard against losses. White House officials wanted that to change. They also wanted the power to put the companies into receivership, hoping that would end what Mr. Card, the former chief of staff, called "the myth of government backing," which gave the companies a competitive edge because investors assumed the government would not let them fail.

By the spring of 2005 a deal with Congress seemed within reach, Mr. Snow, the former Treasury secretary, said in an interview.

Michael G. Oxley, an Ohio Republican and then-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, had produced what Mr. Snow viewed as "a pretty darned good bill," a watered-down version of what the president sought. But at the urging of Mr. Card and the White House economics team, the president decided to hold out for a tougher bill in the Senate.

Mr. Card said he feared that Mr. Snow was "more interested in the deal than the result." When the bill passed the House, the president issued a statement opposing it, effectively killing any chance of compromise. Mr. Oxley was furious.

"The problem with those guys at the White House, they had all the answers and they didn't think they had to listen to anyone, including the Treasury secretary," Mr. Oxley said in a recent interview. "They were driving the ideological train. He was in the caboose, and they were in the engine room."

And the Times calls out another Bush administration "Brownie", James Lockhart, a prep-school pal who he put in charge Fannie and Freddie's regulator, OFHEO:

Throughout that spring and summer, he warned the White House and Treasury that, in the stark words of one e-mail message, "Freddie Mac is in trouble." And Mr. Lockhart, he charged, was allowing the company to cover up its insolvency with dubious accounting maneuvers.

But Mr. Lockhart continued to offer reassurances. In a July appearance on CNBC, he declared that the companies were well managed and "worsts were not coming to worst." An infuriated Mr. Thomas sent a fresh round of e-mail messages accusing Mr. Lockhart of "pimping for the stock prices of the undercapitalized firms he regulates."

Mr. Lockhart defended himself, insisting in an interview that he was aware of the companies' vulnerabilities, but did not want to rattle markets.

"A regulator," he said, "does not air dirty laundry in public."

When the history books are written, it will be Wall Street, not George W. Bush, that is the key culprit in creating this mess. Bush's role, along with those of his predecessors, was as enabler, allowing the beast to run amok with little or no attempt to rein it in.

The Year in Science Journalism

| No Comments

Over at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, Charlie Petit has a fun roundup of over half a dozen publications and organizations’ lists of the best science stories, photos, and discoveries of the year. Cellular reprogramming, exoplanets, the Large Hadron Collider, and China’s race to space top most of the lists. They are all very important subjects indeed, but for my money there is simply nothing cooler than National Geographic’s rare video of the giant squid.

Science Groups Protest CNN Cuts

| 15 Comments

Four of the world’s largest science and environmental journalism groups issued their first-ever joint statement today in a letter sent to CNN protesting the network’s decision to cut its entire science team this month.

The presidents of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, and the World Federation of Science Journalists signed the letter, which was addressed to CNN’s Jim Walton and Jon Klein, the network’s worldwide and U.S. presidents, respectively. (Full disclosure: CASW president Cristine Russell is a frequent contributor to The Observatory and the joint letter cites two Observatory articles.) The letter is posted at the WFSJ’s Web site, and will be posted on the three other group’s sites as well. The full text is here:

Dear Mr. Walton and Mr. Klein,

We are writing on behalf of several national and international science journalism organizations to express our strong concern about CNN's shortsighted decision to cut its science, technology and environment unit in one fell swoop. In wielding this ax, your network has lost an experienced and highly regarded group of science journalists at a time when science coverage could not be more important in our national and international discourse.

The environment, energy technology, space exploration, and biotechnology are crucial ongoing stories that will have growing prominence as a new American president takes office and nations confront a wide range of science-based global issues. As the impacts of climate change intensify, shows like "Planet in Peril" cannot make up for informed daily coverage of this important issue and other science topics in the public eye. As with political and policy reporting, it is important that the underlying science be covered by journalists with the skills and knowledge to sort out competing claims.

Concerned as we are about the dismissal of our colleagues—including the award-winning science reporter Miles O'Brien in New York; Peter Dykstra, head of CNN's science unit in Atlanta; and five other science producers there—this letter is not about individual journalists. Rather, the wholesale dismantling of the science unit calls into question CNN's commitment to bringing the most informative science news to the general public, including the science-minded younger audience. If CNN wants to be truly international, it will be at odds with the trend toward increased science coverage in many parts of the world.

It is difficult for us to imagine why CNN, which has earned a justifiably strong reputation for its science journalism in the past, has opted to widen the gap in science coverage rather than strive to fill it. We would hope that you would reconsider your decision and reassemble a cadre of well-trained science journalists that would enable you to expand unfolding science news and in-depth coverage, not shrink it.

Your action is an unfortunate symbol of recent widespread cutbacks in specialty science journalism. Our groups will continue to push for more science coverage by the major media and to do our part to promote the highest possible professional standards for communicating complex science-based issues across the spectrum. We plan to publicize this letter as widely as possible to encourage further discussion of the future of science journalism. Thanks for your attention.

These four groups have for years provided wonderful support and resources to journalists in an effort to improve the quality and quantity of science and environmental journalism. It is exciting to see them banding together to protest the demise of yet another desk. The concerted effort could not come at a more urgent time.

On Saturday, President-elect Barack Obama officially announced his new science and technology team. His speech made it clear that he intends to restore a respect and admiration for scientific knowledge in the White House.

“Because the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry,” Obama said. “It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us.”

Yet here we stand at this great turning point in history, with politicians finally giving scientists some of the respect they deserve, and our nation’s editors and publishers don’t seem to get it. What a shame.

Labash on LeDuff

| No Comments

Matt Labash profiles Detroit ("the city where the sirens never sleep") for the Weekly Standard, a profile in which Charlie LeDuff, formerly of the New York Times, now a metro reporter for The Detroit News, plays a starring role. "For me," writes Labash, "Detroit has become synonymous with one man: Charlie LeDuff."

And so:

One night over dinner, Charlie admits that he knows most people think he's gone back to a dying newspaper in a dying town. But he feels he has work to do here. Not the kind of work that makes Gawker. Real work. He's always wanted to write about "my people," as he calls them--Detroiters in the hole--but he wasn't ready before. Now he is. He sneers at books like Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? which treat human beings like electoral blocs to be extrapolated from...


He says there has to be room for the kind of journalism "where it's not a fetish, where it's not blaxploitation, where you are actually a human being with a point of view. The city is full of good people, living next to s--." But most media-types don't bother to ask since they view those people as "dumb, uneducated, toothless rednecks. They're ghetto-dwelling blacks. Right? They're poor Mexicans. They're a concept, not a people."

Regardless of media-industry misfortunes, work lies before him. "God gave me something to do, and I'm not turning my back on it. I'm trying really hard. Maybe I'm not great. I'm always nervous, never sure if it's any good. But I'm just trying. What's wrong with trying?"

Also:

Despite the monumentally low morale in journalism at the moment (Gannett whacked 2,000 jobs the week I was in Detroit, and the Tribune Company filed for bankruptcy), Charlie believes in reinvention through a simple mantra: "Don't be boring."

The Mail

| No Comments

People send us their newspapers and magazines. Sometimes, we review them.

Milwaukee Magazine, January 2009

The January 2009 issue of Milwaukee Magazine features thirty-six innovators under age forty “who will change Milwaukee.” The most notable (and interesting) picks for us are the three reporters who make the list: Sean Ryan, a twenty-eight-year-old City Hall reporter for The Daily Reporter (“Wisconsin’s Construction, Law and Public Record Authority Since 1897”), who “regularly scoops the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel” and is touted as “a throwback, an old-fashioned newsman”; Ben Poston, twenty-eight, a data whiz at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel whose analytical work has helped anchor the paper’s Watchdog Group and investigative efforts; and Mick Trevey, twenty-seven, a TV reporter for WTMJ-4, who covered the story of a man who was released from prison after serving eighteen years for a rape that he didn’t commit, only to reappear in the news as a suspect in a murder case.

Gossip page The Mil uses opensecrets.org to probe campaign donations “made by the city’s high-ranking culture vultures," and finds that “quite a few [donors] are Republicans” (Milwaukee Art Museum board members, for instance, donated $118,250 to Republicans and $63,000 to Democrats). Media reporter Erik Gunn writes about the downside of newspapers' elimination of Associated Press content, and questions the ethics of Journal Sentinel columnist Patrick McIlheran sending his column to area bloggers “in advance of publication.”

Meanwhile, features include a standard-fare profile of Rock Dee, a well known Radio Milwaukee DJ who committed suicide, and a more engrossing investigation of Amish and Mennonite puppy mills. The strong intro: “Life was a struggle for Wallace Havens. He worked days inseminating cattle for a breeding company, nights manning a motel front desk.” That is, until he started breeding dogs—from cockapoos to goldendoodles to puggles. From there, writer Mary van de Kamp Nohl moves to darker stuff—about how puppy mill dogs can suffer from anything from hypoglycemia to brucellosis to physical and mental deformities, and how many Amish and Mennonite breeders are moving their operations to Wisconsin because it has some of the nation’s weakest regulations. -Jane Kim

Standpoint, December 2008

Standpoint’s mission statement says the U.K.-based publication isn’t a light snack: “In a market swamped by the journalistic equivalent of fast food, Standpoint hopes to offer the discerning reader a feast of great writing -- properly edited and presented in an elegant design that makes even longer pieces a pleasure to read.” This new cultural and political magazine is seven issues old and still seems to be defining its identity, as evidenced by a solid, if oddly matched, grouping of articles.

In its physical form, Standpoint is lovely. The pages are a nice semi-glossy stock, and the cover is has a velvet-matte finish. The design is simple, with red and blue accent colors used sparingly. There are nice illustrations, like the adorable mole with bowler, pince-nez, and cane accompanying “The Mole” column, but too many silhouette-cutout photographs perching awkwardly in corners and on edges of pages.

The front of the book, “Counterpoints”, starts off weak with a non-committal sketch of Sarah Maple, a boundary pushing Muslim artist: “Her work has been criticised as provocation for its own sake, lacking artistic merit and mocking religious sensitivities for publicity. In response, it has been argued that regardless of its quality or whether it is deliberate provocation, her artistic freedom of expression should be defended to the hilt.” But two short FOB pieces redeem the section, a rumination on the usage of words “good” and “well” to describe well being or moral standing, and a first-person essay-lette from a man whose brother is a Royal Marine in Afghanistan: “However, I know, deep down, that my brother is just your average man shooting at another average man, no matter how precise his shot is, or what it's fired in the name of. And to me this doesn't make his actions futile, tragic or pitiable - it just makes them ordinary. By understanding the ordinariness of war, I can approach my brother's involvement in Afghanistan without cynicism or sadness.”

The most exciting entry in the next section of columns is “The Mole,” a dispatch from an anonymous source inside the BBC who shares his or her savvy: “For any new recruit to the Corporation, it can come as something of a surprise to find how much responsibility can be foisted on inexperienced shoulders. A young producer can find herself talking to very prominent people and making instant decisions about who should and who should not be put on air. That involves a lot of trust. There is a safeguard, of course, and it can be summarised in six words: "when in doubt, refer it up."”

The meaty well section of the magazine offers a long dialogue—a sort of Q&A between a business commentator and a historian moderated by the magazine’s editor—about the growing terrorist threat. There’s no fear of long quotes here, or of startling ideas: “9/11 itself only cost $500,000 to mount, which is a trivial amount of money for a trillion dollars' worth of damage.” As a counterbalance to the very serious conversation that precedes “Dialogue 2: The British Gas man cometh (not)” is a very funny, if maddening, transcript of one woman’s attempt to have her heating boiler repaired. It’s refreshing to have a humor piece in the magazine, but I’m not sure that it works when wedged between a lengthy discussion of terrorism and the dry cover story about the influence that Berlin had on David Bowie.

Of Standpoint’s foreign policy pieces, the best is a feature that examines how Obama’s race and nationality may affect his dealings with leaders on the African continent. “The fact that he, a poor boy born to an African immigrant father, could rise in a single generation to become president dramatises America's promise of openness and opportunity as nothing else could. This almost magical achievement will alone guarantee Obama huge crowds anywhere in Africa and will without doubt spur many more Africans to seek a future in America.” Perhaps this is too simplistic a characterization of the challenges any president faces in dealing with Africa, but it is a worthy reflection nonetheless.

The U.S. equivalent to Standpoint is probably something like The New Republic. But until the magazine finds its voice, I wouldn’t get a subscription yet. -Katia Bachko


Bitch, Winter 2009

If CJR doesn’t satiate your appetite for media criticism, then you may find salvation on the pages of Bitch magazine.

For example, its Winter 2009 issue features an article for its “On Archetypes” column, by Monica Nolan, that analyzes film’s treatment of career women. The column uses the summertime blockbuster Sex and the City: The Movie to bemoan the lack of progress the film industry has made in portraying goal-oriented, successful women.

Nolan begins her piece by declaring her hatred for the film, followed by her disappointment in male critics’ lack of enthusiasm in reviewing the film. She then takes us through a brief history of Hollywood's stereotypically vapid female roles, examining the careers of actresses like Joan Crawford and Barbara Stanwyck, and evaluates the industry's progress. Her assessment:

Still, when we look past the film’s box office to its actual content, do we at least see in SATC: the Movie a representation of the career woman that is significantly new? Are you surprised when the answer is mostly “No”?

Not much here is terribly eye-opening or earth-shattering, which Nolan admits: “The absence of women on screen is not news.” Then again, to be fair, most Maureen Dowd columns aren’t either.

Perhaps my inability to identify with the feminist movement leaves me predisposed to dismiss this column—as well as a few of the others in the magazine—as a bit whiny. Leaving my biases aside, though, I found a lot to like about Bitch. The magazine's features can be smart and passionate. This issue, for instance, features a piece on female artists using their own bodies as canvasses, an interview exploring the misogyny of hip hop, and a look at the newest breed of rape-revenge films.

So, if you find yourself yearning for biting criticism mixed with a heavy dose of feminism, pick up Bitch. Chances are you’ll find it infuriatingly satisfying. -Megan McGinley

San Francisco, December 2008

Quick, pop personality quiz! Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements:

1. "Food stylist" is an actual occupation.
a. Agree
b. Disagree

2. A dessert can be capable of "quiet subversion."
a. Agree
b. Disagree

3. Ostrich farms are fascinating.
a. Agree
b. Disagree

4. Shoe designer Manolo Blahnik deserves to be referred to as "his Holiness."
a. Agree
b. Disagree

5. Messenger bags can be specimens of "fine art."
a. Agree
b. Disagree

6. "Project Macway" is a clever nickname for a production of Macbeth that features cutting-edge costume designs.
a. Agree
b. Disagree

7. San Francisco is just as stylish as New York or LA.
a. Agree
b. Disagree

Results:

If you chose mostly As, you will probably love San Francisco magazine. You will likely find it quirky and smart and flamboyantly stylized and ever-so-slightly self-deprecating, in the winsome way of a Bravo reality show.

If you chose mostly Bs, you will probably loathe San Francisco magazine. You will likely find it horribly, laughably, and irrevocably pretentious. You will likely roll your eyes when, in an article about the architectural design of a Sonoma observatory (complete with—natch!—a spa), you see a path referred to, without irony, as "a long allée" of trees. You will likely roll your eyes some more when you come across a six-page spread devoted, with barely contained giddiness, to various grades of Hollywood celebrities who have been photographed while visiting San Francisco. (Actual quote: "Planeloads of actors kept celeb spotters satiated with more eye candy than they've seen in years.") You will likely roll your eyes even more when you scan the reverent photos—of fig leaf-roasted halibut and sweet-corn vichyssoise and other gastronomic creations—that accompany a review of the Marin restaurant Murray Circle. You will likely find each of the oversized glossy's 168 pages to be, in their own way, showy and haughty and, in their "Modern Luxury" motto, woefully out of step with these trying economic times. You will almost certainly conclude that San Francisco crosses the line between appreciating The Finer Things In Life and fetishizing them.

If you chose a mixture of As and Bs, you will probably admire San Francisco's substance even as you question its style. You might find your mouth watering, Pavlov-style, while reading the cover story about "the Bay Area's smartest desserts"—pumpkin custard with dehydrated carrot shavings! white-chocolate rosewater panna cotta with saffron-pistachio-milk chocolate ganache! "cigarettes" of rice paper and tobacco-infused cream!—even while your mind wonders, "Um, can desserts really be smart? Should they be?" You'll almost certainly be moved by "Gone," a deeply reported and sensitively written piece about a sad, if not new, trend: teenagers leaping to their deaths off the deck of the Golden Gate Bridge. You might find yourself nodding in appreciation at San Francisco's "Click" section, a series of photos capturing moments of city life—election night in the Mission, the boho-biker LoveFest on Market Street—with equal nods to anthropology and artistry. You might appreciate that, representing as it does a city known for matters of marriage, San Francisco manages to unite the extravagant and the everyday—the Prada spread nestled near the H&M ad, the announcement of a new Gucci boutique followed by the profile of Oakland mayor Ron Dellums, the review of a fine dining restaurant at home with the review of a burger joint, things attainable and things aspirational—into a marriage of equals. A laudable feat, most would agree. -Megan Garber


LA Weekly, December 5-11, 2008

If you don’t live in Los Angeles, go online and read excerpts of the LA Weekly’s thirtieth anniversary issue on its Web site. The issue is a chock-full reminder of what founding editor Jay Levin says in his own epistle: “The backstory was our commitment.” It’s a five-star assemblage of accounts from Weekly editors, writers, and contributors (past and present), paired with “best of” excerpts from over the years. Among the jewels are recollections from previous editors in chief: Levin writes about tackling L.A.’s huge smog problem by assigning arts and culture reporter Rian Malan “to investigate the South Coast Air Quality management District” because he was “such a keen bullshit detector”; Kit Rachlis discusses deciding to place the culture wars front and center by putting Andrew Serrano’s Piss Christ on the cover; Sue Horton recounts the 2000 Democratic convention in L.A., when the paper decided to transform into a daily operation for the week.

Others to look for: Lynell George, who was a staff writer when the L.A. Riots burst, writes about the lead-up to the unrest—“You’d pivot between the city’s disarray and the paper’s droll, sardonic commentary on the state of things”—when the riots struck and she was suddenly “on assignment expected to explain the inexplicable.” Marc Cooper expounds on the Weekly’s coverage of Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, and Costa Rica during the Reagan administration, when he was news editor, while Ginger Varney writes about being the paper’s first Central American correspondent. Jonathan Gold, a former music editor, grouchily says the paper’s music section “sucks,” but offers an alternative assessment: “the beauty of the Weekly’s music coverage, then as now, lies chiefly in the magnificence of its background noise.” And there are plenty of additional accounts from the arts realm: Hunter Drohojowska-Philp, the Weekly’s first art editor and critic (on reviewing Judy Chicago’s Dinner Party); Alan Rich, who got laid off earlier this year after 16 years as the paper’s classical music critic; film critic John Powers; former film critic Michael Ventura (on “the writer’s editor” Bob LaBrasca); and current film editor Scott Foundas (on Ventura).

As an issue, it’s scattered and disorganized, with overlapping and sometimes self-indulgent memories. It makes for a forensically phenomenal read. -Jane Kim

Just Dance

| No Comments

23/6 describes its "danceable symphony of graphics and noises entirely constructed from every single cable news sound effect or theme song that we could get our hands on" as "Mozart + Wolf Blitzer + Timabaland = this" (h/t, TVNewser).

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

What makes you think so, Associated Press? (And, are you implying you won't partake?)

The AP makes this bold predication at the end of an article about all the D.C.-area hair stylists jockeying for the job of commander-of-coif for the first lady.

There are plenty of unanswered questions buzzing around the Obamas' impending arrival, but one has hairdressers on the edge of their styling chairs: Who will be chosen to do Michelle Obama's hair?

What's at stake? Well, "Nuri Yurt of Georgetown's Toka Salon attracted attention after he began styling Laura Bush's hair in 2005" and "earlier this year, Vogue magazine called him one of the country's best colorists for brunettes."

Interview with Clay Shirky, Part II

| 4 Comments

Clay Shirky teaches at the Interactive Telecommunications program at New York University and is the author, most recently, of Here Comes Everybody, about how new means of communication are changing the social environment. CJR’s Russ Juskalian recently spoke with Shirky about knowledge, the Internet, and why we shouldn’t worry about information overload. The first part of the interview can be found here.

Russ Juskalian: Well, this kind of brings me to something. We’ve heard all the consequences of what will happen because of information overload or attention spans. But, when you were talking about the last couple of things, I started wondering. Can you think of any of the consequences that would come about as a result of trying to stem the so-called information overload, or trying to slow down all of these things as they come?

Clay Shirky: So, there’s two different possibilities here. Stemming the information overload is this ridiculous Luddite fantasy of somehow, you know, making all those bloggers shut up so that there’s not so much stuff to read. You know, going back to the day when one could have said that you had read or watched the news, as if there was exactly one hour of news per day. I mean it’s just, you know… even, as an experiment, if you said “I’m going to only read the RSS feeds of news sources that existed prior to 1990,” you would still be drowning in it, because you can get to every English language newspaper in the world. So even if you just dealt with the fact that all this production is now global—forget any new entrants, forget amateurs at all—access to professional information is now so far in excess of what it was in 1990 that you still have that problem. So I don’t think that there are any rollbacks.

What I do think is potentially quite interesting is all of the work on filtering that says a big part of the value of information is actually downstream from its production. I would like to be reading or talking about what my friends are reading or talking about, or my colleagues are reading or talking about, or my competitors are reading or talking about. And this rise of social filtering—there’s an interesting phenomenon in the university world, where the number of papers jointly published by two or more researchers working in different institutions is on the rise. And it’s on the rise because it’s very… sitting at your desk, it’s almost easier to figure out, “Who else [in the world] is working on what I’m working on?” than to figure out, “What are my colleagues down the hall working on that isn’t like what I’m working on?” And that idea of information weakening the walls of the institution seems to me to be really beneficial for cross-disciplinary work. I mean, I think the fact that many of the people doing behavioral economics are psychologists is indicative of the kind of cross-disciplinary work we can potentially hope for in the future. So, I think that one of the ways to get around this filter failure problem is—you know, I refuse to use the term ‘information overload’ for obvious reasons—is to start deploying these social filters that assume that at least part of why I want to read or look at something is to be able to have valuable thoughts or conversations in tandem with other people.

And I think that when we start to see those kinds of conversational groups form in the kind of salon culture, particularly in university communities, we will see a potential transformation not of just whole academic institutions but also individual disciplines, where the econo-physics people, the behavioral economics people, and the neo-classical economics people are all now having a conversation that cannot be resolved with reference to only one of those three disciplines. And that potential for saying, “You know what, we’re going to give up on any idea that one can have read the ‘relevant literature’ now,” because a lot of that was just artificial barriers around the filter. And, instead, we’re going to say, “I’m reading the literature that’s keeping the conversation I’m having kind of the most interesting it can be.” That seems to me a potential way out of the current filter failure problem.

RJ: What do you make of all this with regard to the news?

CS: News is very complicated because the news, in fact, is not a very coherent category. We use the word “news” to describe more than one sort of rough set of things. We use “gossip” to describe another rough set of things. But, in fact, they overlap. And the news used to be defined with reference to news organizations. So, for example, you know, FDR’s polio was kept out of the news. Now, clearly, the information that FDR had polio would have been news had it come up. But because there were few enough news outlets, they could essentially conspire to make it not-news by simply not reporting it. As we know from the Drudge Report during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, those days are gone. And so the news is suffering the same kind of breakdown that I was talking about with behavioral economics and evolutionary psychology, which is the edge case of a group of accredited professionals deciding what becomes news and what doesn’t become news has now been set aside in favor of a much more soft-focus, kind of permeable membrane-oriented way of handling or thinking about the news.

The example I always return to, because I think it’s so emblematic and so crazy, is Alisara Chirapongse, who I’ve written about in Here Comes Everybody. She was blogging under the name gnarlykitty, and she was a fashion-obsessed college student in Bangkok. And so she was blogging about cute shoes and going out dancing, and then there was a coup in Thailand. And so she started blogging about the coup. And Thailand shut down the regular media, but they didn’t shut down Web logs. So she took her little camera out, she took a picture of tanks in front of a government building, and it was one of the first pictures to come out of Thailand during the coup. And so, all of a sudden, she’s committed an act of journalism.

And then a couple of days later she starts blogging about this Hello Kitty phone she’s got, and all the commenters who had come in to read her work were like “No, no, no! Get back to the coup!” And she posted this wonderful post. She said, “Look, this is my blog. This is about things that are happening in my life. One of the things happened in my life is that there has been a coup in my country, but another thing is I just got this new phone! And if you don’t like it, don’t read it.” And there was zero sense of obligation to her audience or journalistic mission or anything. And yet, she was, in those days, one of the earliest producers of real news and information inside post-coup Thailand. So if journalism is going from being a profession to an acitivity, then it all goes on a spectrum. There will be professional journalists, there will be journalists who practice journalism all day long for their jobs. And there’s going to be people like Chirapongse, for whom a single act of journalism may just define how they participate. But at that moment it’s pretty critical. So, I think news organizations are going to have a much harder time making a distinction between what it is they do.

You know, I talked to somebody from—oh, I forget where… actually, it may have been from CJR—for whom the Wall Street Journal was a serious media outlet. And when I pointed out that they run fluff pieces and they run a weekend piece, she kind of wrote that off as if once you’re inside the wall of, you know, the journalistic citadel, it kind of doesn’t matter that you’re doing stuff as fluffy as the average Web blogger. But those distinctions don’t make any sense on the network. And so people will always be interested in information relevant to their current situation. The part of that that’s really hard journalism, like covering the city council or whatever, where it’s long and it’s boring but you got to do it, is going to increasingly have to find new business models, because we can’t just rely on Bloomingdale’s to subsidize that anymore with display ads. And so we’re going to have this move to what I think are going to be a lot more nonprofit models for news, a la NPR. But, much more importantly, the idea that there are news organizations and other kinds of organizations, I think, is just going to break down under the weight of the evidence.

RJ: So are you at all afraid of, you know, a scenario where there’s not as much “serious journalism” going on? Or is that just something that’s a crazy idea?

CS: No, I don’t think it’s a crazy idea at all. When you talk about nightmare scenarios, here’s my nightmare: that for the print journalists, in particular—there’s a great Hemingway quote, I forget who it’s about: “He lost his money the usual way: slowly and then all at once”—that this is the all-at-once year. Right? That for four, maybe five, of the last few years, print ad revenues have been in moderate but monotonic decline. And so everybody’s been sitting around waiting around for it to reverse, and then glumly realizing it won’t reverse. And then wondering how long they have. And then, suddenly, we get this financial meltdown. So my nightmare is that every city with less than a quarter of a million people in it sees its only daily newspaper vanish. And that a good portion of those cities turn to 1950s-style, you know, 1950s New Orleans-style corruption. Which is to say because there’s no one watching, no one will be held accountable. So L.A. will be fine. Chicago will be fine, New York will be fine. You know, you can imagine Wichita just getting hijacked by its own city council. And it will take some time, as it took some time during the print journalism days to move from yellow journalism into some idea of serious reporting that isn’t beholden enough to the powers that be to be swayed. I don’t think that this is an easy transition at all.

But I think that the current newspapers, although they talk civic responsibility, do not seem to be turning themselves into nonprofit business models very quickly, which is what I think it’s going to take. So I think, essentially, to get the right mix of both publicly subsidized—not just in terms of money but also publicly supported in terms of time—journalistic organizations is really going to take a catastrophe. Because I don’t trust the current generation of newspapers to actually mean what they say when they talk about civic mission, because none of them are saying, “We were in a hurry to get out from under this for-profit model that’s preventing us from living up to that civic function.” All they’re really saying is, “If we’re saying ‘civic function’ often enough, somebody ought to throw us a bailout,” which, you know, is no different from what GM is doing, which might be what I did if I were a CEO of a newspaper. But, it’s not, I think, an argument that needs to be taken seriously, because the self-dealing is so evident.

RJ: That’s pretty interesting. I like that kind of interpretation of it; it’s something that I haven’t heard.

CS: Is that right?

RJ: Yeah. It makes a lot of sense that these are businesses coming up with reasons to try and get the public behind them without actually shifting to a non-profit model. That’s pretty interesting.

CS: Yeah, you know, it’s funny. I’ve been having this conversation about what happens to newspapers since 1993, when I met a guy named Gordy Thompson, who may still work at the Times. He did text stuff for the Times, he did Internet stuff for the Times. The people who were part of that conversation are all sitting around stunned that, somehow, in 2008, newspapers have decided that the Internet is going to be a pretty big deal. I feel like I got into the conversation late, because Brad Templeton founded ClariNet in ’88, which is the first really clear, visible, counter-newspaper journalistic model launched in a practical way. And it’s literally twenty years since ClariNet came out. And it wasn’t—I was talking to a friend of mine, a very smart reporter, who said, in 2005, “It was only this year that I realized that we’re in a dying industry.” And I just stared at her, like how could that possibly happen? And she said, “When the dot-com flame out happened, instead of newspapers saying, ‘Huh, we just bought ourselves eighteen months. Right, let’s restructure,’ they all said, ‘Oh good, we were afraid we were going to have to change there for a while.’” But now we see the Internet isn’t actually going to change anything.

And then we spent the next three years not talking about [newspapers’] civic function, but talking about how profitable they were. I think, in fact, 2005 may have been the most profitable year in the Times’s history. The people now complaining about civic function, you could not find one of them in 2005 who was talking about anything but financial upside for the newspaper industry. So they’ve discovered civic function—and this is why I don’t trust them—they’ve discovered civic function awfully late to be taken seriously. Except, again, for NPR. People who talk about civic function and have built non-profit business models really mean it. People who talk about civic function as a way of shaking loose some nickels from somebody or other who will sponsor them, you know, whatever. That’s just self-dealing.

There is one other thing that I think is kind of interesting: Jeff Jarvis has been spending a lot of time blaming the newspapers themselves, and blaming news organizations in general. But especially blaming newspapers. And I thought he was being a little harsh. And I then I saw—I don’t know if you saw the Associated Press International thing, where they invited a bunch of CEOs of news organizations to a “summit.” Looking at that stuff, looking at, essentially, the conversation on the business side that newspapers are having with themselves—it made me realize something about the weakness of these institutions in the era of the Web that I had not understood before. Which is that the Chinese wall, right, the idea of advertisements as separate from the journalists, was successful enough and widespread enough and essentially honored in speech, if not always in action… that was a serious enough barrier that it actually kept the journalists themselves from thinking through their own business model. A lot of working journalists, and especially print journalists, are in the position of being sort of kept women. They don’t really understand where the money comes from but, you know, their particular sugar daddy seems pretty flush, so they just never gave it much thought. And then one day the market crashes and they suddenly discover, “Wait a minute, we were a business? And our revenues had to exceed our expenses every year? Why wasn’t I informed?”

And I think one of the reasons that journalists, in particular, are so stunned by this is not that they just didn’t happen to think about the previous business model, right? Like, why is it that the guy sitting in Mosul in a flak jacket is being subsidized by Bonwit Teller? You wouldn’t make this up from scratch, it just doesn’t make much sense. But, that’s just how the industry’s grown up. But they never thought those thoughts, because not only did they not have to, they were kind of encouraged not to. And so, I think at least part of the disorientation now isn’t just discovering the business model of print journalism today as a bad fit for the environment. It’s discovering that print journalism doesn’t survive without a business model at all. And that’s the legacy of the Chinese wall.

If there’s any lesson in all of this, it’s that you can breed an entire generation of really smart people to not think about existential threats to the business if you want to. We happen to be in an environment where, I think, it’s really damaged the print journalism world’s ability to think through the problems, because half the house hasn’t been invited into the conversation until just recently. Right? You know, I’m going to assemble all my print journalists and I’m suddenly going to tell them that the Chinese wall is down, here’s the problem we face, and 10 percent of you are laid off. It’s just not the deal they signed up for. The deal they signed up for was, “We will never have to care how the money is made.” And that whatever the advantages there in the flush years—I think that’s what made this crisis seem even more existential. And, as I said, from my point of view, it’s fifteen years too late, because the talent was encouraged never to think about the revenue.

RJ: So where does that leave the journalists?

CS: Well, it leaves a lot of journalists my age—a lot of people in their mid-forties who are mid-career—they’re not old enough to take the buyout package and scoot, but they’re also not young enough to get that this just how the environment is. And so the people who are going to take it in the neck are the people who’ve spent their whole life in a Chinese wall environment in the “the business model is separate from the product” environment. Some of them will jump to entrepreneurial activities, but most of them won’t. And so I don’t know where they go. I mean, that’s, in a way, the group of people that’s easiest to feel sorry for, because the industry probably seemed so robust and stable. I mean, I didn’t go into journalism, but many of my friends did in the ’80s. It was such a well-trodden path that everybody knew, “Oh, OK, well I’m going to get out of college and I’m going to go to Midwest and work at a regional paper for two years til my clipping file is good enough that somebody at the Post or the Times reads me and then maybe, you know….” It was this completely ordinary career path. And the people who have that ripped out from under them, but aren’t deep enough in their careers to say, “Ah, fuck it, I’m out, you know, I’m just going to go retire and do something else,” that’s really the group to watch, because a lot of them will just change jobs, do something else, I don’t know what. But, some of them may have enough experience to start doing Daily Beast/Huffington Post-like things. I mean, the fact that Smoking Gun was founded by Beth Stone from the Voice… that’s an example of somebody who really had some serious journalistic chops, just jumping ship and changing the business model entirely.

So it’s in that group of people in their mid-forties where, I think, some of the really big surprises are going to come from, because they have the journalistic experience and they also have a certain amount of inspiration built up. They’re not old enough to just take the buyout, but they’re not young enough to be living in Brighton Beach until they work out the business model. So those are the places where I think that maybe some of the new surprises are going to come from.

RJ: And what about the long-form journalists?

CS: The journalists, basically the career-journalists.

RJ: Yeah, but what about the people who are writing, you know, substantial magazine pieces?

CS: Yeah, I don’t know. That’s something … I just ran into Clive Thompson the other day and we were having exactly this conversation. Long-form journalism is, ironically, one of the easiest things to sell display ads against. So, if you can change the cost structure enough, you can actually imagine building whole businesses around that. But, you know, the economics of the ad world are obviously not stable right now. What you pretty much need to do, I think, is start with a list of sponsoring advertisers who are basically underwriting the costs of the experiment. But, you know, again, because I’ve seen my own long-form stuff rocket around the Web, I don’t actually think that the market for long-form is decreasing.

What I think is that the cost revenue structure of printed publications—you know, Time magazine is just a wasting asset. They did the thing the other day, maybe a year ago, they were asking someone for their top ten, you know, “Make a list of your top ten albums,” and they invited Carly Simon to do it. I didn’t even know that Carly Simon had been allowed out of the twentieth century. I mean, who has heard of Carly Simon? But, of course, Time magazine’s readers have heard of Carly Simon, because all they can do at this point, is [appeal] to the people who like to read things like that. So, I think the question for long-form writing of the sort that’s been practiced in The Atlantic, the New Yorker, Harper’s, the New York Times Magazine—I don’t even know if there’s a fifth addition to that category any longer—there may be endeavors that could launch around a display advertising market, but you’d have to pretty much start from whole costs.

It’s hard to—I guess Slate and Salon are examples of places that have done that in one way or another—but, because all content can reach everywhere, there’s just going to be, you know, more brutal competition. I think the number of people who are employed in that kind of work is just going to shrink.

RJ: So, you do think it’ll drop the actual total number?

CS: Yeah, I mean, what’s going to happen is, basically, the number of people who commit acts of journalism will rise enormously and the number of people who derive most, or all, of their income from acts of journalism is going to shrink. It’s just what happened to photographers with the spread of cameras. There’s just many, many, many, many more photos than there used to be. But it’s harder to make your living just by owning a nice camera and setting up in town and taking pictures of people’s kids. So, you know, I think that changed. And I think journalism is essentially next in line to see that change, to go through that change.

RJ: And do you think this is a problem for the quality of work that’s being done?

CS: It’s always a problem in the short term. It’s almost like when Web sites came out. I don’t know if you were around in the middle of the ‘90s, but, oh my God, it was just like a giant step backwards for graphic design. Or look what happened right when Mac came out. Remember when the Mac came out in ’84, and then in ’87 they announced this sort of “desktop publishing” thing, right, and all the Linotype operators laughed until milk came out their noses. Twenty years later, the Linotype operators’ union votes itself out of business. Because when the Mac shipped with desktop publishing, it certainly wasn’t very good, right? Quality took a hit, everybody’s getting these birthday invites with nine fonts on them and so forth. But over the course of twenty years, quality got sorted out, because in a more competitive landscape, there were more positive returns to high quality.

So I think that’s going to happen here. The average quality of something written is going to fall to the floor because of the volume of written material. But the competition will mean that the premium for having something especially interesting is going to rise. And then, over the course of the next ten years, we’ll sort ourselves out into some sort of new equilibrium. Five years ago, I think I would have bet on the newspapers as they exist today being a big part of that new equilibrium—but, you know, they’ve done very, very little and been really unimaginative. So now, I think, if I had to make the same bet, I’d say most newspapers aren’t going to survive. Every bit of concern around the Web is, “How can we raise revenues to our existing cost structure?” rather than “How can we lower our cost structure to meet our existing revenues?”

RJ: I could keep talking about this forever.

CS: It’s a really interesting problem.

This article is part of the online supplement to the November/December print issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. To read that issue’s cover story, entitled “Overload!: Journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information”, click here.

Health Care Flashpoints

| 6 Comments

Over the next few years, health reform will succeed or fail based on a few major flashpoints that will shape any new program, including the financing of health insurance and the access to medical care itself. This is the first of a series of occasional posts that will explore these flashpoints, and how the media is explaining them to the public.

It’s no secret that the sine qua non of Barack Obama’s health care plan is under attack—the creation of a public option, a Medicare-like plan with the government providing the benefits. Such a plan would be open to people who don’t have coverage now, and maybe even to those who do. They may want to switch into what could be a cheaper and more comprehensive plan if given an option to do so, and that scares the devil out of insurance companies. Their products might become uncompetitive if the public comes to believe there’s a different route to better coverage. The frontal assault has yet to begin, but combatants are moving their troops in position.

We hope the media recognize this and quickly steer away from what has become their favorite story of the last few weeks—that health chief Tom Daschle should avoid Hillary Clinton’s mistakes. Instead, they should focus on the coming battle, which will decide the future of health care in the U.S. for years to come. We offer a little background for a reporter’s clip search.

Ezra Klein over at The American Prospect’s blog was right on point last week when he sent along some ominous news. Klein, quoting a story in Congressional Quarterly, said that John McDonough, the former head of a Massachusetts advocacy group who now works for Ted Kennedy, seemed to be backpedaling on the public option:

Calling this government-backed plan one of the “radioactive fault lines” that has developed in discussions on the overhaul, McDonough suggested Democrats would be willing to look at other options. “What is the purpose behind the proposal? The purpose…is [public plans are] one of the most important devices out there to provide cost accountability,” McDonough said. “Maybe there are other ways to achieve those ends.”


Klein wrote that he had thought the public option might die once legislative wrangling began, but he was surprised to hear that it might disappear so soon. Right-wing think tanks, which often provide the intellectual ammunition for the special interests, are also on the march. The Heritage Foundation released two reports this month. One, a Web Memo, struck at the heart of Daschle’s plan to have a federal health board recommend new technologies, drugs, and treatments that may be more effective and less expensive than ones commonly in use. Heritage health policy guru Robert Moffit argued that a powerful board plus a “controlled” market dominated by a government health plan would end existing private coverage for people and “ensure unprecedented government interference in the delivery of care.” Heritage uber health guru Stuart Butler made similar arguments in a Washington Times op-ed on Thursday. Such thinking is likely to seep into mainstream reporting.

The advocacy community is worried. It sees the public plan as an essential element of reform—a bridge, perhaps, to a single-payer system that would cover all Americans as a matter of right. The Institute for America’s Future, which is part of the liberal Campaign for America’s Future, gathered reporters on a conference call last week to push the virtues of a public insurance option, with Berkeley political science professor Jacob Hacker making the case.

The most telling news from the call came from Rep. Pete Stark, chair of the House Ways and Means health subcommittee. Stark, who was on the phone, told reporters that, without a public plan, reform might be ineffective. Then he delivered this message: Congress is likely to take a slower approach to health reform; voting on comprehensive reform wouldn’t happen until early 2010, because Congress has too many pressing priorities, such as the economy, and smaller-scale health care issues, like reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). He also said he had to give everybody a hearing, especially the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, and big PhRMA, all of which are likely to oppose a public plan for different reasons.

As for the insurance industry, Stark said, “They’re going to be easy to roll because nobody likes insurance companies.” It’s not likely AHIP, the insurers’ trade group, will let that happen, and it has begun to mobilize its own grassroots supporters, who can be counted on to tell Congress they like private insurance just fine.

And there you have it, the battle map for a public plan. It all should make for make for some interesting copy. ABC News began to get it with a reasonable story about the press conference. We will be watching to see if other media outlets do the same.

Are You On The List(s)?

| No Comments

1) Politico's "Top Ten Media Blunders of 2008" (three of the top five involve MSNBC)

2) E&P's list of "Top 10 Newspaper Industry Stories Of The Year" (Number one? "Record Job Cuts." Writes E&P's Joe Strupp: "Three years ago, this was the top industry story of the year when some 2,000 newspaper jobs were lost in 2005. This year, Gannett cut that many in December alone...")

3) The ten most popular Romenesko posts of 2008 based on Google Analytics stats (quite the hodgepodge).

4) Jon Friedman's "journalists of the year" (an honor that one online commenter likened to "prettiest pig" or "best-smelling b.o.").

A reminder of what, generally, we stand to lose as newspapers close overseas bureaus and otherwise cut back on foreign coverage.

Today's print New York Times includes two articles about Zimbabwe. One, on A11, is a short AP article (written from South Africa) reporting that the "The United States can no longer support a proposed Zimbabwean power-sharing deal that wouuld leave Robert Mugabe as president," said a "top American envoy for Africa," who cited, among other issues, "the continued deterioration of Zimbabwe's humanitarian and economic situation."

To understand what this "deterioration" looks like for many Zimbabweans, we need Celia W. Dugger's Zimbabwe-datelined A1 piece (jumps to A11) detailing exactly that. Dugger introduces readers, for example, to a "spectrally thin farmer" named Standford Nhira "whose socks have collapsed around his sticklike ankles" before reporting:

The half-starved haunt the once bountiful landscape of Zimbabwe, where a recent United Nations survey found that 7 in 10 people had eaten either nothing or only a single meal the day before.


Still dominated after nearly three decades by their authoritarian president, Robert Mugabe, Zimbabweans are now enduring their seventh straight year of hunger. This largely man-made crisis...has been brought on by catastrophic agricultural policies, sweeping economic collapse and a ruling party that has used farmland and food as weapons in its ruthless...quest to hang on to power.

A little tougher to tune out than, simply, "the continued deterioration of Zimbabwe's humanitarian and economic situation."

Madoff's Enablers

| No Comments

The Times takes a smart look at one of Bernie Madoff's biggest enablers that didn't have the initials S.E.C.

Fairfield Greenwich Group was a hedge fund of hedge funds—it took big fees for enabling investors to get big fees taken from them by other hedge funds—and lost $7.3 billion of its investors money with Madoff.

The interesting angle the Times takes is to look at the promises Fairfield made to its shareholders about due diligence, which will come back to haunt it in court very soon:

Fairfield promised its investors that money could not be moved from its accounts with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities without two signatures. It said that it would independently calculate the value of the funds it invested at Mr. Madoff’s firm at least once a week. It promised to reconcile statements from individual trades with Mr. Madoff’s custodial records.

It is not clear what Fairfield did to make good on those pledges.

A spokesman for Fairfield, Thomas Mulligan, offered only a statement characterizing the firm as a victim of Mr. Madoff.

The Times points out that Fairfield took $500 million in fees home from the money it put in Madoff's fund. That's an incredible amount of money for no real work. And it looks like Madoff is how it made most of its money.

Ruh roh:

In early 2008, several private equity and investment firms were approached by Fairfield about purchasing a share of the company. A partner of one that considered buying a stake that he estimated was between one-third and one-half of Fairfield — the firm was valuing itself somewhere between $1 billion and $1.5 billion — said that he was scared off about 20 minutes into his initial meeting with a team of Fairfield managers.

“They were just incredibly squishy and vague even during the warm-up,” said the prospective buyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a non-disclosure agreement with Fairfield. “I asked them to tell me about the manager of the fund Sentry feeds into, and I was told, ‘We don’t really talk about him.’ ”

This is the Times saying "there's something really not right here" in newspaper-ese.

NJ "Plog" "Shuns Web, And Thrives"

| No Comments

The TriCityNews, an Asbury Park, NJ alt weekly with a print run of 10,000, "is prospering precisely because it ignores the Web," reports David Carr in today's New York Times.

"Why would I put anything on the Web?" asked Dan Jacobson, the publisher and owners of the newspaper. "I don't understand how putting content on the Web would do anything but help destroy our paper. Why should we give our readers any incentive whatsoever to not look at our content along with our advertisements, a large number of which are beautiful and cheap full-page ads?"

A "'plog', a blog on paper" is how Jacobson describes his paper, which employs three full-time staffers and a part-timer . "A little ray of light" in the media beat is how Carr describes the story of the TriStateNews, which is "double-digit profitable, and has been growing at a clip of about 10 percent a year since it was founded in 1999."

A real made-for-David-Carr's-column story (which didn't escape the publisher, who emailed the TriCityNews's good news to Carr).

UPDATE: Carr's headline should be the much less striking: "Local Newspaper Shuns Non-Local Information And Thrives," argues (more or less) Recovering Journalist Mark Potts. "Contrary to what Carr and Jacobson believe, the secret to the TriCityNews' success probably isn't that it fiercely eschews the Web. It's that it's fiercely local." Way to dim Carr's little "ray of light."

Bloomberg Tough on Merrill's Thain

| No Comments

Bloomberg has a tough look at John Thain, the CEO of Merrill Lynch who was brought into save the struggling firm as "Mr. Fixit", but ended up failing to do so. While he didn't create the problems at Merrill, Bloomberg points out that he made several critical decisions in the last year that were the wrong ones:

chief executive officer, held on to more than $40 billion of subprime-tainted bonds as the market cratered. He agreed to terms with investors such as Singapore sovereign wealth fund Temasek Holdings Pte. that later cost the firm $4.9 billion. He recruited a chief financial officer with no experience at a securities firm, while more than 40 senior executives, bankers and traders departed. In the end, he merged Merrill into a large bank -- a step O’Neal concluded was needed in mid-2007, when the stock was trading at more than six times the price it is now.

This looks bad:

Speaking on an analyst conference call in January, Thain said Merrill had more than enough capital and that “we do not have any plans to raise any additional common equity, and Nelson actually agrees with that.”

The statement hampered Merrill’s financial flexibility because Thain then refused to make decisions that would have forced the firm to raise more capital, according to people familiar with the situation...

“John’s made statements, and we’re not going back on them,” communications chief Margaret Tutwiler said in a meeting with senior Merrill executives in April, according to a person who heard the comment.

And the Bloomberg story closes with a twist of the knife:

O’Neal, Thain’s predecessor, realized earlier than his peers that U.S. securities firms couldn’t survive on their own. He discussed a merger with Bank of America in mid-2007, according to two people familiar with the matter, and he was fired for trying to negotiate a merger with Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia Corp. without prior permission from the Merrill board.

“Thain didn’t do what he was hired to do, which was to save Merrill Lynch,” Hintz said. “If the board had wanted to sell the firm, they could have gotten O’Neal to do that.”

Han-inanity

| No Comments

More awards! Media Matters has named Sean Hannity its 2008 Misinformer of the Year.

Along with the accolade, the organization has composed a 4,500-word treatise detailing the various ways that Hannity has earned his prize. (Calling Barack Obama the country's "most liberal Senator"! Saying Obama wants to cut defense spending, when Obama specifically said he wanted to cut wasteful spending! Saying Obama used our troops as PR tools! Calling Michelle Obama racist! Et cetera!) Media Matters has cited, by my count, thirty examples of erroneous, biased, or otherwise misleading reporting from Hannity. From this year.

So: Congrats, Sean! You deserve it!

Rumors that the LA Times is moving toward outsourcing gained momentum yesterday via an ominous non-denial from editor Russ Stanton:

At yesterday's discussion of Tribune's bankruptcy and other journalism cuts at USC, L.A. Times editor Russ Stanton was asked by one of his staffers about the latest newsroom gossip that the Times was considering getting rid of its national and foreign bureaus. (The most live rumor is that the Washington Post has offered to provide foreign and national coverage, and Tribune is listening.) Stanton is reported to have replied, "You can assume ... everything and anything is being looked at."

War(ren) of Words

| 6 Comments

Back when President-elect Barack Obama was merely presidential candidate Barack Obama, he made, as all politicians do, several promises to the electorate. The most transcendent of these was, of course—all together, now—change. Change, specifically, from the heated partisan rhetoric that, most Americans agree, has sullied the quality of our discourse and compromised the efficacy of our political system. Change from everyone's favorite political bugaboo, The Politics of the Past. Change from where we are to where we can go from here.

Obama followed through on that promise yesterday when he announced that Rick Warren—celebrity pastor and, most recently, Prop 8 advocate—would deliver the invocation at Obama's inaugural.

And People. Are. Really. Pissed.

Obama the sellout! Obama the ingrate! Obama the betrayer! "I actually trusted the guy,” wrote the blogger John Aravosis. “I know, stupid me.”

I disagree with many of Warren's beliefs. I agree with some others. But: It doesn't really matter what I think of Warren, or, for that matter, what you think of Warren. It matters what we—the transcendent, collective We—all think of Warren. And what, in regards to the pastor’s most recent lightning rod, we all think about gay marriage. Like it or not, according to recent Pew polling, 49 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage. (Our president- and vice-president-elect are, by the way, among them.) And, for that matter, only 39 percent support gay marriage. It's that ratio that, on inauguration day, matters. Because the inauguration is a day not just for individual Americans, but also, and more so, for America—a day about the ideas that unite us, about the experiment we're all a part of, about our differences as well as our commonalities. And, more to the point, about the fact that the American idea is based on the fact that differences need not become divisions.

"It is difficult to comprehend how our president-elect, who has been so spot on in nearly every political move and gesture, could fail to grasp the symbolism of inviting an anti-gay theologian to deliver his inaugural invocation," Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese declared in a Washington Post op-ed today. "And the Obama campaign's response to the anger about this decision? Hey, we're also bringing a gay marching band. You know how the gays love a parade."

First, that wasn't really their response. Second, when Solmonese writes that the choice of Warren for the inaugural invocation "makes us uncertain about this exciting, young president-elect who has said repeatedly that we are part of his America, too," one can't help recall Obama's record—and the fact that he's been, throughout the campaign, up-front about not supporting gay marriage. (He supports civil unions.) The shock/indignation/outrage we're witnessing today may be genuine, but, for that, it's also overdue. It seems, in short, a specimen more of knee-jerk umbrage than true surprise.

Hey, commentators: If we're going to transcend partisan rancor, we're going to have to do more than pay lip service to transcending partisan rancor. We're going to have to move beyond the impulse toward knee-jerk partisanship—his views offend me! I'm pissed! I'm going to tell everyone just how pissed I am!—and toward conciliation. We're going to have to re-draw the line between tolerance and conviction when it comes to each others' deeply held beliefs.

That's not to disparage the passion of individual conviction: The only thing worse than our current partisan antipathy would be bipartisan apathy. But it is to say that, in this republic of ours, my individual views—no matter how flagrantly and patently superior, obviously, they may be—count just as much as yours. If we're going to have the National Conversation everyone claims to want, we're going to have to be comfortable hearing—and, yes, tolerating—views that differ from our own. Even if those views make us want to tear our hair out and scream at the top of our lungs. That's the deal democracy makes with itself.

So if we're truly going to have a conversation with each other, and if we're going to engage in respectful debate, we're going to have to get better at—and much more comfortable with—compromising. Those who voted for Obama, in particular, are going to have to get used to the idea that just because their guy won doesn't make their opinions automatically more valid than those who voted for the guy who lost. And all of us are going to have to stop being so afraid of ideas themselves. As Joe Klein noted on Time's Swampland blog, Warren's invocation "will have zero—repeat, zero—impact on the policies of the Obama Administration." But it may, he continued,

do some good, especially if it gives pause to all those people who think that I--and the crypto-Muslim Barack Obama--are going to hell...If it causes those folks to give the new President just the slightest credit for appreciating their worldview, if it causes them to give him the benefit of the doubt on controversial stuff like talking to the Iranians or universal health insurance, then it's worth it. If it causes evangelicals to say, "Well, he's not demonizing us, maybe we shouldn't demonize him," it's worth it. If it makes Rush Limbaugh's toxic blather about our next President seem even the slightest bit ridiculous and over-the-top to his idiot legion of ditto heads, it's worth it.

So. Enough, please, of the indignation at Obama. There'll be time for it, I'm sure—all politicians will disappoint their constituents sooner or later—but as far as Warren's selection is concerned, such vitriol misses the broader point. We've elected ourselves a president who, by most indications, doesn't see himself as beholden to individual groups or movements. That is rare, and to be celebrated. In choosing Warren to have a ceremonial role at his inauguration, Obama is starting, at least, to live up to the promise he made on the night he was elected to office:

In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.

Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.

Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.

And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.

She's baaaaaack. Or, rather, she will be. Politico is reporting that, because we don't yet know enough about the life and times of Sarah Palin, a book on that subject--and, specifically, on the Alaska governor's unsuccessful bid for the vice presidency--is forthcoming. Its working title is Sarah From Alaska, and it will be penned by former Palin embeds Scott Conroy (CBS) and Shushannah Walshe (Fox News). More from Conroy on the tome-to-be:

While we're obviously going to use our experiences on the trail to report a lot of new information on how the Palin campaign was run, the book is also going to be forward-looking. There's a long list of unsuccessful VP nominees who've faded into obscurity, but what we think is so interesting about Palin is that even in defeat, she was able to win the hearts of the GOP base, and love her or hate her, she'll be back on the national scene.

There are times when news judgment is so bad that it seems to come close to criminal negligence. That is the case with the recent coverage of torture by the news department of The New York Times.

This week, Vice President Richard Cheney said, on the record and on camera to Jonathan Karl of ABC News, that he had personally encouraged and authorized waterboarding and other forms of torture—acts which every American administration since the dawn of the twentieth century has defined as war crimes. Every administration, except the present one.

Here are the key passages of that interview:

KARL: Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

CHENEY: I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.

KARL: In hindsight, do you think any of those tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others went too far?

CHENEY: I don't...

KARL: And on KSM, one of those tactics, of course, widely reported was waterboarding. And that seems to be a tactic we no longer use. Even that you think was appropriate?

CHENEY: I do.

The New York Times did not deem any of the vice president’s remarks worthy of mention in its newspaper or on its Web site.

According to Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 160 prisoners have died in U.S. custody during the Bush administration, of which "more than 70 were linked to gross recklessness, abuse, or torture"—in other words, as a direct result of the torture techniques which Cheney has now admitted were personally authorized by him.

As the indispensable Scott Horton of Harper’s explained after the Cheney interview:

[Waterboarding] has been defined as torture by the United States since at least 1903, the first military court-martial. The United States views waterboarding conducted for intelligence purposes during wartime as a war crime, and it has prosecuted both civilian and military figures involved in the chain of approval of its use. Penalties applied have ranged up to the death penalty. The crime is chargeable under the War Crimes Act and under the Anti-Torture Statute. There is no ambiguity or disagreement among serious lawyers on this part, and Cheney’s suggestion that what he did was lawful and vetted is the delusional elevation of political hackery over law.

As FCP has pointed out many times before, waterboarding was also the favorite torture technique of the Nazi Gestapo during World War II.

Former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean said on Keith Olbermann’s show that Cheney should be prosecuted—especially since he now boasts publicly of his crimes.

I queried New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet, and torture reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti as to why none of them thought that the vice president’s comments deserved a story—or whether, perhaps, I had missed the story in the Times. I received no reply. I followed up with this message: “I take it from your collective silence that there was no coverage of Cheney's interview with ABC in the paper or on the website, and, therefore, that you are all in agreement that there was nothing newsworthy about it.” So far no answer to that one, either. (Back in June, retired major general Anthony Taguba wrote “there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes.” The Times also ignored that one.)

A couple of days before Cheney’s interview on ABC News, the Senate Armed Services Committee released a bi-partisan report accusing the president of acts which clearly qualify as war crimes. Among the report’s key findings:

The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority...."The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at [Guantanamo]. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.

Any reasonably sentient editor would have led with a story on that report, with at least a two-column, two-deck headline in the upper right hand corner of the front page. Messrs. Shane and Mazzetti kissed it off instead with 800 words, buried on page A14.

Scott Horton explained the problem to FCP this way: “The consistent theme is trust of governments—they couldn't possibly be doing the nasty things their critics say. And of course for the correspondents involved, it is and was so much more comfortable doing their reportage while maintaining friendly contacts with the governments. That's the key failure—failure of critical detachment.”

The only thing that saved the paper’s honor on this subject was a superb editorial by Andrew Rosenthal, which appeared in the Times yesterday. The paper called for the appointment of a prosecutor, because the “Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

The report shows how actions by these men “led directly” to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons.”

Horton summarized the contrast between the Times’s news department and editorial page this way:

This lengthy editorial highlights another sore spot: the paper’s news coverage. Why did the Times need to take 1237 words to present their editorial? Because, scrambling through the paper’s news pages for the last weeks, you will strain to find a glimpse of the essential facts upon which the editorial rests. Neither have the news pages contained any meaningful analysis of the Levin-McCain report and its broader significance. Much of the reporting has been pedestrian, and some of it has been infantile and unprofessional. For instance, the issue crept onto the front page just over a week ago with a report about Senator Diane Feinstein’s wavering from an anti-torture position in a piece that explained, relying on shadowy intelligence community sources with an unmistakable agenda, what a difficult time Obama would have implementing his anti-torture pledge. The only problem–in addition to the fact that the central premise of the article was fake news–was that Senator Feinstein didn’t waver, her remarks were misquoted, and the Times had to run a correction (though it failed to muster the honesty to note that this was what it was doing).

The problem with most reporters is that they have very little sense of history, beyond the week before last. In Paris, during the Nazi occupation, there were many “respectable people” who remained silent–or strongly defended the Nazis, and, by implication, the techniques they used to contain “ insurgents,” including waterboarding and other forms of torture.

Many of those French apologists were journalists. Their reputations declined rather sharply after Paris was liberated by the Allies.

Awarded: 2008 P.U.-litzers

| No Comments

FAIR founder Jeff Cohen, along with media columnist Norman Solomon, has announced this year's P.U.-litzer Prizes, recognizing "some of the nation's stinkiest media performances" of the year. Out of what must have been a vast field of worthy nominees (cf 90 percent of CJR's commentary on assorted media inanities), the judges selected ten winners. Among them:

- Chris Matthews, winning the HOT FOR OBAMA PRIZE for his infamous "My, I felt this thrill going up my leg" commentary. (Matthews, overcoming staggering odds, wins another award for his racially charged discussion of Obama's bowling dexterity.)

- Fox News, winning the BEYOND PARODY PRIZE for an online teaser for The O'Reilly Factor: "Obama bombarded by personal attacks. Are they legit? Ann Coulter comments."

- The Wall Street Journal's Amy Chozik, winning for her infamous, ridiculous, Yahoo-message-board-sourced article arguing that Obama, "facing an overweight electorate," might just be "too fit to be president."

TVNewser's Gail Shister interviews NBC's newly minted chief White House correspondent on the occasion of his promotion. "It came out of left field," Chuck Todd told her of the correspondent position. "It's not a job I aspired to, and I don't mean it negatively. There were 500 different ways I thought they could go.

"I never viewed myself as a correspondent," Todd said. "I didn't even view myself as a TV guy."

Todd also discusses The Goatee:

Now, Todd accepts that he's a real TV guy..."as long as they don't make me shave the beard. I'm truly going to have a no-cut contract."

Without his whiskers, "I'd just be another pasty white guy," he says. "I'm very thankful that my friend Mr. Capus [NBC News chief Steve Capus] enjoys facial hair on his own chin."

Heisman Educators

| No Comments

In his latest piece in the New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell turns his attention to hiring practices:

There are certain jobs where almost nothing you can learn about candidates before they start predicts how they’ll do once they’re hired. So how do we know whom to choose in cases like that? In recent years, a number of fields have begun to wrestle with this problem, but none with such profound social consequences as the profession of teaching.

Gladwell argues that the idea of finding the "best people" and helping them to become the best teachers, central to so many educational reforms, might not be possible:

A group of researchers…investigated whether it helps to have a teacher who has earned a teaching certification or a master’s degree. Both are expensive, time-consuming credentials that almost every district expects teachers to acquire; neither makes a difference in the classroom. Test scores, graduate degrees, and certifications—as much as they appear related to teaching prowess—turn out to be about as useful in predicting success as having a quarterback throw footballs into a bunch of garbage cans.

As Gladwell says, "There is nothing like being an NFL quarterback except being an NFL quarterback." This is apparently the problem with teaching, too. Good teachers pay attention to students, can tell when students are learning and, when they aren't, and can personalize a lesson. It is hard to tell if anyone is good at this before he or she gets into a classroom.

But Gladwell overuses the NFL quarterback metaphor to the point where it smothers the piece. Almost half of the article is devoted to the selection, training, and ultimate careers of NFL quarterbacks. Gladwell specializes in drawing connections between seemingly unconnected things in the service of “big ideas,” but sometimes things are unconnected for a reason. Here, Gladwell is trying to advance the suggestion that it's sometimes hard to tell who will be good at jobs that require adaptive skill.

This is undoubtedly true, but the two jobs he chooses to illustrate the point escort the reader to inappropriate comparisons. The problem is that the career of an NFL quarterback has little bearing on strategies for changing education. NFL quarterbacks appear on live television once a week and angry drunk people shout advice to them and often place large bets on their success or failure; teachers get out of work at four in the afternoon. NFL quarterbacks have to remain in top physical and mental conditioning well into their thirties; teachers might coach Little League for a season or two. NFL quarterbacks marry supermodels; teachers marry assistant district attorneys. Though arguably the stakes matter less, being an NFL quarterback is frankly just a lot harder than being a third grade teacher. What can football teach us about education? Actually, not much.

It's not even clear that a collegiate quarterback's NFL prospects are all that hard to predict. The Lewin Career Forecast is a tool that predicts professional success based on a collegiate quarterback's completion percentage and games started—and does so rather well. Gladwell makes much of the 1999 NFL draft, in which five quarterbacks selected in the first round ultimately enjoyed varying degrees of professional success. He uses this as an example of how choosing a good quarterback is a crapshoot. But the two great busts from that draft—Akili Smith and Cade McNown—fare poorly in the Lewin Forecast; the two relative successes—Donovan McNabb and Daunte Culpepper—fare well. (The fifth quarterback, top overall pick Tim Couch ("a flop in the pros, says Galdwell), played for the expansion Cleveland Browns, a team with which even John Elway would have had trouble succeeding.) The Lewin Forecast isn't a perfect measure, but a quarterback's success isn't as haphazard as Gladwell claims.

Gladwell also mangles the primary statistic he cites in support of his contention—a study finding that draft position is not correlated to professional success. Trouble is, that’s not what the study (pdf) actually says. The study’s authors, economists David Berri and Rob Simmons, actually found that quarterbacks picked in the draft’s first and second rounds end up, in the aggregate, making more money than their late-round counterparts. Even acknowledging that first- and second-round picks sign larger initial contracts, this still indicates that, over the course of a career, the quarterbacks who are expected to succeed do end up succeeding more often than others.

Gladwell is famously a man of big ideas, but he’s not always so good with the details. The trouble is that without supporting details, or with inaccurate supporting details, big theories fall apart. The author ignores the reality that teachers unions and other entrenched interests might act as a barrier to his quick-hire, quick-fire strategy for educational improvement. He doesn’t consider the role that the school environment plays in supporting good teaching and deemphasizing bad. He doesn’t say whether these adaptive skills can be taught, or whether they’re entirely intrinsic. He also ignores the question of where the United States might find this vast supply of teachers to fire.

If Gladwell had framed the article as "it's hard to find good teachers," and presented some reasons why it's hard, and how the process could be improved, his story would have been satisfying and complete. Instead Gladwell characteristically treated the unexpected implications of some social sciences research as if the surprise—that getting teacher certification or a master’s degree doesn't matter when it comes to student learning—was an important new discovery. It’s not. Reformers have known for years that more credentials don't mean better education. The problem is no one is quite sure how to fix that. That's the important part.

On his New Yorker blog the other day, Hendrik Hertzberg wrote this about Gladwell: “So what if whatever startling thesis he happens to be advancing doesn’t always apply to every situation? Isn’t it enough that he provokes thought and gives pleasure?” OK, I'll take the bait. No, it isn't. It is not enough that Gladwell provokes thought if the primary thought is about Malcolm Gladwell's sloppiness. Gladwell indeed raised some very interesting, oft-ignored points in his article about education. He always does. But it is unfortunate that he also erected several barriers—like making it a pseudo-lesson about gridiron human resources—to the article's success.

3:05pm: Chris Matthews is co-anchoring, with David Shuster, MSNBC's coverage of the soon-to-start Blagojevich press conference. (Anyone care to bet which of the three will be the first to make an obscure Elvis reference?) Matthews, bless him, gives up the ghost, admitting--seconds before his network stops its other coverage to focus live on the Blago press conference--that the Blago story doesn't deserve the myopic coverage it's received. "But here we are, on live television, talking about it," Matthews says. "We'll talk about it on Hardball tonight," he continues, "because it's a hot story."

3:06pm: Blago, his (in)famous coif nearly covering his eyes (curtains to the soul?), wins the Melodrama award: "I intend to stay on the job, and will fight this. Every step of the way I will fight--I will fight--I will fight--until I take my last breath."

3:07pm: Blago, surprisingly and rather awkwardly, quotes Kipling's poem "If." We might have recommended another bit of verse, but whatever. Either way, you have to admire the gumption of the guy: Not only is he strenuously defending himself, but he's painting himself as the star of his very own Victim Narrative. (Guess who's the oppressor?*)

3:08pm: Aaaaaand...scene. It's over. Short and sweet utterly bizarre. ("WOW," Shuster says, shaking his head in disbelief.)

3:09pm: Matthews on Blago's poised, if melodramatic, self-defense: "This isn't Jimmy Swagger, praising the Lord here. This is a guy wishing everyone Merry Christmas."


*The Media!

Update: The Daily Beast has the video:

Who Will Be at the Table?

| No Comments

During the campaign, Barack Obama promised his cheering crowds that, when he rolled up his sleeves to work on health care, he would “have insurance company representatives and drug company representatives at the table. They just won’t be able to buy every chair.” Now is a good time to take a look at just what kind of seats special interest groups will have at Obama’s table, and what they’re doing to bring the public around to their ways of thinking. This is the third of an occasional series of posts that will analyze their activities and how the media are covering them. The entire series is archived here.

It was good to see Robert Pear of The New York Times writing again about health care the other day. Back when he was regularly writing on the topic, Pear could always be counted on to deliver the inside scoop about the latest Washington think on health reform. He did so during the 1993-94 debates, and it looks like he may be doing that again.

His Wednesday story had a lot to say about who will be at Obama’s table. Obama and his health chief Tom Daschle are encouraging ordinary citizens to hold community discussions—a kind of Tupperware party for health care. The Obama team will provide a moderator’s guide, and promises that Daschle might even drop in on some of the parties. That’s one way the president-elect is making good on his promise to bring every stakeholder to the table—but the effort may be co-opted by the special interests.

The trouble, according to Pear, is that those interest groups are urging their members to attend and even lead some of the discussions. Insurance trade association AHIP, the American Medical Association, state medical societies, and the Health Care Leadership Council—an organization of large corporations that played a role in defeating the Clinton health care plan—are all organizing sessions or sending representatives to attend them. Group Health of Puget Sound, a managed care organization, has sent e-mails to 35,000 members (aka patients), urging their participation. One of its doctors is even going to lead a session. AHIP is mobilizing its grassroots coalition, presumably all those folks it met in places like Detroit and Albuquerque on its listening tour this summer as part of its Campaign for an American Solution.

OK, you can argue that insurance company reps and doctors are ordinary citizens. But they also represent important special interests that are invested in the reform efforts that might upset the way they do business. Which hat do these people wear when they speak at one of Obama’s sessions? Attendees aren’t required to disclose their employers or their affiliations, Pear reports. This under-the-table lobbying reminds me of a common PR trick that calls on employees of a particular business to write to local newspapers in order to advance a corporate point of view. While the letters appear to be written by average Joes or Janes, they are really crafted by a PR agency. It’s also reminiscent of the AMA’s campaign in 1948 that helped defeat the national health insurance plan proposed by President Harry Truman. That time, the AMA called on doctors’ wives to get involved in community discussions.

Reporters usually don’t attend Tupperware parties, but we’d like to encourage them to go to these. They end on December 31. Look at who is doing the talking. Where are they from? What are they saying? What is the major point of view? Are the uninsured represented? How will they fare under the solutions discussed? Localizing what is fast turning into a national story is sometimes hard. But Obama’s effort to bring everyone to the table may be just the entrée journalists need.

Interview with Clay Shirky, Part I

| 19 Comments

Clay Shirky teaches at the Interactive Telecommunications program at New York University and is the author, most recently, of Here Comes Everybody, about how new means of communication are changing the social environment. CJR's Russ Juskalian recently spoke with Shirky about knowledge, the Internet, and why we shouldn't worry about information overload. The second part of the interview can be found here.

Russ Juskalian: Could you do an overview of how literary reading gave way to television, and, then, to the Web? I read your response to Nick Carr’s Atlantic article—I was wondering if you could talk about that for a little bit.

CS: One of the things that I’ve noticed with criticisms of the Internet is that very often they’re displaced criticisms of television. That there are a lot of people, Nick Carr especially is a recent addition to the canon, wringing their hands over the end of literary reading. And they’re laying that at the foot of the Internet. It seems to me, in fact, from the historical record, that the idea of literary reading as a sort of broad and normal activity was done in by television, and it was done in forty years ago.

The funny thing, though, is when television came along, it became, to a degree literally unprecedented in the history of media—not just the dominant media compared to other media, but really the dominant activity in life outside of sleeping and working—that a curious bargain was struck where television still genuflected to the idea of literary reading. The notion was that there was somehow this sacred cathedral of the great books and so forth. It was just that no one actually participated in it, and so it was sort of this kind of Potemkin village. What the Internet has actually done is not decimate literary reading; that was really a done deal by 1970. What it has done, instead, is brought back reading and writing as a normal activity for a huge group of people.

Many, many more people are reading and writing now as part of their daily experience. But, because the reading and writing has come back without bringing Tolstoy along with it, the enormity of the historical loss to the literary landscape caused by television is now becoming manifested to everybody. And I think as people are surveying the Internet, a lot of what they’re doing is just shooting the messenger.

RJ: So what do you think this has done to patterns of media consumption in recent years?

CS: Patterns of media consumption in recent years are very complicated to study, in part because we have a hard time right now separating fads from cohort effects from real deep structural shifts. So, when Friendster came along in 2002 and became this incredibly popular, fast-growing application, and everybody said “Oh, you know, Friendster’s invented this new category of the social networking service”—and then it went away. By, you know, 2005, Friendster was basically a dead letter. MySpace had become the new application, right. Everybody then says “Oh, it’s MySpace....” Then Facebook comes along and has the incredible success it’s had. And so we have a very difficult time looking at the media landscape today, sorting the deep effects from the shallow ones. Many of the effects that people are thinking about today are, in fact, shallow effects.

But, the deep effects seem to me to be that when people are given media that isn’t interactive, they invent their own interactions around it. You will see this around television shows. Lost and Heroes are probably the most famous in this mode where the enormity of fan activity around the show is vastly larger than it was around equivalently popular shows in the ’90s, much less ’87, as its era. And so, where the creators of media aren’t adding interactive effects, users are stepping in on their own, right?

The growth and spread of fan fiction is a way for the fans to participate directly in, say, the Harry Potter universe or the Tolkien universe. You see something that wasn’t possible even ten years ago, both because the technologies are in place but also, much more importantly, because now these tools reach most of society. Right, it’s not just when a tool comes along that change happens. It’s really when it becomes ubiquitous and even boring. And what’s happened now is that the Web has gotten boring for a whole generation of teens and twenty-somethings. And so, because they can take it for granted, they’re using this platform to add interactivity around regular media consumption.

RJ: Do you see a shift going on in terms of attention or attention span? Are people bouncing around between these things—you know, they watch the show and they want to blog about it and then they want to be part of the community? Or are all the complaints about attention span just kind of wild?

CS: You know, there’ve always been these complaints about attention span. And, again, this is one of the things that’s—people just worry about attention span and they change the media they worry about. I mean, when I was growing up, the attention span worry was, you know, entirely targeted at television shows and so forth. And, one of the things I think Steven Johnson does quite beautifully in Everything Bad is Good for You is to note the ways in which the unit of a television show moved from being inside the show—you have Fantasy Island or Love Boat, which has sort of two or three subplots—to being units of comprehension that passed across several shows. So, you get the Sopranos, where the entire thing has a narrative arc that spans years. So, it’s harder, I think, to make the case that attention span is unilaterally shortening.

What is quite obviously happening is that the number of things that are available for short attention are increasing. But, so is the ability to consume complicated, long-form information. I think the fact that Nate Silver’s site in the recent election—Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com—became a breakout hit was a kind of a testimony to a hunger in people for taking in information in long, large, complex ways. It was just a crazy amount of information that Silver followed. One of the things the Internet does by removing the old constraints—it’s really the first thing ever invented worthy of the name media, because it’s the first general purpose media we’ve ever had—is it almost never moves us from a world of one effect to another effect. It almost always increases the range of all effects. So, I think that, you know, it’s certainly been a boon for, you know, short-form blogging and Twittering and so forth. But, it also means that someone who’s especially interested in a certain kind of content can actually get much, much more access to it than possible.

So, I think it has increased long attention span where that is what people find rewarding and increased short attention span where that’s been found rewarding. My seven-year-old, who is absolutely obsessed with every aspect of the New York transportation system, has found on Wikipedia more information than his parents who have lived in New York for twenty and forty years, respectively, could possibly have provided him. And, he’s just happy to be on Wikipedia, pulling this information down and adding it up. And there’s so much reward there for long attention spans and I think we haven’t noticed it in part because the narrative that we tell ourselves about media is ‘the past is always better than the future,’ that we kind of missed the fact that, actually, the range of effects is opening up.

RJ: Would you say that the main effect of the Internet or the Web on media consumption is that it has facilitated a wider range of accessibility from the really short-term to the really long-term to the really in-depth—

CS: Yeah, absolutely. Everyone who’s dealt with publishing constraints—who has the experience of knowing “Oh, I’m sorry, this is a 10,000 word article we’ve commissioned, or a 5,000 word article, and we’re going to get rid of all this extra writing stuff”—has seen places where long-form writing, because there’s no bottom of the page, where long-form writing can thrive. One of the most important essays ever published in the technology world was The Cathedrals and the Bazaar, Eric Raymond’s long-form musing on open-source software and how it works. That thing comes in, at I think, 20,000 words. If that had been sent through The New York Times Magazine’s editorial process, it would have been slashed to ribbons. And yet it changed the world.

But we don’t tell stories about long-form writing that couldn’t have thrived in the existing constraints of print media because print media squishes things down to be too short because it doesn’t match this narrative that was first set up for TV, which is “Oh, all this new media is shortening people’s attention spans and distracting them.” To which you can, you know, you can only reply, “Yes, that’s true,” except where it’s not true. There’s no inkling of that of that explanation in the success of, say, The Cathedral and the Bazaar. And the length of that essay was, in part, of one of things that made it successful.

RJ: Why do so many people seem focused on this idea that the Web has cut our attention spans down? What’s responsible for that phenomenon?

CS: So many people think that the Web is shortening attention spans?

RJ: Yeah.

CS: You know, “Life was better when I was younger” is always an acceptable narrative. Right? And so for anybody who was brought up genuflecting to the literary culture and the virtues of reading Tolstoy—and essentially Tolstoy is a trope in these things, War and Peace is the longest novel in the sort of Euro-centric canon—you could always make the argument that the present is worse than the past by simply pointing to the virtues of the past. And so, what the Web does is that it does what all amateur increases do, which is it decreases the average quality of what’s available. It is exactly, precisely, the complaint made about the printing press. So, the only thing surprising about the Web, in a way, is that it’s been a long time since we’ve had a medium that increased the amount of production of written material this dramatically.

But people made the same complaint about comic books, they made the same complaint about paperbacks, and they made the same complaint about the vulgarity of the printing press. Whenever you let more people in, things get vulgar by definition. And people who benefited under the old system or who dislike or distrust vulgarity as a process always have room to complain. But, the interesting thing is, when you say so many people believe this, in fact almost no one believes this, right? There’s a tiny, tiny slice of the chattering classes for whom “Life was better when I was younger” is an acceptable complaint to make, and they have these little conferences or whatever and agree with one another about that phenomenon. But when you look at the actual use of the Web, it is through the roof. And it has continued in an unbroken growth from the early ’90s until now. So, in fact, almost everybody thinks it’s a good idea because they’re embracing it and they’re experimenting with it and they don’t really care what we think.

And when I say “we,” I mean—I am a member of the Chardonnay-swilling East Coast liberal media elite. But I also recognize that anything I might have to say about the utility of the media actually isn’t going to influence whether or not people are going to adopt this. And so once you get out of the idea that basically the previous avatars of the cultural good, and the world that George W.S. Trow chronicled so beautifully Within the Context of No Context—once you grasp that those people are powerless to that effect, powerless with regard to the adoption curve—the question really becomes, “How do you point out an effect where something has been damaged?” And that’s where I think a lot of this conversation about reading breaks down, because if you assume that reading Tolstoy is an a priori good, your world crumbled in 1970. And it’s hard to point to the Web as responsible for any of that because that was a done deal for some time.

If you want to point to more proximate harms, it would be very hard to argue, for example, that innovation, inventiveness, new intellectual discoveries had slowed as a result of the Internet, and so people are left with these kind of mealy-mouth cultural critiques, because nostalgia becomes the only bulwark against change. The actual effects of making more information available to more people have been enormously beneficial to society, yet not to the intellectual gatekeepers in the generation in which that change happened.

RJ: I recently talked to an author who was afraid that we’re slipping into some kind of contemporary Dark Age. Are we seeing a new Luddism?

CS: Of course there’s a new Luddism! There’s always a new Luddism whenever there’s change. I mean, Luddism is specifically a demand that the people who benefited from the old system be consulted before any technology is allowed to disrupt it. That’s what the Luddites wanted. And they wanted it in the most violent, murderously direct way possible. But, to say, essentially, that the change should be stopped because it’s disrupting previous value is exactly Luddite. I mean, no one is anti-technology in general times, right? The use of Luddism as a description for anti-technology is ridiculous. What Luddites are is anti-change, and, in particular, they are anti-change in a way that discomforts the beneficiaries of the previous system.

So anyone saying, essentially, that this is the Dark Ages is, first of all, you know barking up the wrong tree. If you want to look at intellectual inventiveness as the metric of whether or not a society is using a tool for educational purposes or not, I think it would be very difficult, in the present era, to show that the enormous increase in the speed and totality with which novel information is spread to the people who need it is bad for intellectual life. Almost all the people for whom the casual assumption that the European novel is the height of human achievement are essentially assuming that any change in the status of that particular sort of “great books-ish” analysis of human culture—any challenge to that version of the status quo—is itself evidence of decline.

RJ: What’s your response to people who say that all this information that’s out there, all this knowledge that we’re producing is great, and there’s all this access that we didn’t have before. But we also risk information overload alongside, and we don’t—

CS: Oh, those are the stupidest people in the entire debate because they, I mean, almost all of the people arguing that this is the Dark Ages are narcissists, because they’re essentially trying to preserve a particular piece of it. But the information overload people are the most narcissistic because information overload started in Alexandria, in the library of Alexandria, right? That was the first example where we have concrete archaeological evidence that there was more information in one place than one human being could deal with in one lifetime, which is almost the definition of information overload. And the first deep attempt to categorize knowledge so that you could subset; the first take on the information filtering problem appears in the library of Alexandria.

By the time that the publishing industries spun up in Venice in the early- to mid-1500s, the ability to have access to more reading material than you could finish in a lifetime is now starting to become a general problem of the educated classes. And by the 1800s, it’s a general problem of the middle class. So there is no such thing as information overload, there’s only filter failure, right? Which is to say the normal case of modern life is information overload for all educated members of society.

If you took the contents of an average Barnes and Noble, and you dumped it into the streets and said to someone, “You know what’s in there? There’s some works of Auden in there, there’s some Plato in there. Wade on in and you’ll find what you like.” And if you wade on in, you know what you’d get? You’d get Chicken Soup for the Soul. Or, you’d get Love’s Tender Fear. You’d get all this junk. The reason we think that there’s not an information overload problem in a Barnes and Noble or a library is that we’re actually used to the cataloging system. On the Web, we’re just not used to the filters yet, and so it seems like “Oh, there’s so much more information.” But, in fact, from the 1500s on, that’s been the normal case.

So, the real question is, how do we design filters that let us find our way through this particular abundance of information? And, you know, my answer to that question has been: the only group that can catalog everything is everybody. One of the reasons you see this enormous move towards social filters, as with Digg, as with del.icio.us, as with Google Reader, in a way, is simply that the scale of the problem has exceeded what professional catalogers can do. But, you know, you never hear twenty-year-olds talking about information overload because they understand the filters they’re given. You only hear, you know, forty- and fifty-year-olds taking about it, sixty-year-olds talking about because we grew up in the world of card catalogs and TV Guide. And now, all the filters we’re used to are broken and we’d like to blame it on the environment instead of admitting that we’re just, you know, we just don’t understand what’s going on.

RJ: So, is this just a generational thing? That younger people have come up using these filters and these technologies and they love it and the older generation is just kind of scared?

CS: Yeah, that’s certainly part of it. I mean, the thing that people say about young people is just that they understand the technology so well. Well, I teach in a graduate program, I see twenty-five-year-olds all the time. They actually don’t understand the technology particularly well. I think I understand quite a lot of it quite a bit better than they do, which is the reason why I’m teaching there and they’re students. The advantage they have over me is that they don’t have to unlearn anything. They don’t have to unlearn the idea that a card catalog is a helpful thing to have. That you need a librarian to find things. That you have to figure out where you’re looking before you what you’re looking for. None of those things are true anymore. And so one of the problems that old people like me suffer from is just we know too many solutions for problems that no longer exist. And it kind of freaks us out to realize that all the things we mastered don’t really add up to much value anymore.

It’s not so much that young people are smart and old people are scared. It’s that young people don’t have to unlearn all the stuff that old people do have to unlearn if we want to understand this world. And unlearning is just about the least fun activity in the world. So, you know, it’s easy to understand why people don’t want to sign up for it. But it’s also kind of pathetic that the people going around talking about information overload don’t stop to factor in the idea that if the twenty-year-olds aren’t complaining about information overload, it probably isn’t the problem we think it is.

RJ: It almost sounds like the framework that you’re providing for this is one of existential angst among these older people who have lost their footing, or their ground in the ..

CS: I mean, we’ll be dead and then it won’t matter.

RJ: That’s great.

CS: I mean, really, I’m just so impatient with the argument that the world should be slowed down to help people who aren’t smart enough to understand what’s going on. It’s in part because I grew up in a generation that benefited enormously from not doing that. Right? The baby boomers, when we were young, we had zero, zero patience for the idea that people who are in their fifties in the ’70s and ’80s should somehow be shielded from cultural changes because somehow the stuff that we were doing was upsetting them. So, now it’s our turn and we ought to just suck it up.

This article is part of the online supplement to the November/December print issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. To read that issue’s cover story, entitled “Overload!: Journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information”, click here. The second half of Russ Juskalian's interview with Clay Shirky will run on Monday, December 23rd.

Everybody’s a Critic

| 1 Comment

What is a professional consumer reporter do to when the Internet has empowered anybody to be a critic of everything from cars, to credit cards, to healthcare plans? Worse still, at a time when government and industry have diminished the ability of consumers to protect themselves in an increasingly complicated marketplace?

Last month, the Columbia Journalism Review and Consumer Reports hosted a joint, one-day conference at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism that addressed those weighty questions. Titled “Consumer Revolution on the Web: Opportunities and Dangers for Journalism,” the event attracted 100 participants from the United States and abroad who came to hear over twenty experts from traditional and “new-media” consumer-reporting outlets.


Slideshow by Curtis Brainard/Photos by Rebecca Castillo

As the name implies, there are both risks and opportunities associated with citizen journalism, social media, crowd sourcing, user-generated reviews, and similar, emerging norms. The ups and downs are not that hard to identify. It's the wisdom of the masses versus the expertise of the individual, accounting for the fact that individuals are not always experts, and masses are not always wise. The challenge for traditional news outlets is finding that proverbial "balance" that both serves the consumer—journalism's charge—and provides a stable financial model—journalism's necessity.

Many speakers at the consumer conference noted that professional critics are on the "defensive" while amateurs are gaining ground. The success of Web sites like Wikipedia and YouTube have it made it abundantly clear that the crowd can both inform and entertain. In his keynote speech at the conference, New York Times technology columnist David Pogue pointed to over a dozen sites based on user-generated reviews and information about home electronics, travel plans, personal loans, and health alerts that are more accurate, up to date, and personalized than what people can get from traditional news outlets.

That those outlets need to collaborate with readers and audiences and incorporate similar strategies into their operations is now a given. The question, if professional journalists want to survive, or the very least retake the offensive, is where do they compete? Where do they make a strategic stand that will show that expert opinion is still indispensible?

Some guidance can be found in the last great rise and fall of consumer journalism. As Trudy Lieberman, a consumer-affairs and health reporter, argued at the conference and in an feature article for CJR, “The business community killed the consumer movement” of the 1960s, which had “pushed for laws and regulations to protect buyers from the excesses of the marketplace.” In its place arose “consumerism,” which stressed education over regulation by teaching consumers to be “better buyers.” A quote from a former editor at Consumer Reports in Lieberman’s CJR piece perfectly captures the change in reporting philosophy: “It’s much more interesting to find out how I can get a delicious and safe tomato for myself than how all tomatoes can be made delicious and safe.”

The Internet excels at producing that kind of tailored, news-consumers-can-use. Professional journalists, on the other hand, have an opportunity to prove their mettle on the “all-tomatoes” question. To be sure, crowd and user-generated information campaigns have affected change in addition to education. A number of conference participants talked about successes they’ve had in launching customer service forums, including AdAge columnist and On the Media host Bob Garfield, who created the Web site Comcast Must Die; Thor Muller, CEO of the site Get Satisfaction; and Ben Popken, editor of Gawker Media’s The Consumerist site. But there is still a wide gulf between better service and the kind of industry-wide regulation that will improve the overall quality, safety, reliability, and cost of everything from food and pharmaceuticals to home loans and credits cards.

As Kevin McKean, the vice president and editorial director of Consumer Reports, pointed out at the conference, the global economic crisis has made consumer reporting and protection “even more timely.” Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter David Cay Johnston agreed that demand for professional reporting is as strong as ever. But reporters need to refocus on “telling people that which they do not know,” he said at the conference. And in a feature for CJR that appeared in the same package as Lieberman’s report, Johnston explained that, “One of the most powerful and enduring raps on mainstream media is that it identifies too much with the people and institutions it cover and too little with the readers who pay good money for subscriptions.” Coverage of airlines, banks, and casinos—all of which is habitually more concerned with corporate earnings than customer service—epitomizes that trend. “The trick,” Johnston wrote, “is a change in perspective” that reframes the news around audiences, rather than sources.

At the conference, McKean highlighted the fact that such a paradigm shift is harder than it seems because “power follows the money,” and editorial decisions often take second place to considerations for advertisers – one of the only revenue streams left in journalism. Popken seconded that point, saying that The Consumerist has found it difficult to operate on an ad-based business model because the site doesn’t “pull any punches” in its reviews. On the brighter side, McKean said that Consumer Reports has found that a subscription-based model is still viable online, despite much evidence to the contrary. The publication’s decision to charge for access to its Web site was “gutsy to say the least,” he said, “but it turned out be phenomenally correct.”

So all is not lost for traditional media outlets that would like to re-engage with consumer reporting. But they will need to meld the best aspects of publications like Consumer Reports and the Consumerist. On the collaborative end of the spectrum, they need to harness technology in order engage readers on many different levels, “curate” the burgeoning flow of digital information, and “mine” for data and analytical tools that can improve the quality of information. They also need to look at the Web as a place for action, in addition to communication, and develop products that can be accessed (and interacted with) from a variety of mobile devices. On the competitive end of the spectrum, news outlets need to identify where the wisdom of the masses is inferior to professional expertise – this tends to be in technical fields that affect all demographics, like food and automobile safety, healthcare and medicine, and banking and finance. And they need to focus on regulation over education, and industry-wide reform over customer service.

If professional consumer reporters can do both things—if they can collaborate and compete in all the right places—they should have no trouble re-gaining the trust and respect of their audiences, and maybe even some subscription or ad revenue.

The Year in Errata

| No Comments

About a month ago, I began the laborious and depressing task of scouring the archives of Regret the Error to find the best of the worst in media errors and corrections from 2008. I published my annual round-up earlier this week, and you can read it here, along with a month-by-month listing of incidents of plagiarism and fabrication.

It’s strange enough that I spent an hour or two a day tracking accuracy news and reading hundreds of corrections. Then, once a year, I go back and spend hours re-reading everything I published. Setting aside the obvious element of repetition, the worst part is having to relive a year of journalism scandals, errors and ethical infractions.

The good news: we were spared a Jayson Blair in 2008.

The bad news: instead of individual malfeasance, it occurred on an organizational level.

The best news: Dave Barry won Correction of the Year for this effort:

In yesterday’s column about badminton, I misspelled the name of Guatemalan player Kevin Cordon. I apologize. In my defense, I want to note that in the same column I correctly spelled Prapawadee Jaroenrattanatarak, Poompat Sapkulchananart and Porntip Buranapraseatsuk. So by the time I got to Kevin Cordon, my fingers were exhausted.

But back to the bad news… Three different news organizations pursued completely outrageous behavior this year, ranging from systematic fabrication to scandalously inaccurate reporting and manifold plagiarism. For their work, each earned a Regret the Error Award of Demerit, the lowest honor I offer in my annual round-up.

Here’s a summary of their offenses:

In Japan, the Mainichi Daily News, the English website of Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun, had to be relaunched thanks to its repeated publishing of false, titillating stories. In England, the Express Newspapers chain published a series of major front page apologies to repent for its wildly inaccurate and damaging reports about a British family. In the United States, the Bulletin, a weekly in Montgomery County, Texas, was revealed to be perhaps the first newspaper to pursue plagiarism as a standard operating procedure.

Those three incidents alone make 2008 a bad year for accuracy. Though I have yet to see a “good” year since I started doing this in 2004, there was one bright spot that deserves mention.

During the past year, I found myself looking forward to the corrections published by the West Australian. The paper’s errors were common enough, but the corrections were inspired. They did the basic job of admitting an error and providing the correct information; yet they almost always included a turn of phrase, touch of humor, or historical perspective. This, I said to myself many times, is a correction writer of a higher order. A sample (more are contained in this year’s round-up):

Bad conduct: Charles Mackerras was not born in Australia (Emma hits heights, Today, page 6, December 1). The eminent orchestra conductor was born to Australian parents in 1925 in musical-sounding Schenectady, New York. Apropos of nothing, Schenectady was where, in 1886, the Machine Works company was set up by Thomas Edison, who also knew a thing or two about conductors.

Hip hip, Horatio: Legendary British Admiral Horatio Nelson would have turned 250 today. We published a fascinating but mathematically muddled report from London about an auction today, wrongly stating it would mark the 250th anniversary of his death (Ring and box highlights of Nelson anniversary sale, page 36, September 25). If this was true, he would have died 47 years before the Battle of Trafalgar, where he was struck by a French sniper’s bullet and died on the first day of combat on October 21, 1805. Like Nelson, we had only one eye on the job.

I shared these corrections with Ian Mayes, the former readers’ editor of the Guardian and perhaps the greatest corrections writer of all time, and he agreed that they were excellent. He also granted my request to create the Ian Mayes Award for Writing Wrongs and present the first one to David Hummerston, the Saturday editor/editorial counsellor and readers’ editor of the West Australian, and the man responsible for those sublime corrections.

“Um, thanks,” he replied after I informed him of his win. “A sort of dubious honour really, isn't it?”

No, David, you could have done much, much worse.

Correction of the Week

“The policewoman accused in a Newcastle upon Tyne court of being a pounds 100-an-hour prostitute is alleged to have had up to 20 clients a week, not 20 a day (Page 20, December 9).” – Daily Mirror (U.K.)

Lose the Comma, Lose the Meaning

“An editing change to Philip Hensher’s copy last week (‘My Other Life’, Books) resulted in: ‘I can see myself now in an alternative life as the fat lady who comes into the rehearsal room…’ whereas he wrote: ‘I can see myself now in an alternative life, as the fat lady comes into the rehearsal room …’ He was describing his fantasy career as an accompanist, not, of course, as an overweight soprano.
Our apologies.” – The Observer

Parting Shot

The name of home furnishings retailer Bed Bath & Beyond was misspelled as Bed Beth & Beyond in a Marketplace article Friday on retail liquidations. – Wall Street Journal

One rule of good journalistic story-telling: make it personal. Tell the news in a way that makes people feel it in their guts.

Tamron Hall, anchoring MSNBC Live, just took that truism perhaps just a smidge too literally. Hall, discussing the snowstorm currently buffeting New York City--a storm that's resulted in flight cancellations and delays at all three metro airports--explained to the millions of people tuning in to the cable network's broadcast how she has been personally touched by the storm: Hall's boyfriend, she informed us all, can't make it to NYC to visit her. He is currently stuck in Chicago.

Thanks, Tamron: right in the gut.

Woes of Washington

| No Comments

In a front-page piece yesterday, The New York Times’s Richard Pérez-Peña examines how newspapers are cutting staff in Washington, D.C.—just as a new administration, tasked with challenges of historical proportions, prepares to assume control—and what these cutbacks mean in terms of coverage (spoiler alert: it will be reduced in depth and quality).

For financially strapped newspapers, eliminating or reducing their Washington presence may seem like a good idea:

Newspaper executives say it makes no economic sense to have hundreds of reporters writing about the same set of events each day. Even the affected journalists concede that on breaking news, news agency articles are often fine for their papers.

But, as Pérez-Peña notes:

As bureaus shrink, they cut back on in-depth and investigative projects and from having reporters assigned to cover specific federal agencies.

“We used to cover the Pentagon, combing through defense contracts, and we’re covering some of that out of Dallas now, but basically we don’t do it anymore,” said Carl Leubsdorf, chief of The Dallas Morning News bureau, which had 11 people four years ago, and now has four. “We had someone at the Justice Department, but no longer. We can’t free someone up for a long time to do a major project.”

Take, for instance, the Knight-Ridder Washington bureau’s reporting on weapons of destruction in the run-up to the Iraq war. Knight-Ridder was one of the only skeptical voices to question the now-proven false intelligence coming out of the White House. Now Knight-Ridder is owned by McClatchy, and their office space is too big for their shrunken staff. It seems unlikely that the few remaining news operations in the capital will be able to fill the void left by all the departing publications.

Silicon Alley Insider’s Henry Blodget sheds no tears for the affected newspapers:

The idea that forty small city papers should have large Washington staffs covering national and international news is ridiculous: three or four would (and will) suffice. The former staffing was paid for by a business model that is rapidly disintegrating, and it was always a "nice to have" not a "must have."

Blodget also says that “the vast majority of the work these reporters did was duplicative.” This can be true, especially when the Washington press corps settles for acting as a transcription service for all the speeches, fundraisers, and photo ops that comprise life in Washington. In this sense, Blodget’s argument is fair—it’s hard to make an argument about why the Knoxville News Sentinel should keep a Washington reporter if he just rehashes what the AP already reported: that a Knoxville artist designed an ornament for the White House Christmas tree. If the wire service already did the regional story, why do it again?

But regional papers with an office in Washington are in a unique position to explain how federal policies are making decisions that affect their readers on a local level, such a this article about how Florida farmers with deal with new federal pesticide regulations, or this account about how an earmark for mental health coverage will affect Vermont. This is valuable reporting, and the direct result of these smaller papers having some sort of presence in Washington.

Blodget acknowledges this point, yet manages quickly to brush it aside:

One area where coverage may actually suffer is that of the Washington-based activities of state senators and Congress-people: New Yorkers may not care much about how much pork, say, Wayne Allard of Colorado is stuffing into the latest bill, but folks in Aspen might (might--although if it is really tasty pork, we expect Wayne himself will rush to tell them about it).



Even this lament, however, is misplaced: If there is truly a need or hunger for news about the Washington-based activities of local representatives, it can and will be filled by Politico or some other organization that has some economies of scale. Then local newspapers can reprint or aggregate it.

Blodget’s faith in the market’s ability to dictate the ultimate value of political reporting seems rather glib, as does his “don’t worry, Politico will do it!” theory. Reporting based on intimate knowledge of arcane agencies, department personalities, nurtured relationships with sources, and all the other stuff that comes with being in one place for a long time and getting to know everyone simply cannot be replaced by Politico alone, or by faith in soon-to-materialize organizations. Sure, Politico reporters are Washington-savvy. But there aren’t enough of them to cover 100 senators, 435 representatives, a dozen departments, myriad committees and subcommittees, and additional agencies. They don’t have the resources to read each bill with an eye for how it’s going to affect a specific state, or to internalize the particular idiosyncrasies of different legislators, their relationships and allegiances in D.C. and at home, their campaign promises and so on. There’s no doubt that Politico can do a fine job, but it can’t be everywhere.

The incoming Obama administration has discussed plans to continue communicating directly with voters like they did during the campaign:

President-elect Barack Obama says that he wants to make his administration more responsive to the American people. To that end, his aides are introducing a host of YouTube and other efforts aimed at bypassing the media and communicating directly with voters.

But volume and quality are two separate things. As the White House steps up its communication game, the press will need to watch whether what the new President says matches with what he’s doing. That, too, is a hard job to do with so many reporters gone.

As Senate historian Donald A. Ritchie tells Pérez-Peña, “In times of great change and crisis, usually the press corps grows,” he said. Despite the strain of the Depression, he said, “When F.D.R. took office, newspapers sent far more people to Washington.” Obama has signaled another New Deal in the making, and, while times and circumstances have changed, the need for good, informed reporting has not. The decimation of newspapers’ D.C. bureaus makes it less likely that that need will be adequately met.

Chuckie T: An Elegy

| No Comments

Poor Chuck Todd. The most famous goatee in political reporting--NBC's numbers guru, quite often the (sole) Voice of Reason amid the pundit-tastic cacaphony of MSNBC's election coverage, the guy who "offered unmatched political analysis" of the campaign--has been passed over not once, but twice, for a promotion. In favor of guys named David. Meet the Press host? Snatched by David Gregory. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue host? Nope, David Shuster got it.

So the reaction to NBC's announcement yesterday that Todd has been promoted to chief White House correspondent--a plum job under normal circumstances, especially considering that it comes in conjunction with Todd's being designated MTP's contributing editor--has been somber, almost pitying.

Even the folks at VivaChuckTodd.com, the most flamboyant fansite ever devoted to a political polling expert, were uncharacteristically subdued about the news. Their three-word nod to Todd's ostensible move up NBC's reportorial ladder? "Nice going Chuck."

Bringing It to the Cable

| No Comments

Call it hybrid vigor. While their cousins in print suffer the pains of their congenital defects, cable networks--relatively young, and served, perhaps, by their mingled print and broadcast parentage--had fantastic years, ratings-wise. Here's Broadcasting & Cable's run-down:

Network ratings releases were filled with words like “transformational,” “record-breaking,” “dominant” and the ubiquitous “best year ever.” And in truth, all three networks can boast impressive gains in 2008.

In primetime, Fox News was up 41% in total viewers, averaging just over 2 million viewers. In news’ target demographic of 25- to 54-year-olds, the network averaged 502,000 viewers, a gain of 43%.

Fox News will finish the year as the most-watched cable news network—for the seventh consecutive year. The network is the No. 3 ranked basic-cable network in primetime, behind USA and ESPN. CNN is ranked 10th and MSNBC is ranked 22nd.

CNN posted gains of 72% in primetime for an average of 1.31 million viewers. For the demo, CNN averaged 463,000 viewers for a 91% increase.

MSNBC grew its primetime audience by 84% for an average of 926,000 viewers. In the demo, MSNBC averaged 368,000 viewers, a gain of 83%.

The broadcast networks, alas, had no such success: Save for ABC's Nightline and NBC’s Nightly News, they saw little growth in 2008.

Did Tax Cuts Help Blow the Bubble?

| 2 Comments

The Times continues to try to lay bare the roots of the housing debacle. Today's story, part of its excellent "The Reckoning" series, looks at a Clinton-era law that eliminated most capital-gains taxers on home sales. The story is not as strong as the other entries in the series, but it raises an interesting topic.

While the paper is quick to say the tax cut wasn't the key cause of the crisis, it does make the case for it being a contributor. Here it talks to a homebuilder about how he used it to pitch potential buyers:

Mr. Wampler said he never sold a home simply because of the law’s existence, but it played a role in his decisions and also became part of his stock pitch to potential customers who were considering buying the homes he was building in the desert. He would point out that the tax benefits would increase their returns on a house, relative to stocks.

“Why not put your money on the highest-yielding investment with the highest tax benefit?” he said recently.

During the boom years, he prospered. But today he owns 80 acres of land on the outskirts of Phoenix that he cannot sell. He owes $8 million to his banks, which may soon foreclose on his land.

“I am literally dying on the vine,” he said.

It started as politics, of course, with Clinton worried about a tax-cut proposal from Bob Dole in the campaign of 1996. Why does it not surprise me that Dick Morris was involved?

At the same time, Mr. Clinton’s aides began scrambling to come up with their own tax proposal. Dick Morris, the president’s chief outside political adviser, argued that Mr. Clinton could assure his re-election by matching Mr. Dole’s call for a big cut in the capital-gains tax.

Here's the anchor of the piece:

Perhaps the most detailed analysis of the provision has been the study by a Federal Reserve economist, Hui Shan, who did the analysis while at M.I.T. Ms. Shan looked at homeowners with significant equity gains, before and after 1997, and compared the likelihood of their selling their house. Her study covered 16 towns around Boston and took into account a host of other factors, like the general rise in home prices at the time.

Among homes that had appreciated less than $500,000, she concluded that the change caused a 17 percent increase in sales in the decade after 1997. Before the law changed, many people apparently avoided paying the tax by simply staying in their homes.

I'm not convinced by the story that this was a huge deal—in part because of its own admission that before the tax cut, the law only brought in a few hundred million a year because it had several large exemptions. But it's worth bringing up.

Folio collects a list of predictions about the magazine industry from magazine industry insiders. Wired's Dylan Sweeney's prediction: "2009 will be a very, very difficult year for advertising-supported businesses of all kinds. Anyone launching a publication in 2009 better have deep enough pockets to ride out a year or two of very thin revenues."

Gawker's Hamilton Nolan sees a different revenue source for journalists: "a lot of former or aspiring magazine employees will go into drug dealing. Temporarily."

His Death Deeply Felt

| No Comments

W. Mark Felt, Woodward and Bernstein's Deep Throat, died yesterday at 95. "Without Mr. Felt," his Times obit notes, "there might not have been a Watergate — shorthand for the revealed abuses of presidential powers in the Nixon White House, including illegal wiretapping, burglaries and money laundering. Americans might never have seen a president as a criminal conspirator, or reporters as cultural heroes, or anonymous sources like Mr. Felt as a necessary if undesired tool in the pursuit of truth."

We'd add that, without Mr. Felt, the myriad people whom Watergate inspired to become investigative reporters might have chosen a different path. Below, via All the President's Men, the iconic image of Felt, the face that launched a thousand journalism careers:

[h/t Editor & Publisher]

Audit Interview: Jack Dolan

| 1 Comment

We at The Audit have called on the press to do more reporting on the underbelly of the mortgage industry, who fed it, and how it metastasized in the absence of government oversight.

So it's nice, but all too rare, for us when we see all three in one neat package. The Miami Herald has run a series of stories since July called "Borrowers Betrayed" on the ex-cons—literally—who ran rampant in the Florida mortgage-brokerage industry during the boom and the regulators who let them do it.

State regulators allowed thousands of ex-convicts to enter a profession that gave them access to the most sensitive and personal financial information: credit cards, bank accounts and Social Security numbers.

Those criminals went on to commit nearly $85 million in mortgage fraud, the newspaper found. They stole their customers' identities. They stole their money. They even stole their homes...

Beyond the licensing, regulators routinely overlooked or ignored complaints, allowing rogue brokers to flourish amid one of the biggest housing booms in state history.

It's excellent (and as Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture, says, prize-winning) stuff and has already claimed the head of a key regulatory agency in Florida and led the state to enact emergency measures to rectify the problem.

Jack Dolan, the reporter who kicked off the series, which he wrote with colleagues Rob Barry and Matthew Haggman, has been at the Herald for a year and a half. Before that he was on the I-team of the Hartford Courant for six years.

The Audit spoke to Dolan recently about mortgage crimes, lax regulators and “street-level dealers”:

"With Its Heart Still Beating"

| No Comments

The Journal has an excellent front-page "leder" today on the other rich-dude fraud of the moment: Marc Dreier, who owned a top law firm but was caught selling fake securities.

The story's rich reporting gives us a clear idea of "why?" It's a picture of excess and appetites of a man who couldn't support them even with the money his prominent law firm brought in.

First, in case you've missed it, here's how Dreier was arrested—and remember, this is one of the most prominent lawyers in the country:

Then around the start of this month, Mr. Dreier was attempting to sell some notes to Fortress Investment Group LLC, according to people familiar with the matter. Fortress asked for certain guarantees from a pension plan Mr. Dreier represented as being involved in the deal, and wanted to meet in person with a manager from the plan, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan.

As the people familiar with the events tell it, Mr. Dreier set up a meeting in Toronto with Ontario Teachers on an unrelated matter; stayed on in its offices afterward; then intercepted a Fortress executive when he arrived and took him to a conference room. They say Mr. Dreier posed as a lawyer who actually works for the pension plan, Michael Padfield, and signed documents as him.

But the Fortress executive began asking questions about Mr. Padfield. Mr. Dreier's alleged ruse came undone. An Ontario Teachers employee notified the police, and Mr. Dreier was arrested.

His expenses were over-the-top and the paper reports that some of his colleagues inquired about how he supported them:

Celebrating the growth, Mr. Dreier threw parties that got increasingly lavish. In 2007, he hosted a charity golf tournament with former New York Giants defensive end Michael Strahan. Diana Ross sang at the pre-party, and actor William Shatner was M.C. At this year's event, held in June, the headliner was pop singer Alicia Keys.

And the story has great personal anecdotes, as well:

At a Christmas party last year at the Waldorf Astoria, he ascended a platform and danced wildly to the party anthem "Shout," as employees surrounded him waving their arms. He donned a Viking helmet at a party at the Hiro Ballroom in New York this year.

We like to tweak the press for tossing off unnecessary food detail in stories, but here's one that works. Your nominee for Food Detail of the Year:

Mr. Dreier "liked exotic things," she adds, especially live California scorpion fish, a bulbous-headed, venomous species. He would eat one "on a stick, with its heart still beating," she says.

And the WSJ raises the interesting question of whether Dreier perpetrated the scam as a mean of "temporary financing", and supports it with this:

As far back as early 2006, Mr. Dreier sold $100 million in purported Solow Realty notes to another New York asset manager -- GSO Capital Partners LP, now owned by Blackstone Group LP -- according to a person familiar with the transaction. This person says the debt was repaid with interest, and Blackstone has no exposure.

It's worth reading the whole thing.

Only in America

| No Comments

During the campaign, as the candidates sparred over health care, it became clear that the reform they had in mind would deliver millions of new customers to the nation’s insurers. Golden Rule Insurance has jumped right into this potential market with its “solution” to the problem faced by more and more Americans these days—the prospect of losing their health coverage if they get laid off. Thousands have already found themselves in this pickle, with the option of continuing coverage through COBRA and paying the entire premium themselves, which averages about $12,000. Not many families, especially those without jobs, can swing that.

However, if you’re not yet unemployed, Golden Rule, now part of insurance giant UnitedHealthcare, will sell you a cheaper insurance policy that kicks in after the pink slip arrives. It’s called Continuity, and according to company CEO, Richard Collins, it can “provide more stability” with peoples’ health care coverage, allowing them to take action today so they can be covered tomorrow. Continuity, a rider which will be attached to one of the company’s standard policies, “makes individual health insurance truly portable for the first time,” Collins says.

Here’s how the rider works: Customers buy policies when they’re still working, but the coverage doesn’t start until they lose their job and their group insurance. They pay all the premiums during this “dormant” period, and when job loss occurs, the policyholder automatically gets coverage. The company says customers can choose from among Golden Rule’s standard offerings, which most likely include health savings accounts and other high-deductible policies, requiring policyholders to pay the first $2,500 or so of medical expenses before coverage begins. After all, Golden Rule is the father of the high deductible plans that are contributing to the problem of underinsurance among American families. Still, they are increasingly considered part of the solution for the uninsured.

Golden Rule is also the industry’s king of cherry-picking, well-known for selecting only the healthiest people for its policies. Have the slightest medical problem and you’re out of luck. As the daughter of the company’s founder once told me, “We don’t want to insure a burning house.” Golden Rule says that candidates for the Continuity rider must go through medical underwriting—if they pass, they get the policy; if they don’t, it’s back to COBRA or the ranks of the uninsured. This business about cherry-picking is key, and demands press scrutiny.

A story in the Indianapolis Star this week took a cursory look at Golden Rule’s newest innovation, but glossed over this crucial point, saying only that “customers would have to pass a medical review before they could qualify for the plan.” Readers need to know how tough that can be. And they need to know whether this is really a solution, or simply another money-making scheme from the insurers.

President-elect Barack Obama has said he wants to prohibit insurance companies from rejecting people who have pre-existing health conditions. The insurance industry has countered that it will cover even the sick as long as everyone is required to have coverage. That may be a hollow pledge, since none of the plans discussed will cover everyone. A recent report on NPR focused on a central question: Does Golden Rule know something the rest of the world doesn’t? In her story, Julie Rovner quoted blogger Robert Laszewski, who knows the industry well. He says the Continuity rider assumes that reform efforts, including Obama’s promise to ban the use of pre-existing conditions clauses, will not come to pass. “It’s a bet against Obama being successful,” he said.

We’d like to see political writers explore this as time goes on, and we also have some suggestions for personal finance writers. Why not ask whether buying a policy to insure you in the future—when needs might be different—is a wise use of money? I called Golden Rule’s customer service number and asked if someone could change policies later on and still medically qualify for coverage. At first the customer service rep said, “I’m pretty sure you can customize the plan in the future.” But when he checked further, the answer came back “no.” His suggestion: Buy a comprehensive plan now, because “it’s better to be safe than sorry.” There are good consumer advice stories in all this for reporters who want to look beyond the Golden Rule press release.

Everything Old Is New Again

| No Comments

For two years, I’ve been researching GWM Reynolds, a novelist-journalist-politician working in Paris (1830-36) and London (1837-69). In particular, I’ve been looking at the influence of those years in France on his English career: maybe his early Parisian affair explains why he grew into such an eclectic Victorian oddball. His contemporaries certainly couldn’t figure him out, and when they decried him as a rule-breaker they were also defining the rules of the game.

In Reynolds’ time, the mass press was a new idea, and Victorian editors were very explicit about what they thought the purpose of journalism in modern society should be. They argued about how to control their information revolution, how to maintain order and public morality when everyone suddenly had access to trashy romance novels and parliamentary activities. What happens to authority structures, they asked, when those at the bottom can read about and judge those at the top?

Their questions foreshadow the debates we are having today. As in the nineteenth century, journalism has been at the center of these debates, not only because we’ve had to modify print and broadcast practices to accommodate blogs and citizen journalists, but also because old and new media are the fora where the debate about media takes place.

At the end of the day, that’s precisely what the Victorians recommended—most of them didn’t have neat answers to the messiness of historical change, but they believed that by talking about the challenges, and letting readers engage different views, the press would be doing its job, curating and cultivating the public debate.

I’m often asked why, as a recent college grad, I’ve foregone the usual consulting gig or the Peace Corps tour for a career in a struggling field. Journalists, I believe, are most important at times like these, when the nature of public debate itself comes under question or into flux. Society—and journalism—will be transformed, and the only way to influence the outcome is to participate in the transformation.

Unlike some print journalists I have worked with at BusinessWeek and Forbes, I don’t see new technologies as the enemy, or citizen-driven media as necessarily vapid or vitriolic. Unlike some bloggers I have met, I don’t see print and broadcast journalists as irrelevant or arrogant. And unlike most media wonks, I recognize that readers and viewers are more inclined to take the best content from all media than to rely exclusively on Newsweek or Google News.

What I foresee as a business model is a convergence of old and new media, where large organizations—with brand cachet and international bureaus—buy up smaller niche blogs—with local or topical expertise—and deliver an aggregated, complete, cross-platform whole. The print product or the evening newscast will be like the introduction to an academic text: an outline of what you can find inside, containing the main thrust of the argument. Like a college student with a paper due the next morning, viewers and readers will turn online for more information on some, but not all, subjects. While all subscribers will get the same print paper, they will customize the homepage to serve as a portal to blogs that interest them.

Like many media prognosticators, I’m basing this largely on my own behavior. In the morning, we get three daily papers at home: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times. I normally take the Times Arts section with me on the subway, to do the crossword. The rest I page through, taking note of stories I’m interested in on a Post-It, but leaving the hard copies at home for my parents; later in the day, I go to those stories on the Web, where I not only read them, but listen to the podcasts or watch the video features that accompany them. There are also a host of Web-only publications I visit daily, but much of my information comes from this multimedia ritual I perform with the morning papers. The first media company to institutionalize such a reading practice will have me swooning.

Signs of such a model are already in place: The Washington Post bought TechCrunch this spring, outsourcing its tech coverage to those in the know; CondeNast has done the same with ArsTechnica. The New York Times turned much of its Web site into an aggregation of niche blogs, and is slowly turning the print paper into a leaner product, giving us just a taste of what can be found in each online niche. In broadcast, we’ll soon see a parallel convergence of network TV and viral video, radio and podcasts: on their Web sites, CNN and MSNBC now provide full-length versions of the interviews that get excerpted on nightly newscasts and morning talk shows.

In five years, writers will work both for print and online and producers and anchors for both TV/radio and the web. Each journalist will have to learn which of their story ideas fits better online or offline, to be adept at both the snarky wit of the blogosphere and the objective grit of the analog world. In the longer term, the styles of blogs and newspapers or viral film and network program will converge: with the same people working in both worlds, the blogs that survive will be those that go deep on research; the papers and news shows that survive will be those that can convey personality.

That stylistic transformation is likely to occupy the bulk of my career. As a writer who already produces work for both print publications and blogs, I am ideally suited to write about that transformation. Three years ago, I was promoted from intern to freelance copyeditor in a publishing house when the editors discovered that I was conversant with e-books and could evaluate various emerging platforms on the firm’s behalf, so they wouldn’t have to do so themselves. I’d already decided it was journalism, not publishing, I wanted to pursue long-term, but the gratification I found in decoding new media for the uninitiated stuck.

When I leave Columbia’s M.A. program, I’m hoping to spend some time covering the media as an industry, not only because I find the new technologies compelling, but because I believe changes in media today map onto changes in business, politics and society. With technological change as my lens, I’ll be working towards the goals of the Victorians, using an eye on media as a window on the world.

Disaster Reporting through the Ages

| No Comments

The day after a massive storm hit Galveston, Texas on September 8, 1900, the headlines outside the region were tentative. "Galveston May Be Wiped out by Storm," wrote the New York Times. The Washington Post reported on the "Fear that the City Has Been Wrecked by Storm." The hurricane that overwhelmed Galveston—which was the Gulf Coast's largest port at the time, having grown rich on the cotton trade—was front page news on the East Coast, but the reporters had virtually no information about the events unfolding in the island city once it was hit with the full force of the Category 4 storm.

A broad survey of the contemporaneous reports is difficult because only The New York Times and The Washington Post's archives are easily searchable that far back. But these two papers alone show that the difficulty of reporting disasters at the turn of the last century made the flow of information a central part of the coverage alongside the event itself.

"ALL TELEGRAPH WIRES DOWN," declared the Times above its front page story on September 9th, 1900. With no sources available, all the unnamed writer from Dallas can report is rumors proliferating in an information vacuum. Loss of communication suggested that the four bridges to the island had been wiped out, the author deduced. "Not a wire is working into Galveston, either telegraph or telephone," he wrote, "and as all bridges carried wires, the fears that all these structures are gone is strengthened." He then reasoned that "It seems hardly credible that all these bridges could be swept away without the city suffering tremendously in the loss of buildings, general property, and lives."

Neither the Times nor the Post carry bylines, but the similarity in the language of their September 9 stories suggest that they were relying on the same reporter, or producing their stories based on wire reports. (Both stories are datelined Dallas.) An AP reporter in Galveston, Richard Spillane, did survive the storm, but it does not appear he was able to contribute any reporting until reaching Houston on September 10. (Curiously, the Post notes that "The Associated Press wire is the only one that is working" out of Galveston, but no one seems to be using it because the reports all complain of the inability to get any information off the island.)

The hunger for information led both papers to run items alongside their main storm coverage headlined, "Last Dispatch from Galveston." While the Post just repeated the message's meteorological information, the Times relayed the details of this communique on the front page.

SAN ANTONIO, Texas, Sept. 8.—Possibly the last dispatch out of the flooded City of Galveston was received in San Antonio to-night by "Jerry" Gierrard, announcing the death of his brother by drowning. The entire message left Galveston at 8:15 P. M. The entire lower portion of Galveston was then flooded and the people were huddled on higher ground in the pouring rain for safety.

Given that no larger significance is attached to the person named in the story, the only reason this made the front page seems to be its status as the last glimmer before the news blackout.

A major part of the Times' Day Two coverage—this time from Houston—was word that "A report from an authentic source was received here this morning concerning the conditions in Galveston." His name was James C. Timmins, a Houston resident identified as the "general superintendent of the National Compress Company." The Times reported that he made his way back from the wrecked Galveston by schooner to Margan's Point, after which he caught a train to Houston.

Timmins carried word that "citizens of Galveston" estimate that 4,000 houses had been destroyed and that "at least 2,000 people have been drowned, killed, or are missing." But, the Times recounts, Timmins only knew of one house "succumbing with fatal results." This was Ritter's saloon and restaurant at 2109 Strand Street: "This three-story building was blown down and nine men, prominent citizens, were killed." Among them were a man identified as a "cotton buyer for an English firm," a shipping executive, and a cotton company executive "whose body is still in the ruins."

Timmins' news (which a subsequent story refers to as the storm's first reported deaths) are fleshed out by information from a smattering of telegrams: a "dispatch from New Orleans" based on a message that "came by cable from Vera Cruz"; another dispatch from San Antonio based on a message received by Texas Governor J. D. Sayers.

Communications with the island appear to have been reestablished two days after the storm, and the first solid stories ran in the out-of-town press on September 11. This led to a noticeable change in tone. While specific accounts like the one from Timmins still appear, they now are used as color to broader stories that are able to give information on the situation as a whole: the death toll could climb as high as 10,000, winds reached eighty miles an hour, and water covered the island at a depth of six to twelve feet.

The reports before the storm have an almost random feeling to them: in the absence of complete information, the press reported what they could based on the idiosyncratic accounts of the only witnesses they could find. The press was like one train of relief supplies that tried unsuccessfully to reach Galveston on September 9, which, the Times reported, was forced to turn back because its path was blocked by "lumber, débris, pianos, trunks, and dead bodies."

The news that came out of the Galveston storm bears certain similarities to the initial reports on Hurricane Katrina, 105 years later. The first vignette from a Houston Chronicle story headlined "Katrina: The Aftermath; Scenes," published two days after the hurricane decimated New Orleans in 2005, is about the city's major newspaper. "Tuesday morning, a note posted on the Times-Picayune'sWeb site drove home the personal danger of staying behind to report the story," the Chronicle wrote. It quoted an announcement from the Times-Picayune Web site announcing the newspaper was evacuating its New Orleans headquarters.

"Water continues to rise around our building, as it is throughout the region," the posting said. "We want to evacuate our employees and families while we are still able to safely leave our building." It was unclear later how, or whether, the paper would print today's editions.

It is hard to imagine what the reporting of Hurricane Katrina in 2005—when newspapers covered the story alongside outlets on radio, television, and the Internet—could have in common with the reporting on Galveston's catastrophic hurricane of 1900, when the only coverage came from newspaper reporters at the mercy of telegraph wires. Yet when stories like the first ones from the Houston Chronicle are compared to the initial out-of-town newspaper reports about the Galveston disaster, it is clear that one thing remains constant: the challenge of gathering and disseminating news during a disaster makes the business of reporting an integral part of the story.

The Times-Picayune was doing impressive and heroic reporting during Katrina, for which it ultimately received a Pulitzer Prize. But it also found itself a leading character in the coverage of the storm. The New York Times ran two stories highlighted the paper's challenges in the week after the hurricane, as it first sought refuge in the town of Houma before being forced to move again to Baton Rouge.

The Times-Picayune was not alone in being transformed from newsgatherer to newsmaker. AP reporter Charlotte Porter, bureau chief for Louisiana and Mississippi, found herself the focus of a profile in the Dallas Morning News. "Charlotte Porter longs for the moment she can go home and sleep in her own bed," the story led. "But Tuesday, with a choke in her voice, she said she wasn't sure that either possibility stood much of a chance."

Even the Weather Channel made news. "If hurricane king Jim Cantore gets knocked off the air," began a story in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Mother Nature must be putting up quite a fight." Cantore was reportedly "swamped by Katrina" in the Mississippi city of Gulfport, and kept off the air for about six hours. He was "even out touch with the network's headquarters in Atlanta, where leaders worried about their star reporter and the crew that accompanied him.

In addition to individual reporters and outlets, one medium was elevated to star status by the reporting-on-reporting: the Internet. Stories on the Internet's role in coverage ranged from the Chicago Tribune's "Uses snap up the latest on Web" to the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Patriot News' "Web sites follow the aftermath of Katrina." "Katrina triggers a tsunami of blogs," was the headline on an August 31 AP story. "With entire counties isolated and telephone service knocked out along the Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama coast," wrote the AP, "refugees and their loved ones are trying to use the Internet to stay in touch—and to plead for help for those still missing." The story reprinted several online pleas for help. The story began, "Two days after Hurricane Katrina decimated America's Gulf Coast, this cry reverberated through cyberspace:"

"Looking for a granddaughter living in Biloxi but may have stopped in Gulfport with other relatives. Haven't heard from her since Sunday afternoon ... PLEASE EMAIL ME ASAP IF ANYONE KNOWS WHERE OR HOW SHE IS ... "

As media proliferate, stories of how disasters get reported will become an ever more interesting part of disaster reporting. The heavy use of Twitter (and the reporting on the heavy use of Twitter) during last month's terrorist attacks in Mumbai is pointing towards an era when fragmented information on disasters emerges rapidly, and reporters will find it more fascinating—and necessary—to understand who produced reports so they can stitch them together into a coherent story. As electronic media further opens avenues of communication, however, the line between the covered and the coverers may blur altogether.

Not-So-Sticky Wages at FedEx

| No Comments

Felix Salmon of Portfolio makes a good catch today about "sticky wages", which David Leonhardt of the Times wrote about yesterday.

Leonhardt wrote that companies almost never reduce wages in a downturn (thus the "sticky" adjective). Instead, they lay people off.

Salmon notes that yesterday, FedEx said it would cut its wages by 5 percent to 10 percent (20 percent for its CEO), something he contends could be a sign that wages won't be so sticky this time around.

Fedex is largely non-union, which means that most workers are taking a pay cut. I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad thing, if it avoids layoffs and reductions in service quality, instead spreading the pain around more thinly. But it does point to the possibility that this recession will indeed be different, and that it might mark the beginning of the end of sticky wages.

If falling prices take hold, it seems it will be easier for companies to do the once-unthinkable and cut workers' pay.

Salmon supports his thesis well here:

There's been a huge shift in power in recent years from labor to capital: corporate profits have been rising much faster than wages for some time now. It makes sense that capital would make use of its newfound power to reduce labor costs in a deflationary environment of rising unemployment. During the boom, companies laid off workers because those workers demanded, and cost, too much money. Now that workers have lost their negotiating leverage, we might start seeing more across-the-board pay cuts.

The NYT is just superb with its Wall Street-compensation story today:

While top executives received the biggest bonuses, what is striking is how many employees throughout the ranks took home large paychecks. On Wall Street, the first goal was to make “a buck” — a million dollars. More than 100 people in Merrill’s bond unit alone broke the million-dollar mark in 2006. Goldman Sachs paid more than $20 million apiece to more than 50 people that year, according to a person familiar with the matter. Goldman declined to comment.

Let's stop right there and just ponder that for a moment. It wasn't just the CEO making $20 million a year at Goldman. Fifty people did. Incredible.

What's great about this story is how it illustrates clearly the problem we've all talked about for months now: that Wall Street bonuses distort the incentives of its traders and executives in favor of short-term gain, longer-term risk be damned. The Times shows how Dow Kim, an executive with Merrill Lynch, got $35 million in 2006 for helping bring his company $7.5 billion in profit that year—a number the paper correctly calls a "mirage" because "The company has since lost three times that amount, largely because the mortgage investments that supposedly had powered some of those profits plunged in value."

Ding ding ding!

And the following graph twists the knife:

Unlike the earnings, however, the bonuses have not been reversed.

How did Kim do it? By turning out garbage like this:

Back in New York, Mr. Kim’s team was eagerly bundling risky home mortgages into bonds. One of the last deals they put together that year was called “Costa Bella,” or beautiful coast — a name that recalls Pebble Beach. The $500 million bundle of loans, a type of investment known as a collateralized debt obligation, was managed by Mr. Gross’s Pimco.

Merrill Lynch collected about $5 million in fees for concocting Costa Bella, which included mortgages originated by First Franklin.

But Costa Bella, like so many other C.D.O.’s, was filled with loans that borrowers could not repay. Initially part of it was rated AAA, but Costa Bella is now deeply troubled. The losses on the investment far exceed the money Merrill collected for putting the deal together.

And again, the Times hammers home the short-term gain theme:

By the time Costa Bella ran into trouble, the Merrill bankers who had devised it had collected their bonuses for 2006. Mr. Kim’s fixed-income unit generated more than half of Merrill’s revenue that year, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter. As a reward, Mr. O’Neal and Mr. Kim paid nearly a third of Merrill’s $5 billion to $6 billion bonus pool to the 2,000 professionals in the division.

They just kept heading for the cliff—because that was what they were paid to do:

After that blowout, Merrill pushed even deeper into the mortgage business, despite growing signs that the housing bubble was starting to burst. That decision proved disastrous. As the problems in the subprime mortgage market exploded into a full-blown crisis, the value of Merrill’s investments plummeted. The firm has since written down its investments by more than $54 billion, selling some of them for pennies on the dollar.

And the Times repeatedly broaches the question of whether those bonuses ought to be returned, or "clawed back." The emphasis is mine here:

Clawing back the 2006 bonuses at Merrill would not come close to making up for the company’s losses, which exceed all the profits that the firm earned over the previous 20 years. This fall, the once-proud firm was sold to Bank of America, ending its 94-year history as an independent firm.

Plus, the story even throws in a nod at something we like to see pointed out: That the financialization of the economy has been bad for the country:

The bonanza redefined success for an entire generation. Graduates of top universities sought their fortunes in banking, rather than in careers like medicine, engineering or teaching. Wall Street worked its rookies hard, but it held out the promise of rich rewards. In college dorms, tales of 30-year-olds pulling down $5 million a year were legion.

This is a really terrific effort by the Times, and another notch for its "The Reckoning" series, which is much better than what The Wall Street Journal has put forward.

Ties That Blind

| No Comments

For nearly thirty years, the editors of medical journals have relied on public disclosure of researchers’ conflicts of interest to alert readers to the possibility of bias in published studies, especially when they are funded by the medical industry. It has been well documented in medical literature that the outcomes of industry-funded research tend to favor the sponsors’ commercial needs.

In recent years, journalism has followed suit. Many media outlets have begun requiring reporters to report the industry ties of quoted expert sources. The Association of Health Care Journalists puts disclosure at the top of its statement of principles. But some reporters still omit this basic information about the clinicians and researchers who generate medical news:

A New York Times front-page story on lung-cancer screening, by Gina Kolata, led with the claim—based on a study in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine—that “millions of lives could be saved” by giving smokers annual CT scans for lung cancer. Earlier this year, The Cancer Letter, an investigative weekly, revealed that the study had been funded in part by a nonprofit called the Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention & Treatment, which, in turn, was wholly funded by the Vector Group, the parent company of tobacco giant Liggett & Myers. The Times covered the revelations of the tobacco-industry link with another front-page story.

"I Saw Someone On Cable Say This..."

| No Comments

... were Obama campaign manager David Plouffe's "least favorite words in the English language," according to Mark Leibovich's profile of Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine.

Also:

Staff members were encouraged to ignore new Web sites like The Page, written by Time’s Mark Halperin, and Politico, both of which had gained instant cachet among the Washington smarty-pants set. “If Politico and Halperin say we’re winning, we’re losing,” Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, would repeat mantralike around headquarters.

And:

The campaign bragged that Obama never even visited with the editorial board of The Washington Post — a decision that would have been unheard of for any serious candidate in a previous presidential cycle. “You could go to Cedar Rapids and Waterloo and understand that people aren’t reading The Washington Post,” Gibbs told me last month in Chicago.

And, one of my favorite quotes:

“Sometimes the press corps thinks transparency and openness should be defined as carrying out all of our internal deliberations on the Web so they could watch,” [Obama adviser Anita] Dunn said. “But in fact, transparency and openness is about the process of how government is run. It’s not necessarily about who might be mad at whom on a different day.”

More on Madoff from the Times

| No Comments

The Times adds some good reporting about Madoff, too.

First of all, it says that he's not going to the pen even though he couldn't hold up his end of his bail agreement. He's a lonely guy now:

Federal prosecutors said on Wednesday that they had modified the terms of Mr. Madoff’s agreement so that he would not need to find four people to co-sign his bond. Mr. Madoff was unable to meet that condition, prosecutors said. Even his sons, Andrew and Mark, were apparently unwilling to help.

He's now on a curfew and has to be in his apartment by 7 p.m. The Times has a picture of him walking down Lexington Avenue yesterday. You can't say the guy doesn't have chutzpah! Just don't walk over to Park, Bernie. They might string you up over there.

The story also adds details of his ill-gotten gilded lifestyle, including frequent $7,000-a-night hotel stays, a private jet, and a couple of yachts, one in the south of France.

A second story in the Times looks at how the scandal is having an outsized impact on big real-estate players in New York, something that could have big ripple effects.

Across the city, industry executives said deals had been scuttled or jeopardized because of the scandal. Residential brokers are taking calls from Madoff investors who have had to put their apartments on the market. Many developers had pledged their investments with Mr. Madoff as collateral for projects, and are now worried that their banks will call in their loans...

Mr. Reisman said his clients were especially concerned because they counted on Madoff investments to complete some of their real estate projects, pledging their investments as collateral for projects. Those developers fear that when their banks realize that their investments with Mr. Madoff have disappeared, they will demand new collateral from other sources, Mr. Reisman said.

Finding those alternative lenders will be difficult given the financial crisis — and given that many other real estate investors have been hurt by the Madoff case.

“Many of these developers, their resources are all with Madoff,” Mr. Reisman said.

There are widespread concerns that some developers will have trouble completing projects currently under construction. Edward Blumenfeld, who runs Blumenfeld Development Group, had invested heavily with Mr. Madoff and considered him a friend. Gary Lewi, a spokesman for Mr. Blumenfeld, said he still planned to complete a shopping complex in East Harlem that is to include a Target and a Costco, as well as several other projects where construction is “in the ground.”

This whole affair reminds me of the Enron/WorldCom/Arthur Andersen year when markets plunged because investors suddenly wondered whether they could trust anybody.

Kenneth Mueller, a Manhattan psychotherapist who counsels many real estate and financial executives, said those who lost money to Mr. Madoff called his indictment “the nail in the coffin for the commercial real estate industry,” which had already been hurt by the recession.

Dr. Mueller said many patients were re-evaluating whether they can trust their business partners after Mr. Madoff’s betrayal.

Scams tend to get exposed in down markets and there are surely more to come in this one.

The Journal is besting its rivals on the Madoff story. Today it has a super page-one story that reveals that the SEC had investigated the fraudster in 2006, found that he lied to them, but still did nothing.

The Journal has done some good reporting on Christopher Cox's tenure at the SEC before, and it's still not clear to me why the guy isn't in the public stocks (of the medieval variety, though forcing him to buy in the stock market these days might be punishment enough).

Among other things, the SEC found that Mr. Madoff personally "misled the examination staff about the nature of the strategy" used by the Fairfield funds and other hedge-fund accounts, and also "withheld from the examination staff information about certain of these customers' accounts," the SEC documents say.

I also like that the WSJ names some of the staffers at the SEC who let the case slip through their hands (Meaghan Chung and Jonathan Sokobin).

The paper neatly folds that scoop into a narrative about Harry Markopolos, the money manager who has been calling Madoff a fraud for a decade. This is terrific color:

Mr. Markopolos, a native of Erie, Pa., who had trained in "unconventional warfare," including intelligence gathering, as a reservist in the Army, says he came to "consider Madoff a domestic enemy."

Alas, our hero wasn't able to convince the SEC to get off its hind end despite showing them how it was virtually impossible that Madoff's supposed strategy could work.

A key part of Mr. Madoff's strategy relied on buying and selling options on the Standard & Poor's 100-stock index. But Mr. Markopolos said his research showed there weren't enough S&P-100 options in existence at the time to support Mr. Madoff's stated strategy, given all the money he seemed to be managing. So something else must be going on.

It's sickening to see the missed opportunities, especially when Markopolos handed gift-wrapped them for the SEC. A couple of years after he started pounding on the issue, he sent the SEC documents warning that Madoff's assets under management had grown to $12 billion. Of course, we now know he's lost more than $50 billion.

The Journal is good not to overheat Markopolos, though. It notes that his allegations were far from perfect, which could have made him sound like a raving kook to the SEC:

Mr. Markopolos's allegations against Mr. Madoff were far from bulletproof. Mr. Markopolos provided no definitive evidence of a crime. His reports were laden with frothy opinions.

In his lists of "red flags," he occasionally got things wrong. Sometimes he even misstated the starting date of his own campaign against Mr. Madoff...

He sent an email adding more evidence -- noting that he might be eligible for the SEC's bounty program if it turned out that Mr. Madoff was, in fact, front running.

Still, the guy was right and was a persistent gadfly.

Solid reporting by the Journal.

Sweet Caroline

| 3 Comments

Now that Caroline Kennedy has announced her intention to seek the Senate seat expected to be vacated by Hillary Clinton, it’s left to the media to take the news and make something of it. Howard Kurtz says that the media are secretly glad about the Kennedy news, and that they, “quite frankly, want David Paterson to name Caroline because they love celebrities and are enamored of family dynasties.” Does the loving accusation stand? Today’s coverage shows some fawning over the reclusive Kennedy, but some strong skepticism as well.

Three of today’s headlines show some differences in timbre and tone:

The Washington Post: “Friends Say Kennedy Has Long Wanted Public Role” (most sympathetic)

Los Angeles Times: “Caroline Kennedy launches Senate campaign” (most star-stricken, indicated in part by a glam photo of president-elect Obama with his arm around Kennedy)

The New York Times: “As Privacy Ends for Kennedy, a Rough Path Awaits” (most skeptical)

The first half of Anne Kornblut’s account in the Post reads like a flattering profile of Kennedy’s character and achievements in the private sector. In nuanced detail, Kornblut trots out Kennedy’s more glossy qualifications in what seems like an attempt to assay her holistic worth. Kennedy, Kornblut writes, is “a poised, intellectual mother of three who is devoted to quiet reflection and philanthropic causes,” who “is perhaps most acclaimed for raising tens of millions in private money for the New York City school system,” and who “works with multiple foundations, playing an active role in the Kennedy library and the Institute of Politics at Harvard University.” These are biographical and professional details that, sympathetically or not, go hand in hand with her star power, and to list them off in so easily complimentary a manner (the adjectives may make Kennedy blush) is to lose sight of the topic at hand.

Regarding Kennedy’s motivations for seeking public office, the article presents too unqualified a narrative for someone with no political experience. On her involvement in Obama’s campaign, Kornblut writes gushingly: “Kennedy added to [Obama’s] momentum in a way that would be unstoppable,” by endorsing him, emotionally, on the opinion pages of the NYT. And don’t forget that she made “some high-wattage appearances” and “shared the stage with Obama's wife, Michelle, at a Los Angeles rally that also included Oprah Winfrey.” Kornblut additionally notes (this is in her lead) that Kennedy liked performing such modest tasks as “carrying a clipboard to register voters and walking through a flea market to shake hands.”

While the image of the publicity-shy Caroline Kennedy performing menial campaign tasks (and appearing on behalf of Obama) is touching, and summons the image of a willing public servant, it does nothing to topple any of the doubts that even her supporters have. Burying those doubts deep in the article, as Kornblut does, does readers a disservice. As Kurtz notes, unless Kennedy acts like a campaigner, “she furthers the impression that she wants the seat once held by her Uncle Bobby presented to her without having to get her hands dirty”—and regardless of the feel-good reaction that readers may have to the news that “she worked phone banks and chatted up people on the street,” it only superficially responds to the question that Kurtz and many others pose.

The LAT account, for its part, glows with this unnecessarily full-steam-ahead news:

Caroline Kennedy launched a full-bore campaign Monday to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton in the U.S. Senate, calling New York's governor and other key Democrats to press her desire to extend the family dynasty.

To boot, the article, written by staff writers Mark Barabak and Michael Finnegan, is full of “buts”—apparently its way of addressing doubts about her qualifications. Kennedy “has shied away from public attention most of her life.” “But she assumed a much higher political profile over the past year” with her endorsement of Obama. She “has never held elected office.” “But the Ivy League-educated lawyer has devoted years to charitable works and other activities associated with her family and public service” (my emphases). While these are factual assertions, the quick turnarounds of these pairings read as defensive rejoinders rather than an objective report; and like the Post, the LAT buries the skeptical voices at the bottom of the page.

The NYT does the best job presenting the mixed tone of the situation. The article, written by Adam Nagourney and Nicholas Confessore, calls Kennedy’s decision to enter politics “a gamble” and succinctly yet prominently sketches the variegated colors of the announcement:

She must overcome skepticism about her experience and credentials, and deflate what some Democrats view as a sense of entitlement by a member of a storied American political family trying to begin her political career near the top of the ladder.

Kennedy’s decision to seek appointment to the Senate is certainly buzzworthy news. But as the NYT did, it’s important to maintain a grasp on the skepticism, rather than rolling in unenforced delight over the possibility of another Kennedy in the Senate, and an extension of Camelot for the media’s consumption.

Counting Questions

| No Comments

Number of questions President-Elect Obama has taken at press conferences since being elected? 48

The Washington Times' Christina Bellatoni is keeping a tally, with names/outlets (h/t, Michael Calderone). Her own name is not on the list but, she notes optimistically, "I have only been in Chicago for half of the [11] press conferences. He called on me many times during the campaign and I have no doubt he will again."

We're "Harboring" Ex-Journos Here

| No Comments

Over at Slate, Jack Shafer gives a shout-out of sorts to our "Parting Thoughts" series:

Hardly a day goes by, it seems, without some laid-off or bought-out journalist writing a letter of condolence to himself and his profession. The Columbia Journalism Review and the American Journalism Review have harbored these self-pitying fellows...

A Journalism Review "harboring" laid-off and bought-out journalists by having them reflect "on what went wrong, and where we might go from here?" The idea. The indulgence. (We're also, by the way, giving harbor to just-starting-out journalists with our "Starting Thoughts" series).

More Shafer:

The misery of a laid-off or bought-out journalist isn't greater than that of a sacked bond trader, a RIF-ed clerk, or a fired autoworker. The only reason we're so well-informed about journalists' suffering is they have easy access to a megaphone. The underlying cause of their grief can be traced to the same force that has destroyed other professions and industries: digital technology.


Before we get too weepy about lost journalistic jobs and folded publications, let's ask how often reporters lamented the decline of other industries, products, and services swamped by [what Wired founder Louis Rosetto in 1993 called a] "digital typhoon."

No, "the misery of a laid-off or bought-out journalist isn't greater than that of a sacked bond trader" (I bet they're "harboring" those "self-pitying fellows" over at Trader Monthly) or anyone else laid off or bought out (if by "misery" we're talking "income lost," then the sacked bond trader is indeed far more miserable than the sacked reporter). But isn't this the same "digital typhoon" that has given most anyone, not just the reporter, "easy access to a megaphone?" The downsized [fill-in-vocation-here] doesn't have to wait around for a reporter to tell his story, he can tell his own. Not that I agree with Shafer's intimation that journalism has ignored -- at least not any more than we typically do -- those who have lost non-media jobs, so focused have we all been on chronicling and worrying over our own pink slips. (Why, the Wall Street Journal has devoted an entire blog to "following eight out-of-work M.B.A.'s as they search for jobs in a post-meltdown world.")

Yes, let's not let what Shafer calls "self-pity" lead to loss of perspective or paralysis. But that's not to say that a reporter wanting to make the last of her series on "How Americans Are Surviving The Economic Downturn" about the experience of losing her own job, for example, is useless navel-gazing or self-indulgence.

And if that reporter then wanted to write something further about her experience or where she might go from here, you know, we're "harboring..."

WSJ Looks Into the Woes at Calpers

| 2 Comments

The Journal has a good story looking at the troubles at Calpers, the California state-pension system that's one of the biggest investors in the world. It was also one of the biggest real estate investors in the world, particularly of undeveloped land, which has plunged in value. Now it may have to start hitting up governments in the state for more contributions—at a time when those municipalities are already slashing jobs.

Undeveloped land is a particularly risky investment, because unlike properties like malls or apartment complexes, it brings in no rental income. When real estate markets turn, investors who have bought land planning to build on it or flip it often get into trouble because land is hard to sell than other investments like stocks or bonds. For instance:

In recent years Calpers invested in:

Three large parcels near Phoenix, one of the nation's hardest-hit property markets. Last month, Calpers effectively walked away from one of the three, after having invested $140 million. On one of the others, to start earning a return, Calpers's investment partner recently started selling ground water from the property.

I'm pretty sure that selling water isn't going to bring much of a return.

And this is, um, bad:

Calpers in recent weeks said it expects to report paper losses of 103% on its housing investments in the fiscal year ended June 30. That's because Calpers invested not only its own money, but billions of dollars of borrowed money that must be repaid even if the investment fails. In some deals, as much as 80% of the money invested by Calpers was borrowed.

The Journal illustrates that with a Calpers purchase of:

A massive block of land with room for about 8,000 units near the small town of Mountain House, Calif., the nation's most "underwater" housing market by one measure. (Nearly 90% of homeowners there owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, according to mortgage-research firm FirstAmerican Corelogic.) As of June 30, Calpers valued the investment at negative $305 million, reflecting the fact that it has repaid borrowed money used in the deal.

That's an interesting and seemingly better way of accounting for potential losses. Saying your asset is worth negative $305 million clearly shows the downside of leverage. Why is a government pension plan allowed to make such risky bets and why is it allowed to lever them up with huge amounts of debt?

Office Envy

| No Comments

Get a load of the Guardian's new digs. They've got lots of colours: yellow couches and magenta arm chairs. Looks nice...

Guardian in Afghanistan

| No Comments

The Guardian has a moving dispatch and video about civilian casualties of U.S. and NATO air strikes in Afghanistan. In 2008, more than 600 people were killed because of the bombings.

It was 7.30 on a hot July morning when the plane came swooping low over the remote ravine. Below, a bridal party was making its way to the groom's village in an area called Kamala, in the eastern province of Nangarhar, to prepare for the celebrations later that day.

The first bomb hit a large group of children who had run on ahead of the main procession. It killed most of them instantly.

Read the rest here.

Conflict in the Congo, Part II

| 4 Comments

About a month ago, I wrote that the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was an A1-worthy story that American newspapers—even a leader in international reporting like The New York Times—were giving an A6-quality treatment. Apparently the Times agreed with me. A front-pager on Dec. 11 recounted the horrifying details of a rebel raid on a town called Kiwanja in Eastern Congo.

Times staffer Lydia Polgreen deserves credit for delving into the absurdity of the international response to the Congo conflict, and her story includes interviews with UN peacekeepers who have watched their ability to protect civilians evaporate as the situation in eastern Congo has deteriorated. The story was especially effective in giving chilling immediacy to details like these:

Muwavita Mukangusi said she was out in the fields farming with her husband when the shooting started. Their three young daughters were at home, so Ms. Mukangusi ran back. Her husband hid in the fields, returning only at nightfall. The next morning the rebels came. “They took my husband,” she said, her eyes rimmed in red. “Because I had $50 in the house, I took $25 to them. But it was not enough. I added $25. It was still not enough. They accused him of being Mai Mai.” The rebels beat him, she said, then forced him to the ground and shot him in the back of the head.

A Lexis search reveals that the article has been the only story about the Kiwanja massacre to appear in the American press, and the Times should be commended for covering a hugely important event in which literally no other Western outlet seems interested. In addition to reporting on a massacre that an American newspaper reader would otherwise never have heard about, Polgreen’s article gives the suffering in the Congo the front-page exposure it deserves.

Still, while the Times story exposed a single appalling human rights abuse that the rest of media ignored, that is arguably all that it did. The article is thin on context—Polgreen reports on the “unfettered cruelty meted out by the armed groups fighting for power and resources in eastern Congo,” but gives little background beyond that. The relative dearth of information on rebel leader Nkruma Laurent, the Mai Mai, and the DRC’s recent, incredibly violent and complex history of conflict would have been understandable if the story had been filed the day after the massacre. But according to the article, the killings began on Nov. 4. The paper could have taken a week to let the post-Obama dust settle and still had enough time to deliver a fully contextualized account of the events in Kiwanja.

The fact that it didn’t is troubling, especially since the situation in the DRC has hardly improved since the Times ran stories on the conflict on Nov. 3 and Nov. 10. Since then, a rebel offensive displaced an additional 13,000 people in the space of two days, while UN special envoy and former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo has had little success in negotiating a solution between the rebels and the government. In fact, according to a report from AFP, negotiations over future negotiations have all but broken down:

"We cannot continue to sit with a mediation that has taken sides," Bisimwa told AFP in Kinshasa by telephone. "We prefer to withdraw to deal with the suffering of our people."

Political leaders of the rebellion would finalise the decision to quit the talks, he added.

Talks have been underway in the Kenyan capital amid hopes of reaching agreement on a framework for substantive talks, a UN spokesman said, with a view to halting the conflict in the east of Congo.

As the EU discusses the possibility of using its own troops to reinforce the approximately 17,000 peacekeepers in the DRC , there’s a chance that the conflict will turn into an early challenge for the Obama administration. More importantly, it could test Obama’s willingness to support multilateral interventions on purely humanitarian grounds, and his action or inaction on the DRC could hint at how he plans on handling similar situations in Zimbabwe, Uganda, Darfur and Southern Sudan.

That Obama’s foreign policy team will need to formulate a Congo policy soon—along with one on the tragic human rights abuses that have characterized Central Africa’s more than decade-long regional war—makes thorough and visible coverage of the conflict all the more vital. The Times story is an encouraging, if incomplete, start.

Television as Tribunal

| No Comments

Earlier this month, President Bush sat down with ABC News's Charlie Gibson for the first of a series "exit interviews" conducted with TV news programs. The moment of reckoning began with a series of stately images of the president waving to a crowd as he boarded his Marine One helicopter.

"I’m glad to give you a ride on the magic carpet," Bush quipped to Gibson before boarding the chopper. "Frankly, it’s one of the great luxuries of the presidency." The two men spent the half-hour ride to Camp David discussing how the White House was "homier" than one might expect and chuckling about how the president likes to put his feet up on antique White House furniture.

After disclaiming responsibility for the current recession, Bush tried to reassure Gibson that the presidency wasn't too hard on him: "I think people look at the White House and say, oh, man, what a miserable experience it is to be president. You know, it’s a lot of noise, a lot of criticism, a lot of name calling, a lot of this, a lot of that. Some days we’re not so happy. Some days, happy. Every day has been pretty joyous, though."

That's right: the same president who is currently presiding over two wars and one of the worst economic crises in American history has just seen fit to describe every day of his presidency as "joyous." And Gibson let him get away with it.

As the American people increasingly look towards the incoming Obama administration for leadership, President Bush has grown increasingly elusive and unaccountable. His public response to the financial crisis has consisted of little more than a series of "cuckoo clock"-style press conferences—scant on details and culpability. The Bush exit interviews represent one of the last opportunities to publicly question the embattled, controversial president. Yet in the kickoff interview, ABC News seemed content to let Bush blather about how all the problems his administration created will not be attributed to him in the history books.

Richard Nixon similarly attempted to rewrite history in 1977, when he granted an exclusive interview to British TV talk show host David Frost. After three years of secluded, post-resignation exile, Nixon was looking to redeem his public image. His publicist, Swifty Lazar, knew a memoir wouldn't do the trick. Nixon needed to reach the masses; and that meant he needed television. The film Frost/Nixon, which opened in wide release last week, demonstrates exactly how today’s news programs could utilize the strengths of television to demand accountability from an unpopular, closely guarded president—and bolster their journalistic creds in the process.

Like Nixon, David Frost was also seeking redemption. His New York-based talk show had been recently canceled, which left him consigned to a career of cheap human interest stories and Houdini-like stunts on the proto-reality show Great Escapes. The interview did not seem like much of a gamble for Nixon—Frost had no serious background in political journalism and agreed to pay $600,000 for access to the former president. The American news networks wanted nothing to do with this brazen act of checkbook journalism and refused to distribute the program, which forced Frost and a group of investors to syndicate the series themselves. Going into the interview, Nixon seemed confident that he could easily burnish his public image by outfoxing this fluff-ball journalist.

Anyone familiar with the Frost/Nixon interviews knows that they rank among the greatest public confessions in American political history. But people may not know that for the first twenty-one hours of tape, Nixon completely controlled the agenda: he turned questions about bombing campaigns in Cambodia into descriptions of how "the American people simply didn't understand Vietnam" and tried to characterize the moment that he knelt on the floor of the Oval Office in prayer with Henry Kissinger as a moment of innocuous reflection between two religious men.

David Frost knew he did not have the chops to take on Nixon alone. That was why he recruited veteran ABC News producer Bob Zelnick and longtime Nixon nemesis James Reston to undertake a rigorous evaluation of Watergate minutiae in the weeks prior to the interview. It was Reston's shoe-leather journalism that allowed Frost to commandeer the interview by revealing the details of a previously unknown conversation between Nixon and Charles Colson, proving that Nixon obstructed justice.

In the weeks before his interview, Frost boned up on Watergate background and conducted regular role-playing drills with his seasoned research team. Frost knew where Nixon would try to steer the conversation, and prepared informational bombshells to launch at every turn. But Frost also succeeded because of his emotional intelligence. Throughout the final interview, he was able to read Nixon's expressions, sense his discomfort, and coax "a cascade of candor" out of America's most secretive president.

Toward the end of Frost/Nixon, Reston (a career print journalist) extolled the "reductive power of television:" Yes, David Frost elicited Nixon's first public mea culpa. But more importantly: he got Nixon's face—Nixon's swollen, tortured face. That was what solidified public consciousness, and that was a story no other journalist could get. Nixon's entire presidency was reduced to that face.

ABC News' Martha Raddatz demonstrated television's reductive power in her Tuesday follow-up interview with the president, as Bush pretended to shrug off the fact that an Iraqi journalist had just thrown a shoe at him. "It's a sign of a free society," he said. "It's also considered a huge insult," Raddatz retorted. Bush attempted to belittle the act as just a "guy who wanted to get on TV," but his discomposure was sufficiently visible that it mattered little what he said. Unfortunately for him, as for Nixon, images can speak louder than words.

The American people are not demanding the same kind of remorse from Bush that was expected from Nixon. But that is no reason to squander exclusive access to the president with flat-footed questions about "uh-oh moments" and White House furniture. If the network news programs are serious about reclaiming their ever-declining audiences, they are going to have to prove that they know how to use this access. A few months ago, Gibson's questioning of Sarah Palin helped turn the tide of public opinion against the vice presidential candidate. Gibson and his network news counterparts did not, however, ask detailed, complex questions; they used the very same instincts that Frost employed to manipulate Nixon. Does President Bush "agree with the Bush doctrine?" Could he explain what it is?

It is unlikely today that Bush would grant twenty-eight hours of interview time to anyone. But modern TV journalists do have the advantage of years spent covering the president. Bush's style is predictable and his talking points well-worn. The American people do not need another "getting to know you" interview with the president. After eight years in office, we are aware of the fact that he enjoys Camp David and knows how to crack a joke. In other words, the president may be very, very lame. But that does not mean the exit interviews have to be.

Scarborough's "Big Apology" to NYT

| 1 Comment

The bee in Joe Scarborough's bonnet this morning? This story -- "Obama's $10 Billion Promise Stirs Hope In Early Education" -- and the accompanying photo (Obama smiling, seated in a preschool classroom) on the front page of the New York Times. Here, one of the five times Scarborough mentioned it this morning:

SCARBOROUGH: I criticize the media for not being tough on Barack Obama...I owe New York Times a big apology. They held him to task today. If you look at the top headline, I can't believe they are writing this, at least one newspaper is being tough on this man, Obama stirring great hope for education.. Yes, he is. I read this headline and my hands are shaking, Obama stirring great hope.


MARK HALPERIN: It doesn't say he's delivering. ..

SCARBOROUGH:... only stirring it, Mark.

According to the Times story, "many advocates are atremble with anticipation over Mr. Obama's espousal of early childhood education." It's potentially a very big deal ("the $10 billion Mr. Obama has pledged for early childhood education would amount to the largest new federal initiave for young children since Head Start began in 1965.") One can understand the hopeful anticipation that the Times reporter, Sam Dillion, found among those involved in early childhood education. To Scarborough's point (I think), where's the buzzkill "to be sure" paragraph in this piece? Where the reporter reminds readers that These Are Promises. Made By a Campaigning Politician (albeit one who truly does seem to hold early childhood education as a high priority). Confronting now a recession and so many larger (adult) hands also held out hopefully ($700 billion for banks. $10 billion for babies...) Hopefully the Times will also front-page what becomes of these promises. Keep in touch with these "advocates atremble with anticipation" and report back.

Speaking of reporting on how might we improve education, for extra credit read Malcolm Gladwell's piece in this week's New Yorker on how "the school system has a quarterback problem:"

There are certain jobs where almost nothing you can learn about candidates before they start predicts how they’ll do once they’re hired. So how do we know whom to choose in cases like that? In recent years, a number of fields have begun to wrestle with this problem, but none with such profound social consequences as the profession of teaching.

Yale Endowment Drops...How Much?

| No Comments

Oh, the joy of headlines, especially when they're about shrinking endowments at Ivy League universities. The New York Times trumpets the headline, "Yale's Endowment Drops 13.4%," while The Wall Street Journal announces, "Yale to Trim Budget as Its Endowment Falls 25%."

What confusion; I'm sure Yale alums are happy to know that their alma mater's endowment has dropped...some percentage amount.

The explanation of the discrepancy comes further into the Journal article:

From June 30 through Oct. 31, [Yale President Richard] Levin said the value of marketable securities had fallen 13%...But the Yale endowment is heavily invested in illiquid securities, such as private-equity funds and real estate that are difficult to value. The 25% decline takes into account an estimate of those securities' decline, as well, the school says.

The Times explains it too:

[Levin] said the value of Yale's marketable securities had declined 13.4 percent for the first four months of the university's fiscal year, which started July 1...Taking into account such illiquid assets as real estate aan private equity, he said, the endowment...was down 25 percent.

Still, as far as mismatched headlines go (and as far as headline-only readers are concerned), it's a surefire way to start rumors of misinformation.

For all the talk of the demise or irrelevancy of ink on paper, those of us who gathered last month in eastern Kentucky for the funeral of Mountain Eagle publisher and editor Tom Gish left with an even deeper belief in the essential role of the newspaper, especially the local newspaper, as democracy’s indispensable messenger.

For more than fifty years, Gish and his wife Pat published The Mountain Eagle. The paper’s wall in Whitesburg is covered with prestigious journalism awards, including two Elijah Lovejoys and the Zenger. But Tom Gish, who died on November 21 at the age of eighty-two, never had much use for being called a journalist.

He was a newspaperman.

The Eagle (motto: “It Screams!”) reported in depth on poverty, strip mining, coal miners’ health and safety, and other issues, making Whitesburg the first stop for national reporters and politicians trying to catch up with Tom’s understaffed, budget-challenged paper on such major stories. But the Eagle also covered—and challenged—local school boards that didn’t care about children, county government that regularly failed the public, and economic development ‘experts’ who mostly developed their own incomes.

Those investigative articles and editorials—along with reports of family reunions, molasses stir-offs and wooly worms’ winter warnings—were put into the hands of Letcher County readers every week because Tom Gish passionately believed that his fellow mountaineers had just as much need and just as much right to be fully informed as any newspaper reader in Boston or Chicago. As Julie Ardery told readers of the online Daily Yonder, Tom “proved rural journalism could have standards as high and stories as hard-hitting as any in the country.”

Because Tom and Pat spoke truth to power, their family was ostracized and the Eagle was subjected to threats, advertiser boycotts, and even a firebombing (after which the Gishes defiantly changed the newspaper’s banner to “It Still Screams!”). They kept at it, not because they thought of themselves as crusaders but because, as Pat said, “We were just doing what we thought a newspaper was supposed to do.”

Tom’s outrage at what he saw as betrayals of the public interest was in full form during one of my last visits with him, just before the election. Although gravely ill, he had the energy to be furious about what he considered the failure of the national media to dig deeply into the candidates’ positions on matters of real importance. “They endlessly cover the silly stuff,” he said. “There’s no excuse for not being able to explain serious issues in a way that people can understand and respond to.”

A former wire-service reporter who took pride in his ability to make sense of any subject—on deadline—Tom had nothing but contempt for editors who might pass on a story or dumb it down to a few bland inches of text because they thought it too complex for readers to grasp. He wanted Eagle reporters to report thoroughly, incorporate their own views if warranted, and never talk down to readers. That, he felt, was what newspapers can and should do.

“Tom took the Founding Fathers at their word: A free people, properly informed, will seek justice and their elected representatives will ensure that all men and women are treated equally and receive their fair share of the bounties that are bestowed upon us all,” former Eagle reporter Jim Branscome said in words read at the funeral. “In a time when the ethos of the age is ‘every man for himself and government is the enemy,’ Tom still believed that government could be made to serve the people, to ensure that all have food on the table, an opportunity for a job, the right to have their property protected, and the right to be happy, joyous and free. That is the measure of Tom Gish and, sadly, a marker of how far we have strayed in journalism, politics and business that he seemed to be in a distinct minority.”

Newspapers do face serious financial and other challenges today, but Tom Gish faced them every week for half a century and prevailed and published until the end. His Eagle, now edited by his son Ben, still screams from a newsprint perch—a hopeful sign in dark times that newspapers still matter and can—must—survive.

Spitzer: Being a Columnist "Sucks"

| No Comments

"It sucks. I used to be governor of New York," said a smiling Eliot Spitzer to John Gapper, the Financial Times's "chief business commentator," when Gapper asked him "how he was enjoying life as a columnist" for Slate, a gig he started this month. (h/t NRO Media Blog).

More from Gapper's blog post:

If Eliot Spitzer had had to choose a venue at which to make his re-entry into society, he would presumably not have selected a former massage parlour in Chinatown on the Lower East Side of Manhattan.


But Mr Spitzer, who resigned as governor of New York state after getting caught up in a call girl scandal this spring, did not get the choice. Happy Ending, the former parlour in question, is now a sleek bar and it is where Slate, the online magazine was holding its seasonal drinks party...

Oh, those "seasonal drinks parties." Here's how those affairs are described on the New York Times's new blog about drinking, Proof, where "contributors consider the charms, powers and dangers of drink, and the role it plays in their lives" (again, a h/t to Media Blog):

There’s something in the alone-in-the-crowdness of the holiday party circuit, the forced pleasantries and laughter, the charge to be friendly and engaging — but only in a trivial and superficial way — that is very much like the existential condition of the alcoholic psyche...

Journalist Maggie Jackson is the author of 2008's Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age. She recently talked with Russ Juskalian about the dangers of the divided attention span and how we might combat information overload.

 

Edited by Betwa Sharma

This article is part of the online supplement to the November/December print issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. To read that issue’s cover story, entitled “Overload!: Journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information”, click here.

Bloomberg Stays on AIG

| No Comments

Bloomberg reports that more questions are being raised about AIG's books. It says it may cost the insurer another $30 billion in writedowns.

An examination of AIG’s credit-default swaps guaranteeing more than $300 billion of corporate loans, mortgages and other assets not covered by a $152.5 billion federal rescue shows the New York-based insurer may value some of its positions at levels that don’t reflect distress in the markets, according to an analyst at Gradient Analytics Inc. and a tax consultant who teaches at Columbia University Business School in New York. Executives at two firms that have similar investments say they account for the securities differently than AIG does.

Bloomberg is good at explaining the context of why this really matters here:

The U.S. rescue plan announced in November, the government's second effort to save AIG, covers only its most troubled credit-default swaps, about 20 percent of the $377 billion on the insurer's books as of Sept. 30. Under the plan, a new government-backed entity will acquire collateralized debt obligations with a face value of $72 billion that had been insured by AIG swaps. An initial transfer of $46.1 billion of CDOs was announced on Dec. 2. A second fund bought troubled residential mortgage-backed securities with a face value of $39.3 billion, AIG said on Dec. 15.

Wider losses may cast new doubt on whether the federal funds will be enough to prop up AIG, the biggest U.S. insurer by assets. The U.S. package almost doubled from the $85 billion approved in September to save the company from bankruptcy.

How about a third taxpayer bailout of AIG?

Bloomberg reports that AIG says it doesn't have to write down the swaps because of the intentions of the banks that bought them, something the news swervice quotes a couple of accounting professors disputing.

While Bloomberg has done excellent reporting on this crisis, a lot of times it's editing leaves much to be desired. This story is an example of that. The last twelve paragraphs just feel tacked on unnecessarily.

David Leonhardt of The New York Times also writes about falling prices today:

The cost of fruits, vegetables, clothing and vehicles are all dropping. Housing prices have been falling for more than two years, and a barrel of oil costs about $45, down from $145 in July.

The inflation report released by the government on Tuesday showed that the Consumer Price Index was 3 percent lower last month than it had been three months earlier. It was the steepest such drop since 1933.

Leonhardt says a "deflationary spiral" isn't likely, so the effects of falling prices will help cushion the blow of the recession on family incomes. What's particularly interesting to me is his discussion of "sticky-wage theory":

conomists have long been puzzled by the fact that most businesses simply will not cut their workers’ pay, even in a downturn. Businesses routinely lay off 10 percent of their workers to cut costs. They almost never cut pay by 10 percent across the board.

Traditional economic theory doesn’t do a good job of explaining this. During a recession, the price of hamburgers, shirts, cars and airline tickets falls. But the price of labor does not. It’s sticky...

The forecasting firm IHS Global Insight predicts that prices will fall by an additional 1 percent in 2009. That would bring the total drop, from the summer of 2008 to the end of 2009, to roughly 4 percent. But you can be sure that most executives will not force their workers to take a 4 percent cut in their paychecks. The fears about morale will be too great.

That's good to know.

The Bright Side of Deflation

| No Comments

David Lazarus has a nice column about wage stagnation in the Los Angeles Times, using the peg of falling prices to point out that wages have failed to keep pace with prices over the last thirty years.

According to the U.S. Labor Department, real wages averaged $19.05 an hour in 1978. This year, the average real wage -- again, adjusted for inflation -- is $18.23 an hour. That means workers today are making less than their fathers.

Over the same period, productivity has risen nearly 150%, while consumer prices have more than tripled.

Where has the wealth created by that productivity gone? To investors and executives. Ever wonder why the stock market is up so much over the last three decades?

From World War II until the mid-1970s, real wages largely reflected advances in productivity. As the value of what workers produced went up, so did paychecks.

That changed as the clout of labor unions waned and as businesses increasingly sought to boost profits by introducing new technology and transferring jobs to wherever people would do them for less money. Companies and their shareholders got wealthier, while the pay of average workers went nowhere.

I have one quibble with this paragraph:

It is. That's because real wages -- the value of people's paychecks adjusted for inflation -- have stagnated or eroded for most of the last 30 years, except for an interval of modest gains from 1997 to 2003.

Meanwhile, productivity and consumer prices have soared.

It's not fair to juxtapose real wages with nominal consumer prices, which Lazarus later reports have tripled since 1978. The effect of the rise in consumer prices is already reflected in real wage, which are adjusted for inflation.

Other than that, the column is a solid effort.

Q&A: Andrew Revkin

| 4 Comments

Last month, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin received Columbia University’s prestigious John Chancellor Award, along with New Yorker staff writer Jane Mayer. A video of his acceptance speech is below. The award is given to journalists that have demonstrated excellence in the coverage of a particular beat—in Revkin’s case, climate change, and in Mayer’s, the Bush administration’s war on terror—over a long period of time. Revkin has covered environmental issues for over a quarter century. He started working for the Times in 1995, where his reporting earned the esteem of journalists, scientists, politicians, and policy advocates on all sides of the climate story. In October 2007, he launched the Times blog Dot Earth, where he covers sustainability more broadly. CJR’s Curtis Brainard talked to Revkin about the past, present, and future of environmental reporting.

Curtis Brainard: In your Chancellor speech and on Dot Earth you made the argument that climate is not the story of our time, but rather a subset of that story, which is sustainability. When and how did you realize that? Or have you always felt that way?

Andrew Revkin: I guess 2002 was really the first time that I shifted gears toward the broader theme. There’s a line in my 1992 book on global warming that gets at this, where I say, essentially, that this is all the growing pains of a species that has to come to grips [with living on a planet that has finite resources].

And I had a conversation around 2003 with William Clark, from Harvard, who runs a sustainability science program there, and he was already expressing concerns then that climate, since the 1992 Rio treaties, had taken too much of the oxygen out of the environmental arena – that the loss of biodiversity is equally consequential and also irreversible.

So there’s been a growing sense through these years that the issue is bigger than climate. But in 2002, we did a whole section of Science Times called Managing Planet Earth, about how we limit our impacts on the planet as we go through this growth spurt. So in a concrete sense, that’s really when I absorbed this, but, until Dot Earth, my reporting was still not really centered on the bigger question.


Chancellor Awards ceremony, Columbia University

CB: Do you think that the public sees it the same way?

AR: No. In fact, if you look at the press release (pdf) that came out when I got the award, Nick Lemann, [the dean of Columbia’s journalism school,] says that the stories of our time are global warming and civil liberties. I think there’s this sense—and this probably devolves from the Al Gore push—that the climate crisis is the issue of our time.

[The media] try to distill as much as possible, but the problem is that the reality is complicated. And of course it’s a lot harder to say, “The human growth spurt is the story of our time.” It’s a lot harder to get a headline out of sustainability and the bigger question of how we manage our infinite aspirations on a finite planet. It’s very hard even to write a short sentence about it. People have been trying and failing to describe sustainability—you know, what is that?—for decades.

CB: Given the lack of public engagement with sustainability issues, would the world have been better off if the media had clued in to the bigger story sooner?

AR: Well, in that sense, I think the media inevitably migrates from theme to theme. That’s almost unavoidable. There’s interest in the news, and when you have a confluence of events that make something seem important—Katrina, Al Gore’s movie, the IPCC reports in 2007, [melting sea ice] in the Arctic—that kind of defines the issue.

So we’re always going to be bouncing from one thing to the other, and there’s no way for the media to take up the more nuanced issue. In fact, one reason I started Dot Earth is that it’s hard to find space in the newspaper for these other issues. Many of them are what I call “slow drips,” or “iffy” looming catastrophes. We don’t do well with “if” stories and we don’t do well with dispersed stories. So the blog created a space to keep sustained focus on them.

CB: But a while back, you wrote that you’d be spending less time on Dot Earth in order to do more for the paper. It doesn’t seem like that’s happened. Or am I wrong?

AR: Twice—at the six-month point and at the one-year anniversary—I posted that I was going to slow down, and I find it almost impossible to do. The flow of stuff is just too interesting, and how do you not engage? But yeah, this year, I’ll be shifting gears significantly toward the print side of things to examine some of the same issues.

We’re all grasping for the balance here, and when I ask it of the Times management, there is no answer to the question of how much of our vigor and our resources we should be devoting to our online efforts and how much to print. No one really has an answer for that. They want all of both. A page-one story still matters and being active and innovative on the Internet still matters. So we’re being tugged in several directions, and I think that’s appropriate.

CB: Thinking specifically of the climate-change story, you said in your acceptance speech that we’re just now moving into the second act of what might be a three-part story. What do you mean by that, and what are the parts?

AR: Yes, the first act being recognizing, for the most part, that humans are influencing climate even though there are still big questions about specifics.

The second act would be a reality check on what’s feasible, given that awareness. And that’s where I think most of the media and public have not really absorbed what would be required. How do you take a world that is 80 percent dependent on fossil fuels and go to a world 80 percent free of fossil fuels as the population grows toward nine billion and its appetite for the things that come with ample energy grows? Within half a century—or within a century even—that’s a transformation the likes of which has never happened in human history. It makes the agricultural revolution seem easy, and the reality is that this doesn’t just come by turning off the lights, driving slower, or creating green jobs (unless, as I’ve written, those jobs include scientists, teachers, and innovators). That’s Act Two, and the media have only just started to nibble at it.

CB: And Act Three?

AR: Actually putting in place the programs, initiatives, and policies that would be needed to make [the transformation] happen. And awareness. Act Three definitely depends on Act Two, and having a broader awareness of what’s necessary and a broader of awareness of why it’s necessary—not to save our climate, which is the way it’s been popularly portrayed, but as a way to limit risks of real unexpected, turbulent, and harmful changes that might be avoided with a vigorous change in direction now.

CB: Speaking of change, you broke a number of stories on the Bush administration’s interference with communications about climate science. Do you expect that, as far as access to information is concerned, your job will be a little easier under the Obama administration?

AR: I think that, if anything, now is the time for even more scrutiny and care. You could sort of look at this, oh, finally, everything will be nice and touchy-feely. But so far, Obama’s transition team has been very cagey and careful. It’s not clear how appointments are going to play out [see Dot Earth post]. Steven Chu [his Secretary of Energy] and Carol Browner [his “climate czar”] come from different universes in terms of the climate problem. Browner comes from the regulatory, top-down-style approach to carbon dioxide. Chu has a technology focus and says we need to put a price on carbon, but that nothing will happen until we have a technology revolution as well.

So there are some big dramas that will play out here. How well does [Obama] recognize the mix of long-term technology transformation and short-term policy that’s needed? Will he be satisfied with a political win like a weak cap-and-trade bill that has no meaning at all climatologically, or will he recognize that’s just a starting point? And Congress is still a huge barrier to some of things that scientists and technical experts see as necessary. These are important things for the media to stay on top of.

CB: But the other week you highlighted a new study by Max Boykoff that shows climate coverage has declined significantly this year.

AR: He and I both said that was just a snapshot. Frankly, there’s not as much meaning in that curve as there is in the other graph that I attached to the bottom of that post, which is the curve going from 1980 to 2006. That was from Boykoff’s earlier paper, which shows a huge uptick in coverage. So I think, whatever the little wiggle is right now, overall this is an arena that is not going away. But a big chunk of it is driven by energy. So as gasoline gets down to a dollar a gallon—without that added component of energy urgency—you’re going to see the climate issue fade a little bit.

CB: When you wrote about the twenty-year anniversary of your first climate cover story in Discover, you pointed out that a lot of details, particularly the lack of public engagement, haven’t changed much. Do you think that will change any time soon?

AR: That, to some extent, depends on what Mother Nature throws at us over the next few years. As some people have cynically predicted, it may take something like a mega-drought in the southwest to get the country totally engaged, and the media as well. But a mega-drought in southwest is one of the harder things to ascribe to a human influence on the climate system because, as we’ve learned historically, that’s kind of the norm for the southwest, and we’ve just been lucky to have wetter conditions over the last hundred years. But if we have a big eruption like a Pinatubo-style volcano [which would cause temporary global cooling], then this whole issue could get derailed by that. So if I had to predict, being a realist and somewhat jaded, yeah, I may have to reprise the post I’ve done at least once, riffing on the Talking Heads line, “same as it ever was.”

CB: In your Chancellor speech you mentioned that one thing isn’t the same, though. You wrote a song called, “Liberated Carbon,” but recently changed some of the words?

AR: Well, folk music is a plastic and evolutionary process. Originally, it said, “Satan came along and said, ‘Hey, try lighting this.’ He opened the ground and showed us coal and oil.” And, you know, I thought a lot about that. I probably approached the song initially in the voice of your traditional, Bob Dylan rabble-rouser. And now I look back, and I think, you know, it’s not Satan; it’s normal. It’s just us.

So I changed it to, “Someone came along and said, ‘Hey, try lighting this,’” which is much more human and real. And as many of my free-market, blog-commenter friends would say, look at all the benefits that have come from burning fossil fuels. So I evolved the song. And I don’t see it as an apologist saying, “Oh yeah, that was bad.” I do think it’s correct, so I changed it. And someone can say, “Oh, Revkin, you’re caving to fossil fuels.” I don’t think I’m caving; I think it’s true. And it’s been blogged on before by climate contrarians who thought they had a big ‘gotcha’ thing.

It’s all a process, and when people jab at me like that, I say, look, my journalism stands or falls on its own merits. I’m a thinking, breathing person as well as reporter, and I was a musician before I was a journalist.

Making Connections

| No Comments

In the course of the presidential campaign, the troop surge in Iraq became a rhetorical weapon hurled back and forth by the candidates. Was the surge working? Did Obama oppose the surge? Could he admit that it was successful?

While the press faithfully transcribed these exchanges, it wasn’t always easy to move beyond simplistic questions and evaluate the surge not just according to the goals that the Bush administration set out for it—but holistically, in all its effects on life in Iraq.

Today’s New York Times has a good write-up about a Human Rights Watch report that assesses the Iraqi justice system and finds dismal conditions (emphasis mine):

The report portrays a system under which defendants are often abused in custody and held for months or even years before being referred to a judge. When cases are heard, the defendants are often left without adequate defense counsel to answer charges, which are frequently based on secret informants, coerced confessions and flimsy evidence, the report found. Juveniles are often held with adults, it found, despite an Iraqi law requiring they be held separately.

The court was created in 2003 by the United States-led Coalition Provisional Authority to hear cases of serious offenses, including terrorism. One factor in the court’s systemic failures is an overwhelming caseload, a result in part of widespread arrests in 2007 related to the surge operations in Baghdad, the report said.

Kudos to the Times for picking on that detail, which was unfortunately left out of the Associated Press dispatch.

All of the questions surrounding the troop surge are by no means answered, and it is yet unclear to what extent violence has been reduced and how long the surge’s effects will last. In the case of the court system, the situation is expected to worsen in 2009, when the American forces hand over all detainees into Iraqi custody. While today’s news is disheartening, it is imperative that journalists, as well as NGOs, consider the impact of the war on the lives of Iraqis, beyond basic casualty numbers. This is one report that brings the picture into shaper focus.

Today The Uptake, a Minnesota based cit-jo initiative, is offering a multimedia powerhouse live from the state canvassing board meeting. It's a great way to watch the most recent step in the prolonged post-election that the once conventional Al Franken-Norm Coleman Senate battle has become.

At the top of the page, the Uptake is streaming a live feed from the state house. Below, a vertical Twitter feed provides commentary and analysis from the Uptake's writers and amateur count-watchers alike. But the best touch has to be that they've worked out a way to clickably-embed the ballot that the board is weighing in real time. As they talk, you can judge.

Talking Points Memo's Eric Kleefield dropped in via twitter to note that he "must say i admire how these five people from different political backgrounds are doing this in a professional and friendly manner."

Indeed, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is evenly taking the team through ballot by ballot, with a decent amount of good cheer--occasional grimaces of mock frustration, a pat on Ritchie's back from the committee member to his right, cookies being passed around.

Over at the Star Tribune's recount blog, the writing tends to be fuller--because the paper is streaming video on a separate page, leaving the words alone to tell the story.

Here's a Twittered take on that from David Brauer of the online only MinnPost:

Cyber-faux pas. Strib is livestreaming on one page and blogging on another. FAIL.

Having seen The Uptake's set up I'd have to say that's true. But is it nice?

Gary Marcus is a professor of psychology at New York University, where he studies developmental cognitive neuroscience. In his latest book, Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind, he writes about the clumsy way in which our brains evolved. CJR's Russ Juskalian recently talked with Marcus about the brain, and what information overload might mean for cognitive development.

 

Edited by Betwa Sharma

This article is part of the online supplement to the November/December print issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. To read that issue’s cover story, entitled “Overload!: Journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information”, click here.

Buckley's Best

| No Comments

Ten months after the death of William F. Buckley, The New York Times remembers the conservative thinker's predilection for the creamy (or is it chunky?) and oh-so-populist treat:

The staff would circulate with the peanut butter canapés he loved so well and, to wash them down, a tray of Veuve Clicquot.

And:

The stale self-righteousness that attaches to a certain brand of modern-day conservative was not for Mr. Buckley, a man, who — with his love of yachting, peanut butter and the Constitution — understood that the art of politics did not preclude the act of having fun.

And:

The dining room was the inner sanctum of his entertaining empire, a place where Mr. Buckley might indulge in food, wine, comradeship and conversation, usually all at once. It was there that 160 of his closest friends and colleagues gathered on June 18 for an evening of memorial celebration, billed in the guest book as “One Last Time.”

“Quite a pleasant occasion,” Mr. Holmes recalled with the palest little tremor of a sigh. “Everybody got a jar of peanut butter.” (That would be Buckley’s Best, the writer’s privately produced eponymous brand.)

It's too bad that the writer fails to credit Red Wing, the real brand underneath the Buckley label, but it maybe easily overlooked given the opulent surroundings, what with the "green silk walls and the chartreuse sateen leopard-print chairs."

And, in yet another act of cheeky juxtaposition, the story shares page A30 with a tale of poor families partaking in a decidedly upscale delicacy: pheasant.

Music Lessons

| 4 Comments

He takes the stage clad in a black turtleneck. his famous line is, “Green is the new red, white, and blue.” Tonight, and other nights, he is paid tens of thousands of dollars to perform. He spent a year touring America, adding China for good measure. When he returns home, he lands in an 11,400-square-foot house.

He’s not a rock star, although his life resembles that of one. He is Thomas Friedman, author, newspaperman, star commenter. His ascent is part and parcel of a period in which newspapers may train even their lowliest reporters for media appearances. Journalists these days grin under pancake make-up, speak in emphatic and punchy sentences, and videotape themselves for YouTube. In short, they sometimes succeed when they tear a page from performers’ scripts.

It got me thinking: Could one ailing media industry—music—teach another ailing media industry—journalism—a thing or two about survival?

I think the most resourceful strategies of musicians can help us. The first thing that writers might copy from musicians—even more than they do already—could be called the Free Culture Method. In music, one prong of that is mixtape giveaways. Despite recent miseries in the music business, Lil Wayne, the rap artist, sold more copies of his CD in one week than anyone this year, having built an audience by sending free mixtapes into the ether. Mixtapes, at least these days, are pressed CDs or downloads containing demos or raw mixes of tracks, as well as collaborations. Lil Wayne’s mixtape method is the musical equivalent of writers who give away original material on their blogs, writers like Alan Sepinwall, otherwise just another television reviewer at a mid-size metro—The Star-Ledger in Newark. Sepinwall writes an elaborate, trenchant, and heavily commented-upon blog (check out his 2,023-word analysis of the television show Mad Men’s “Maidenform” episode) in addition to his print column, and the blog has extended his reach. Or consider Andrew Revkin’s sharp New York Times blog and vlog on global warming, through which Revkin made himself a brand.

For Lil Wayne, says Scott Plagenhoef, editor in chief of Pitchfork, the tastemaking Web 2.0 music site, “it was like, ‘If the mixtape stuff is so good, imagine how good the real product will be.’ He’s given so freely to his audience, they feel very free to give back with their dollars.” Another variation on the Free Culture Method: musicians who figure out how to build an audience by appealing to their desire for the rough-hewn and personal, the mark of the human hand in a mechanical world. A good example of this is Bon Iver, a recent indie-music success story. The label rep tells me their story: Bon Iver’s Justin Vernon started without a label, a manager, or a girlfriend. He locked himself in a hunting cabin in rural Wisconsin for three months and finished his magnum opus, and then put it on a Web site, streaming for free. It was a rusty, dusty, snowy, and angrily melancholy record. His many performances were incredibly spare and earnest. Fans gathered and downloaded his lovelorn music via Virb, a new social-network site. His friend did the artwork, and Vernon pressed five hundred CDs himself, giving them away to Pitchfork and to not-so-major press outlets. Soon, critics raved and, ultimately, his work was distributed online and through small music stores. Vernon was not made by EMI or Atlantic but by music bloggers on HypeMachine and others. He sold fifty thousand copies on a small record label, mostly through word of mouth.

Part of what he did—that the new tribe of unmoored bloggers and journalists can do as well—is create a community based on personal authenticity, a reason that your readers must support your work by buying your book or going to hear you speak. Part of the Free Culture Method is cultivating an audience around your giveaway content. The indie band Deerhoof, for example, regularly blogs and posts covers and works-in-progress on its site, and also posts its monthly “top ten” tracks from other groups. Of course, in nonfiction, there are plenty of writers who start out as bloggers and transform themselves into authors, succeeding by way of the Free Culture Method.

“Both journalists and musicians must spend a phenomenal amount of time nowadays maintaining a 360-degree cross-media relationship with their fan base,” says Aram Sinnreich, a visiting professor of media studies at New York University and a bassist in the band Brave New Girl. “Like a band on tour, journalists need to e-mail and Facebook readers to stay involved with them on a daily basis, to respond to their comments, to give more than just lip service.” By being accessible to readers—instead of explaining “what the song meant,” explaining “what that article meant”—journalists can deepen reader loyalty to their work. As Jonathan Karp, publisher of Twelve Books, an inventive new imprint that only puts out twelve titles a year, says, writing nonfiction books these days is “a form of conversation with your readers. Writers gotta talk back.”

In fact, Twelve Books is a good example of a second strategy—Going Micro—a method that has worked relatively well of late in the music industry and, to a lesser extent, has worked well in book publishing and online newspapers. Another good example of this is Merge Records, an indie label in North Carolina, which has done extremely well cultivating chart-topping acts like Arcade Fire and Spoon. Merge is a more manageable model than the larger labels, in part because a musical monoculture has been replaced by microcultures. The company is perceived as curatorial and selective, rather than sprawling. Such small and strenuously tasteful companies are positioned to cater to niches and special interests.

And as Jamie Proctor, at the indie label Thrill Jockey, puts it, ‘‘It’s easier to change your business model and methods when you have a company of six or eight people rather than six hundred or eight hundred.’’ The bigger a label is, meanwhile, the harder it is for it to survive in the digital era because its functions are being picked off by fans ‘‘distributing’’ music themselves, artists selling their own music, and bookers and managers organizing and profiting from tours and performances. Similarly, smaller publications, from Grist—the green-issues news Web site that correctly dubs itself “gloom and doom with a sense of humor”—to online local newspapers and granular news sites like Cityblock and fivethirtyeight, the electoral-projections Web site, are little doors to the future of media. These sites have a total commitment to their beats; they explore them with an élan and a thoroughness that larger publications don’t usually manage.

The third approach is what I call the Atavist Strategy. It’s used by successful musical throwbacks like Kid Rock, who, before October, didn’t offer his music as digital content. His new CD Rock n Roll Jesus went platinum in May—without the help of downloads. As Kid Rock’s publicist, Nick Stern, puts it, “Music labels are either conning people to pay for something they could get for free, acting like bottled-water companies, or they appeal to an older demo, like Kid Rock, to people who are not used to going on the Internet, at least for now, but do go to Wal-Mart.” The media equivalent of the Atavist Strategy? The Wall Street Journal’s subscription-only online presence, with its firewall. But tread carefully. You have to be very clever to get rich off being backward.

Another part of the Atavist Strategy is musicians getting by not on their recordings, but on live performances. Once, a band that was eternally on tour struggled daily with obscurity and/or poverty; now it’s par for the course for even the biggest artists. Similarly, authors these days try to cash in with speaking engagements. Like musicians, they want to build their brand first, as opposed to that of their company or label. Some younger journalists have learned these lessons already, and are benefiting from them (though one I spoke to compared the process to speed dating). Jennifer 8. Lee, a thirty-two-year-old New York Times reporter who recently published a nonfiction book entitled The Fortune Cookie Chronicles, tells me she has done fifty talks in support of her book in the last half year.

Music and journalism were once lodestones of both daily life and collective experience—the newspaper, unfolded and read on the way to work on the subway or commuter rail; the LP, spun in bedrooms and dens, or the cassette tape played in the car those nights when everyone sang along, back when everyone knew the lyrics. Those lodestones are going or gone. The music industry and the news industry were both once the foundation of mass culture. That monoculture is shattering, for better or worse, into “minor cultures”—many different and splintered communities, served by many different sources of music and news.

Both industries have lost buyers. Yet both have gained audiences in the last five years. While there was a total CD sales decline of 15 percent between 2006 and 2007, the sale of digital tracks increased by 48.5 percent in that same period, and God knows how many illegal downloads there were. And while people may not be buying newspapers in droves, many more are reading them online. The print circulation of the daily New York Times, for example, is down to just over a million, but online it has risen to around 13 million unique visitors each month. Both industries, and the individuals who work in them, are looking for ways to draw income and support from those expanding audiences, and maybe journalists can look to musicians for a move or two.

There is one place, though, where the similarities between reporters (i.e. shy egotists) and rock musicians fall apart. Bands have always engaged in adamant self-branding—think David Bowie’s Ziggy Stardust or Madonna’s many incarnations. Journalists, on the other hand, have been more diffident and willfully depersonalized. With the exception of New Journalists—those ancestors to the bloggers and the multiplatform authors of today—journalists aren’t usually full-on peacocks. They put the story before themselves and attempt to render others as if with invisible hands. Journalists have been taught to erase the individual—remember the Unbiased Media ideal that was hammered into us as young journalists? (We are also unlikely to go on “reunion tours” during which we discuss our long-forgotten “hit” features.)

Yet some journalists certainly know how to promote their names and personae, and their bylines appear to have multiplied. Images of their faces bob seductively beside their names. In the Too Much Information Age, journalists’ biographies—once not supposed to intrude on the story—have moved toward the center of it. And for better or worse, all of us in all the culture industries not only have to go back to the premodern storytelling mode, but also learn how to give our work away without getting ripped off and how to have fervid e-mail relationships with our audiences. We must also at least pretend we have interesting personalities and act like we are a little larger than life. 

A CDO Story for the Rest of Us

| No Comments

The Washington Post goes long with a look at how the CDO market went bust.

I know, I know. You can't bear to read anything else about collateralized-debt obligations. I sympathize! But it's worth a look-see. The story clearly explains an extremely difficult to explain subject, while bringing up some interesting information.

For instance, I didn't know this (and I've read a lot of CDO stories):

Sold from trusts often organized in the Cayman Islands, the bonds were listed only on the Irish Stock Exchange, of all places. An official there readily acknowledged that the exchange handled no trades in the bonds. No prices were made public, and documents on file at the exchange were available only to those who purchased the bonds.

That led to this:

The only public reporting of the deals were the gains or losses on the securities recorded by their owners. Under this system, regulators had no official window into the bigger picture -- that these private securities had grown so numerous and involved so many companies that they posed a collective risk to the entire financial system.

And the reporter, Jill Drew, justifies her headline—"Frenzy"—with stuff like this:

Volume and speed dominated the process. Michael Anderson, a former mortgage trader for a Wall Street firm, said he would receive an e-mail from a mortgage originator like Washington Mutual that offered, say, a $1 billion package that included thousands of loans. Anderson had as little as an hour to bid. Some Wall Street firms, including Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, bought mortgage origination companies so they could cut out the bidding process and pump collateral more quickly into their CDO machines.

It would have been good to have named which Wall Street firm the trader worked for.

Meanwhile, the Post hits the regulators a bit:

The Securities and Exchange Commission, charged with overseeing the private ratings companies, did little to scrutinize their procedures during this time. In the summer of 2007, after S&P, Moody's and Fitch began slashing their grades on CDO bonds they had once blessed, the SEC stepped in to investigate what had gone wrong. This summer, without naming names, an SEC staff report faulted the ratings firms for not doing enough to police their conflict-of-interest policies.

But it ends on a wrong note, letting a former SEC commissioner (who was there for six years during the problem period) run off about how deregulation wasn't the problem:

Former SEC commissioner Paul S. Atkins, a strong advocate of deregulation during his six-year tenure that ended earlier this year, agreed that the trading of CDOs and other private investments must be done more openly to prevent systemic risk. But he cautioned that there needs to be smarter regulation, not just more rules.

"Remember this crisis began in regulated entities," Atkins said, referring to investment and commercial banks overseen by the SEC and other federal agencies. "This happened right under our noses."

The regulators weren't regulating, though. The sniffer wasn't sniffing. That was the Bush administration philosophy.

It's too bad the Post this good story ended on a dishonest note from a guy who was responsible for preventing much of the stuff the Post describes.

Books for a Hard Season

| No Comments

The holidays are coming, but the news business isn't feeling so merry. Times are hard for everyone, actually. And when the times get tough, the tough start reading.

Burying ourselves in a book or two feels like a particularly fine idea this season, as does giving good (and relatively inexpensive) books as gifts. But which books? Economics? History? Advice? Escapism? So we're putting it to you: If you could recommend a single book to the journalistic community now, which book would you pick, and why?

Every Tuesday, CJR outlines a news-related question and opens the floor for debate. For previous News Meeting topics, click here.

A Reporter at Sea

| No Comments

There are times when being a foreign correspondent is anything but the childhood dream that lured many a dime store hero into newspapering. It’s dangerous and unrelenting to work in countries where the press is under fire, only to see your dispatches shoveled deep inside the paper, cut, or spiked.

But then there are times when a foreign correspondent’s life is as romantic as we’d wish it to be. Take, for example, this dateline and lede:

ON THE ARABIAN SEA — Rear Adm. Giovanni Gumiero is going on a pirate hunt.

So begins Jeffrey Gettleman’s colorful account in today's New York Times of an Italian navy crew charged with protecting ships in the pirate ridden waters outside the Red Sea.

The article sails into more serious waters, discussing famine, Somalia’s collapse, and international law. But oh, the digressions!

In recounting the sometimes feckless repulsing of boarding parties:

There was even a recent case, according to several security contractors, in which Filipino crew members pelted pirates with tomatoes in an attempt to stop them from scaling the hull of their ship. It did not work.

(If there was ever a case of “too good to check” that’s gotta be it.)

On the allure of open water:

The Italians said that, deep down, pirates were creatures of the sea, no matter how many navy ships were hot on their tail. “When the sea is calm, the moon is bright, the weather is good, it’s easy to see how the pirates are encouraged,” said Enrico Vignola, a lieutenant on the ship.

And on the continental repast served to shipboard “visitors” (and presumably foreign correspondents):

For visitors on board, lunchtime was the highlight. The officers summoned up from the oily bowels of the destroyer a banquet of homemade pasta, marinated eggplant sliced paper thin, prosciutto-wrapped dates and tiramisu, finished off with cool glasses of spumante.

It seems that when Italians hunt for pirates, they hunt in style.

Sight For Sore Eyes on CNN

| No Comments

No, not Anderson Cooper. A visual calm (well, not quite that) has come to CNN. The cable network has retired its bottom-of-the-screen news crawl ("The Ticker") and replaced it with rotating phrases/headlines (The Flipper") that actually stay static on the screen long enough to be read (and sometimes even have something to do with what the anchor is saying at the time). CNN exec Bart Feder is touting the lack of visual clutter, the cleaner "screen space." This from the channel that brought us presidential debates with such on-screen graphics as the "perception analyzer" and pundit scoreboards.

WaPo's Wrong Spin on Retail

| No Comments

Here's an example of how not to write an economy story.

The Washington Post this weekend reported on retail sales numbers, which were better than expected, meaning non-cataclysmic.

But the Post spun the numbers with a headline that said "Holiday Shoppers Rally for Retailers." The problem is the numbers it puts up top.

The Commerce Department yesterday said retail sales in November fell 1.8 percent compared with the previous month -- the fifth consecutive monthly decline, but not as steep as October's 2.9 percent drop. Excluding restaurants and auto dealers, November retail sales dropped 2 percent compared with the previous month.

So the numbers fell, but the drop wasn't as steep a fall as the previous month's, so the numbers are "a glimmer of hope"? That's a stretch.

The Post buries more salient information, the year-over-year numbers in the tenth paragraph:

But when compared with November 2007, sales plummeted 4.7 percent -- a sign that shoppers are closely watching their wallets.

Not only that, but it gets a fact error there: The number is actually 7.4 percent, which makes the WaPo's story look even worse. A 7.4 percent drop is dramatic.

The Times's story is a better example of how to report the retail numbers. Its headline was "Retail Spending Weak in November."

Retail sales posted a monthly decline of 1.8 percent from October to November and a 7.4 percent decline between last month and November 2007, the Commerce Department reported on Friday.

The Times doesn't downplay the better-than-Wall-Street-expected numbers—it just puts them in better context.

Cheney to ABC News: "I'm Guilty"

| 4 Comments

Sensational, out-of-context headline? I'm guilty. Here's how Vice President Cheney came to utter the words, "I'm guilty" during his "first exit interview," conducted by ABC News's Jonathan Karl (transcript here):

KARL: What do you say to those who say you've changed? I mean, you've seen friends go across, say, I don't know Dick Cheney any more. They've really known you just about as long as anybody in this town. What do you say to that?


CHENEY: Well, I , the way I think of it is in terms of whether or not I changed, I think a prime motivation for me and much of what I've done was 9/11. And being here on 9/11, going through that experience...[H]ave I changed? Well, not in the sense that I've gone through some fundamental psychological transition here but I have been since that day focused very much on what we needed to do to defend the nation and I think the policies we've recommended, the programs that we've undertaken have been good program. I think those have been sound decisions and if that's what they mean by saying I've changed, I'm guilty.

Cheney believes waterboarding was an appropriate tactic to use on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And, about "that shoe flying" incident, Cheney "thought the president handled it rather well... had some good moves the way he ducked and avoided the shoe" and doesn't "attribute any special significance to it."

GM Pencils, Part Two

| No Comments

A reader, David Baggot, emailed me to point out that the Times story I liked yesterday about Detroit's extreme cost cutting was done better three weeks ago by the Journal.

And he's right. The Journal story even had the cheaper pencils anecdote. It's better written and, as my correspondent says, more deeply reported.

Here's a sample:

Over the past several weeks, engineers and technicians working at General Motors Corp.'s sprawling proving grounds west of Detroit started noticing a curiosity: an increasing number of wall clocks had the wrong time, or stopped working altogether.

The reason: As part of a drive to cut $15 billion in costs, GM is no longer keeping the 562 clocks in working order, which will eliminate the expense of replacing and disposing of the clock's batteries and the cost of resetting them twice a year for daylight-saving time.

It's not the only new measure GM is taking to save every last nickel. In its Renaissance Center headquarters, employees working late have to climb stairs when navigating its labyrinth of lower floors -- the company now stops the escalators at 7 p.m. In designated cleanup areas of certain offices, the company has changed the type of wipe-up towels it buys. In a memo to employees, a staffer explained this will lower GM's "cost per wipe."

Baggot writes:

It's eternally frustrating. The "paper of record" appears to operate on the assumption that its readers are unwilling or unable to read other papers and thus discover that so much of what it writes is not original. Somebody has to call these guys out.

I've been on the other end of that Timesian tendency as a reporter, so I can understand the frustration. But I've become increasingly wary of the "one and done" mentality that says if another paper has done the story, then it's not worth doing. I believe that was part of the problem with coverage in the years leading to the financial crisis.

Clearly, some flack at the Big Three has been pushing this to show the public and Congress how worthy they are for a bailout. That doesn't mean it wasn't a story, but hardly needed to be done twice. And if you're going to follow another paper's story, at least improve on it.

The Size Tens Seen around the World

| 1 Comment

President Bush’s response to having a pair of shoes thrown at him by Iraqi journalist Muntader al-Zaidi during a press conference in the middle of his fourth and last visit to Iraq, was, “This happens. It’s a sign of a free society.”

His interviewer, ABC’s Martha Raddatz, rejoined: “It’s also considered a huge insult in this world, the sole of a shoe, throwing a shoe.”

Bush doesn’t quite answer the question embedded within Raddatz’s declarative statement. “Yeah, I guess,” he said. And then he moves on. “Look, the rest of the Iraqi press corps was humiliated these guys were just beside themselves. They felt he had disgraced their entire press corps. Frankly, I thought it was interesting. I thought it was weird, I thought it was unusual, to have a guy throw a shoe at you. But I’m not insulted.” (The full interview is here.)

In an ideal world, maybe Raddatz would have been able to engage in a discussion with Bush about what he has done to deserve the insult—rather than accepting a non-answer (that he wasn’t personally offended by it) and moving on. But when Bush moves on, Raddatz moves on too, launching into a Q&A about his trip and helping to portray the incident as something to discuss factually (from how many feet did al-Zaidi throw his shoes?)—a blip on Bush’s trip. Other accounts, speeding the other way, have taken the fetishistic route (tell me about The Shoe and Islam/politics/the Bushes).

Not so accounts from the international media, many of which focused less on the circumstances of the act itself, and more on the meaning of the insult behind it.

Al Jazeera’s story ran a modest headline (“Shoe attack mars Bush’s Iraq visit”), but contained a bolder line in the future tense, forecasting the president’s reputation and presuming the cast and tint of retrospective coverage: “The incident will serve as a vivid reminder of the widespread opposition to the US-led invasion of, and subsequent war in, Iraq - the conflict which has come to define Bush's presidency.” Meanwhile, the UK’s Independent put forth a straightforward and harsh interpretation of the incident: “Iraqi journalist gives verdict on Bush's reign by voting with his feet.”

India’s Economic Times also took a this-is-how-Bush-will-be-remembered tack, with a headline that read: “Arab world hails shoe attack as Bush’s farewell gift.” Its lead? “Iraq faced mounting calls on Monday to release the journalist who hurled his shoes at George W. Bush, an action branded shameful by the government but hailed by many in the Arab world as an ideal parting gift to the US president.” The Times of India account said the same thing (its title: “For Arabs, ‘shoe’ is a four-letter word”), but with far more generalized and reactive verbiage: “Arab correspondents through the region have called the act as embodying the Middle East's hatred for the outgoing American president.”

Julian Borger, a diplomatic correspondent for The Guardian, laid Bush out to dry in his analysis of the incident: “After eight years of careful stage management by the White House press staff, this will be how Bush is remembered in many parts of the world.” (Borger’s is also one of the more acerbic takes: “George Bush didn't need a primer on Middle Eastern culture to know he was being insulted. Having a pair of shoes lobbed at you and having to cower behind a lectern does not look particularly presidential anywhere.”) But Borger also takes the opportunity to place his bets on the historical interpretation front.

The BBC’s focus on the insult includes a cheesy headline (“Bush shoe-ing worst Arab insult”), but it also calls the cultural significance of the shoe throwing the thing that has “added real sting to the assault” (and adds a bit of information: that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “has been given the particularly insulting first name Kundara – meaning shoe”). It also good-naturedly and presciently apologizes for the numerous one-liner explanations of shoes in Islamic culture that have crowded all accounts: “There has been plenty of droll reaction in the wake of Sunday's shoe attack to experts who have informed the public that ‘throwing a shoe at someone's face is considered an insult in Islam.’”

And the German Welt chose to connect the historic dots already, writing about Krushchev: “The last time a shoe served as such a powerful political weapon was when an enraged Russian Premier Nikita Krushchev dramatically slammed his hardy Soviet leather shoe on his delegate desk at the United Nations General Assembly meeting. Almost fifty years down the line an Iraqi journalist succeeded in making his point felt when he hurled his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush.”

We’ll hear the rumbling echoes of this incident in the days to come—and we’ll see how columnists interpret it (of course, they’ve already started).

But remember that today also brought news of a new prime minister (an economist) elected in Thailand; a nuclear-cooperation deal between the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates; activists gone missing in Zimbabwe; and a Human Rights Watch report (released today) on the failures of the Iraqi central criminal court. As the world accounts for these other happenings, it’s a rather good reminder that Muntader al-Zaidi’s shoe throwing is in and of itself a single act—an event that (fortunately or not) has already begun its rounds on the YouTube circuit. Many other news items won’t make those rounds. That’s not to trivialize this story, and the grave reasons for the insult, in the least. Rather, it’s just to stress that it’s the interpretation—what the above accounts hastily and unevenly dabble in—that will count.

"On the executive compensation thing, it went to the core of their being. It was like asking the chief rabbi of Jerusalem to eat bacon on Yom Kippur. It was the most unthinkable thing they could think of." -- House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, on trying to limit the pay of bankers who are beneficiaries of the $700 billion federal bailout.

Blank Check for Banks, Pink Slips for Detroit

That was the headline on Sunday's business story in The New York Times by the indispensable Gretchen Morgenson, and it's a splendid summary of the economic policies being pursued so vigorously by the Republican minority in the United States Senate.

Morgenson quoted Mitch McConnell, the Republican from Kentucky who is leading the fight to kill off the Big Three as quickly as possible: "We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure."

To which Morgenson replies: "That's a new concept..."!

Maybe the Republicans are suffering buyer's remorse over the previous $700 billion bailout, but the ironies here are endless, and Morgenson is on to all of them:

* "[I]n the bank rescue, taxpayers are subsidizing not only failure but also outright recklessness and greed." (Lest we forget: the banks knowingly loaned $3.2 trillion—yes, trillion—to home buyers with bad credit and undocumented incomes.)

* "The supposedly exorbitant autoworker wages that get everybody so riled up pale in comparison with the riches of Wall Street."

* Unlike Detroit, no one asked the bankers to sell their private jets or "supply Treasury with in-depth restructuring plans in exchange for bailout funds."

* The "Troubled Asset Relief Program is open to banks that are both well and sickly. And nobody overseeing the program seems eager to ensure that its funds go only to those institutions that will survive and be able to pay back the taxpayer."

* Treasury has no way to determine if the program is achieving its goals of increased lending by banks.

* There also seems to be no monitoring of the banks' compliance with TARP limits on executive compensation.

Actually, there are no real limits on the bankers' compensation at all. That was the exciting news in this morning's Washington Post. The Bush administration, apparently in response to the rabbi-like objections cited by Barney Frank above, slipped a loophole into the bill which so far has ensured that the federal government can't do a thing about bankers' salaries or bonuses.

According to Post reporter Amit R. Paley, "at the last minute, the Bush administration insisted on a one-sentence change to the provision...The change stipulated that the penalty would apply only to firms that received bailout funds by selling troubled assets to the government in an auction, which was the way the Treasury Department had said it planned to use the money."

Guess what: "In a reversal, the Bush administration has not used auctions for any of the $335 billion committed so far from the rescue package, nor does it plan to use them in the future. Lawmakers and legal experts say the change has effectively repealed the only enforcement mechanism in the law dealing with lavish pay for top executives."

Undoing this classic example of Washington legerdemain should be a priority of the new Congress that's about to take office, but don't hold your breath. As Eric Lipton and Raymond Hernandez reported on the front page of yesterday's Times, prominent Democrats like Chuck Schumer are often just as willing to do the bidding of Wall Street as their Republican colleagues.

For example, when a few people in Congress moved to close an outrageous loophole which freed hedge fund managers from millions of dollars in income taxes, Schumer claimed to be in favor of the reform—but then backed a bill that would also cover executives at energy, venture capital, and real estate partnerships. "His position was identical to that of lobbyists for a group paid by Mr. Kravis and other finance industry executives," the Times reported. The Schumer bill was called a "poison pill" by the leading Republican advocate of the tax increase, and it "went nowhere after provoking opposition from an array of industries."

One underreported aspect of the Republican opposition to saving Detroit was spotlighted on the CBS Evening News last Friday by correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. The CBS reporter observed that many southern senators have foreign car companies in their states, including BMW in South Carolina, and Honda and Mercedes in Alabama—the home state of Republican Richard Shelby, another leader of the fight to kill Detroit—so they actually have a vested interest in destroying the American car industry. That's what they mean when they say "all politics is local."




_______________



For more on the never-ending stonewalling and deception by NBC News over its connections to retired general Barry McCaffrey, here is FCP being interviewed by Bob Garfield for NPR's On the Media.

Weird Science (Reporting)

| 4 Comments

I was on the treadmill at the gym this week when I switched to CNN and learned about a new source of power that is pollution-free and cheaper than fossil fuels. It’s made from water, “a form of salt,” and “other common materials.”

Poppy Harlow, a business correspondent for CNN, cheerily recounted the good news. She quoted the inventor saying that the mixture produces “a chemical reaction 200 times more powerful than gasoline,” and that the discovery is “on the scale of fire.”

The caveat? “Many scientists say the technology violates the basic laws of quantum physics.” Harlow said these words, but they didn’t seem to register with her. She might as well have said, “The only problem? It leaves a little lint in your pockets.”

Surely the timing of this story has nothing to do with CNN’s recent announcement that it is eliminating its entire science and technology unit, and laying off, among others, science correspondent Miles O’Brien. But it is an unfortunate coincidence, and a trained science reporter might have handled this story a little differently. (Disclosure: I organize the annual New Horizons in Science briefing for the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, where O’Brien sits on the board.)

A Google search would’ve shown Harlow that the technology in question – produced by Blacklight Power, Inc. of Cranbury, New Jersey – has been strenuously debunked by, among others, Dr. Robert L. Park of the University of Maryland, whose weekly e-mail column, “What’s New?”, keeps a watchful eye on unfounded scientific claims. According to Park, Blacklight was unable to get a U.S. patent for its research, and earlier this year was denied four patents in the United Kingdom. Lacking patents and independent confirmation of its findings, the company “is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains,” Park wrote. In an email, Blacklight Power said it has had two patents issued in the U.S. and one in the U.K. It also said two of the denied cases in the UK were overturned by the patent court and returned to the examiners.

Those are the sorts of facts that even a cursory online search would have pulled up. It took me less than five minutes. Harlow and her producers evidently didn’t bother. The “Blacklight Process” is supposed to put hydrogen atoms into an energy state that nobody has observed—and that can’t exist, according to quantum physics. Hydrogen can exist in a high-energy, excited state or in what’s called the ground state, a kind of lowest-energy, resting state. Blacklight claims to force hydrogen into a state lower than the ground state. It calls the resulting atom a hydrino. (And remember, it does this not with the large hadron collider or some other atom smasher, but with salt water and other common materials.)

A December 11 press release, announcing that Blacklight had signed its first commercial licensing deal with Estacado Energy Services in New Mexico, may have prompted CNN’s story. According to the release, Estacado would use the Blacklight Process to produce “250 MW of continuous thermal or electric power.” The release noted that the technology has “applications to heating, distributed power generation, central power generation, and motive power,” but did not specify the cost of the deal, or whether any money had changed hands. On CNN, Harlow reported that the cost estimates range to one to two cents per kilowatt-hour, versus six to ten cents for coal or natural gas.

In support of the technology, her piece quoted Peter Jansson of Rowan University in New Jersey, whom Blacklight hired to “independently validate its claims.” But Harlow once again seemed to ignore the import of her own reporting when she added that Jansson “is one of very few in the scientific community who is convinced that Blacklight is on to something.” Harlow didn’t mention any others.

Among the people backing the company, Harlow said, are a “growing number of Wall Street and business executives” – a group that has not recently been known for its perspicacity. (According to CNN, one of the investors in Blacklight is Jim Lenehan of Cerberus, the hedge fund that bought Chrysler and has nearly driven it into bankruptcy.)

Granted, Harlow’s story was part of a CNN series called the Edge of Discovery. But reporters are supposed to be skeptical, and this thing had an appeal to skepticism written all over it—tattooed, in fact, and blazing in neon.

Add a few common materials to water and get something 200 times more potent than gasoline? Using physics that violates virtually everything known about atomic behavior? What was Harlow thinking? And if she was just reading somebody else’s words, what were the producer and news writer thinking? Was anybody home? It shouldn’t have required training in science, or science reporting, to have quashed this story.

Park made his comment about shallow brains in his column on July 6, 2008, just after CNNmoney.com did a piece on Blacklight. That story, by Mina Kimes, was far more skeptical. It had the good sense to quote Park, who said, “I don't know of a single scientist of any reputation” who takes Blacklight’s claims seriously.

Harlow might have simply checked CNN’s own archives.

Missed Step

| 1 Comment

Everyone has language pet peeves: those little things people say that aren’t quite right, and that we can’t help but correct. For reader Mark Freeman, it’s the phrase “step foot in,” as in “I wouldn’t step foot in (or into) his messy apartment.” He says: “This is a misuse for ‘set foot in.’ ‘Set’ is transitive, ‘step’ not, which is why we don’t say ‘I stepped my foot onto his scrawny neck.’”

The “proper” use of the phrase is indeed “set foot in.” “Set” in this case is a transitive verb, meaning it needs an object to act upon—the foot. (While Mr. Freeman is right that “step” is not transitive here, it can be. But that would be another step.) You’re not just “stepping in”; you are deliberately contemplating the consequences of going into your friend’s messy apartment.

Here’s another way to look at it: When you walk, you step. Each time you step, you set your foot down. When you walk into a place, you step into it; you set foot into it. “Step” is pure action; “set” implies deliberation. Makes perfect logical sense.

Logic, however, means nothing to English speakers. We like nothing more than to mangle, er, modify, time-honored phrases. Thus “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” gets shortened to “the proof is in the pudding,” which makes no sense unless it’s a brandy pudding, and it’s eighty proof.

“Set foot in” is an idiom, meaning it’s the way people usually use a phrase. Yet “step foot in” or its close variants have appeared countless times in news reports in the last year. And had Nexis existed in the 1500s, it would’ve picked up on more than a few uses then, as well. (The Oxford English Dictionary got there first.)

Most of the time, however, the phrase appears in quotations, indicating that it is a mostly verbal tic. Despite some claims that this is a purely American phenomenon, it appears as frequently in British/Australian/Canadian publications, if not more so. It doesn’t show up in usage guides, though, blunting the criticism of those who claim it is patently wrong.

Nonetheless, careful writers won’t step—er, set—er, well, they won’t go there.

Not So Punny

| No Comments

So, as I'm sure you've heard: This weekend, while President Bush and Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki gave a joint press conference during the American president's surprise trip to Baghdad, an Iraqi journalist rose to his feet during the proceedings and declared, “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!”

The journalist then hurled his shoe at the American president. Bush ducked. The journalist then hurled the other.

Well. How's a fun-loving media to narrate this series of unfortunate events? Why, with puns! "Shoe-icide Attack"! "Lame Duck"! "Bush doesn't admit Iraq's angry soles"!

Now, granted, under normal circumstances, the whole shoe-hurled-at-a-world-leader thing would indeed be pretty amusing. But "normal," meaning "not currently engaged in an occupation that has led to the brutal deaths of an untold number of people." The U.S. president visiting Iraq, nearly six years after the U.S. invasion, is not normal circumstances.

The shoe-throwing incident—"soles of shoes are considered the ultimate insult in Arab culture," AFP noted—isn't funny so much as it's incredibly sad. Sad that this is what the Iraqi/American relationship has come to; sad that the offending journalist, Muntadar al-Zaidi, was taken outside the conference hall and beaten for his stunt until “he was crying like a woman." Sad all around. And, in that, perhaps, a fitting symbol for President Bush's ostensibly final diplomatic trip to Iraq, a reminder that, whatever the White House claims about the matter, the wounds we'll be leaving in Iraq are deep and raw and personal.

The major papers get it. Their stories about the shoe-throwing today frame the incident in the broader context—and the broader ironies—of Bush's oddly triumphal visit to Iraq. Here's the lede of today's New York Times print story on the incident:

President Bush made a valedictory visit on Sunday to Iraq, the country that will largely define his legacy, but the trip will more likely be remembered for the unscripted moment when an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at Mr. Bush’s head and denounced him on live television as a “dog” who had delivered death and sorrow here from nearly six years of war.

And the lede of today's front-page Washington Post treatment:

Arriving here on Sunday for a surprise farewell visit, President Bush staunchly defended a war that has taken far more time, money and lives than anticipated, but he received a taste of local resentment toward his policies when an Iraqi journalist hurled two shoes at him at a news conference.

Good summaries, both. Each captures the irony of the shoe-throwing situation in a way that's appropriately somber (read: blissfully free of puns and jokes and all manner of glee).

And then...there's TV news. The major cable networks, in discussing the shoe-throwing, generally managed to convey not the sad ironies of the event, but rather the notion that shoes are funny and throwing them is funny and throwing them at someone is, you know, really funny. To wit, some of the teehee treatments of the shoe incident said networks treated us to this morning:

"The shoe wasn't on the other foot; it was actually in the air. What President Bush is saying about a bizarre shoe hurling incident at a news conference in Iraq." (teaser, Headline News)

"Every time I see it I bust out laughing. I don't mean to. It could have been a very serious security situation. We saw what happened afterwards." (Heidi Collins, CNN)

"President Bush joked he is used to dodging reporters' questions, but in Iraq this weekend he was dodging shoes. You've probably seen the video now. Tamron Hall with more on what the president calls a 'bizarre incident.'" (teaser, MSNBC)

Even the non-cable news programs found delight in the shoe-throwing situation. Here's CBS's Early Show:

HARRY SMITH: So the tabloids in New York are having a field day with the shoe attack on President Bush in Iraq. The Daily News calls it a 'Shoe-icide Attack.' And then the Post calls it 'Lame Duck,' as in duck—

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Duck! Oh, good one.

JULIE CHEN: Well, his duck was pretty good.

SMITH: Yeah.

CHEN: I mean, it was, you know, thinking fast.

RODRIGUEZ: Yeah....

SMITH: Listen, I've been in the Green Zone in Baghdad and this is—it may be the most secure place on the planet, so nobody is going to be in there with any kind of a weapon. I mean, look at the president's face, look at the look on his face.

CHEN: He didn't look nervous at all.

SMITH: He's amused almost by this.

CHEN: He looked more embarrassed. I mean, he turned a little bit beet red afterwards.

SMITH: Look at this, look at him.

CHEN: And he did kind of shoo off the Secret Service agent who came up--

RODRIGUEZ: No pun intended!

CHEN: --like, 'I'm okay' -- [Laughter] I didn't mean that! Hey, I'm wittier than I think this morning! So, there you go.

Now, sure, the conversational format of much of TV news makes the kind of in-depth analysis we see (and expect) from print coverage difficult. But "conversational" need not mean "inane." There's no reason that the tones of the papers' coverage and their on-air counterparts need be so wildly divergent. Put in less kind terms, there's no reason that the TV coverage's treatment needs to be so ridiculously lacking in context or intelligent analysis--or, for that matter, that on-air treatments of the incident need to be little more than audio-visual versions of tabloid schlock. There's no reason for it—and yet, as someone who'd surely be disappointed in today's punny treatments used to say, that's the way it is.

To that end, I leave the final word to our friends at Fox & Friends, who conducted the following unfortunate exchange this morning, as a chyron blaring "SIZE TEN ATTACK: PRES BUSH DODGES FLYING SHOE IN IRAQ"—and another one declaring "DUCK & COVER"—flashed beneath them:

GRETCHEN CARLSON: The president had a great line saying that this is the sign of a free society. I think we are missing that in the whole discussion. If Iraq was not a free society you wouldn't be able to throw your shoes at anyone. Which I think is a great point.

STEVE DOOCY: Reagan just pretended he couldn't hear the shoe coming at him. Bush also said, "It's like having a political rally and have people yell at you. It's like driving down the street and having people not gesture can all five fingers. I didn't feel the least bit threatened by it."

CARLSON: Fingers don't usually kill when they are from afar.

BRIAN KILMEADE: I often hearken back to Austin Powers and you think about the first time the shoe was used as a weapon.

DOOCY: Are you suggesting the guy may have stolen the idea from Austin Powers?

KILMEADE: You make the call.

[VIDEO CLIP from Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, in which agent Random Task flings a shoe at Austin Powers.

POWERS: Oh, that really hurt. I'm going to have a lump there, you idiot. Who throws a shoe? Honestly.]

KILMEADE: It's true. Who throws a shoe?

DOOCY: Who does? That guy.

"By the way, you are welcome," Doocy added.

"I know what you're saying," Kilmeade replied. "Have an invasion and free these people from the worst dictator since Hitler. That's what you get. Sit down and go wear sneakers next time."

Did the Press Hear What We Heard?

| No Comments

Barack Obama wants to do something about the health care mess, and soon. He said so at his press conference last week, where he introduced his new health chief, Tom Daschle, and Daschle’s deputy, Jeanne Lambrew. The president-elect said it was hard to “overstate the urgency” of their work, adding:

Now some may ask how at this moment of economic challenge we can afford to invest in reforming our health care system. And I ask a different question. I ask how can we afford not to?

So it was heartening to see that, at the end of the press conference, Debbie Charles of Reuters asked the $64,000 billion question: “How are you actually planning to fund your health care program?” Obama’s answer was enlightening, especially in view of all his campaign talk. Throughout the campaign he repeatedly said he would pay for his plan, which involves massive subsidies to help people buy insurance from private carriers, by repealing the Bush tax cuts on those with incomes over $250,000. Cost estimates for Obama proposals have ranged from $65 billion to over $100 billion.

Obama replied that costs must be reduced and the administration would work to streamline and rationalize the health care system while looking for additional dollars to pay for some short-term investments. He said there would be some aggressive initiatives around health information technology and prevention. Then came the real news: “I have not made yet a determination in terms of how we’re going to deal with the rollback of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans,” Obama said. In other words, the rollback, which was to finance roughly half of the proposal, might not happen, or it might be deferred. Now, you would think that this is important information for the public, members of which may have come to believe that Obama had the dollars to pay for his plan. But judging from many major newspapers’ coverage of the press conference, many people probably didn’t get it.

The New York Times’s next day story didn’t get into how Obama would pay for health care coverage. Instead, it discussed Daschle’s qualifications for the job of health czar, including his authorship of a book which calls for a Federal Reserve-like governmental structure for health care. The story hinted at a looming fight with health care lobbyists over establishing such an agency. An Associated Press story missed the part about the tax rollbacks, too. Its story lapsed into a standard political critique, with advocacy group officials commenting on the wisdom of giving Daschle two roles—Secretary of Health and Human Services and White House health guru.

The Washington Post ran two stories, neither of which mentioned the tax rollbacks. One story noted how health might figure into the stimulus package. (The government plans to shove billions into health information technology.) The other story hinted at how the president-elect would deal with the cost of subsidies for the uninsured. That story reported Obama “has provided few details about what his health-care reform proposal would include. And he declined to outline how his administration would pay for an overhaul.” No mention of the tax rollbacks.

USA Today and yesterday’s New York Times Week in Review section came closer to telling readers the real news, although neither offered Obama’s exact quote. USA Today reported that Obama “did not say where he would get the money,” and noted that raising taxes on the wealthy was not likely to happen “until at least 2011.” The paper also offered important context, pointing out that an analysis this fall by The Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, found that neither health information technology nor management of chronic diseases will raise enough money to pay for Obama’s proposals.

In yesterday’s Week in Review story, Kevin Sack, who has done some good explanatory journalism this year, wrote that Obama reaffirmed that his rollback proposal might be deferred because of the recession. Sack again noted that there was considerable dispute about whether the savings generated from health IT would go very far in reducing the national medical bill.

All of this suggests that the media need to step up their watchdog role and hold politicians accountable for their promises. Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told Roll Call a few weeks ago “there’s a huge difference between primary rhetoric, general election rhetoric, and ultimately governing rhetoric.” The lobbyists know that. Does the public?

David Shenk on Data Smog

| No Comments

Journalist David Shenk has been writing about the topic of information overload for over a decade. In his 1997 book Data Smog, Shenk was one of the first to identify the problem, explore it in detail, and propose some possible solutions. CJR's Russ Juskalian recently talked with Shenk about information overload and its ramifications for journalism.

 

 

Edited by Betwa Sharma

This article is part of our online supplement to the November/December print issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. To read that issue’s cover story, entitled "Overload!: Journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information", click here.

The Times has some amusing-if-pathetic details in its story on how the Big Three are cutting back to the bare bones on even mundane expenses, like using regular pencils instead of mechanical ones.

Chrysler has closed cafeterias in some of its plants, as well as the executive dining room at headquarters. G.M. is stocking office supply cabinets with cheaper pencils, turning down the heat in plants, and trimming back its inventory of replacement parts for factory equipment...

Some of the cutbacks are sizable, like the planned shutdown on Dec. 31 of its underused S.U.V. factory in Newark, Del. Others are incremental, like not removing snow from the top floor of the parking deck at Chrysler headquarters, or substituting lunch wagons for cafeterias at assembly plants...

It has also begun a program called “share the spare,” in which a group of nearby factories stock a single replacement part for production machines like conveyor belts.

Of course, a story about Detroit's desperate frugality is useful PR for the companies as they try to get bailout funds from Washington. But it's still worthwhile as a portrait of how far the companies have fallen.

MediaNews' Busted Newspaper Bets

| 1 Comment

The Times has a nice story on Dean Singleton's MediaNews and the problems it's facing in this atrocious time for newspapers.

"In retrospect, the timing was not good," said Mr. Singleton, the head of and a major shareholder in the company, which is privately held. "But in our business, you buy newspapers when they're for sale. If we could have foreseen the current economic downturn in the state, it might have changed our views, but we couldn't foresee that."

It was hardly a minority opinion at the time that MediaNews and others were overpaying for papers. But what did that matter when "in our business, you buy newspapers when they're for sale"? Get this guy his own Welch/Iacocca-style business how-to book!

Singleton is known for being a staff cutter, but in fairness, it seems like it would have been hard not to gut the San Jose Mercury News with numbers like these:

At the peak of the dot-com boom, The Mercury News had more than $100 million a year in help-wanted classified ads; this year, executives say, the figure will be around $10 million.

Still, the Times report shows that MediaNews has underinvested in the paper's Web site, which is an area whose readership is more Web-savvy than any other.

Mr. Butler, the editor, said that with money tight, Web improvements have to wait. “Until or unless we see that those things pay for themselves, we make a serious mistake in focusing too much on that,” he said.

Lots of businesses don't pay for themselves on day one. That's no excuse not to try.

"Amusing," "interesting" and "weird" is how Pres. Bush, in an interview with ABC News's Martha Raddatz, described the incident over the weekend during which an Iraqi television reporter threw two shoes at him during a joint press conference with Prime Minister Maliki in Baghdad. (Politico's Mike Allen reports: "Journalists at the scene said the hurler was Muntadar al-Zaidi, a reporter for Al-Baghdadia TV, an independent satellite channel based in Cairo.")

In the below footage, you'll hear an MSNBC reporter explain that the "hurler" "screamed, 'This is a farewell kiss, you dog,'" as he launched the shoes at Bush and that "in the Arab culture, the sole of the shoe is considered an insult. So this was the reporter's way of insulting President Bush during his surprise visit to Baghdad."


UPDATE: Also from that moments-after-ducking-the-shoes interview with ABC's Raddatz, during an exchange about Bush's legacy:

PRES. BUSH: ...one of the major theaters against Al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq...


RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded…

BUSH: Yeah, that, that’s right. So what?

Bloomberg on Madoff's Auditor

| No Comments

Bloomberg does some basic legwork on the Bernard Madoff scandal and gets some great color out of it. One of the red flags some investors saw early was that this fund, which apparently had more than $50 billion in investments, was audited out of a 200-square-foot office in the suburbs of New York.

A woman who works in a nearby office, who didn’t want to be identified, said Friehling doesn’t come to the office regularly. When he does, he is the only person there.

Another woman in a nearby office, Leslie Cousar, said the man who comes to the auditor’s office does so for 10-to-15 minute periods, and wears tight pants and tie-dyed shirts. Cousar said she never saw anyone else going to the office during the day, but at about 5:30 p.m., another man would show up and use the location.

“He’s in and out of there,” Cousar said.

I'm sure he was.

The real problem for newspapers, in other words, isn’t the Internet; it’s us. We want access to everything, we want it now, and we want it for free...For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime—intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on—and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can’t last. Soon enough, we’re going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is.

Writes James Surowiecki in his column in this week's New Yorker (here, now, free).

Sliver of hope? Well, there is this:

The blogosphere, much of which piggybacks on traditional journalism’s content, has magnified the reach of newspapers, and although papers now face far more scrutiny, this is a kind of backhanded compliment to their continued relevance.

UPDATE: Brian Till, "one of the nation’s youngest syndicated columnists," realizes, "I am the murderer of news" and warns fellow freeloaders:

The news industry is in collapse; a critical piece of successful democracy is in jeopardy... Unless you trust blogs to accurately and consistently report news, or trust government and business to be completely forthcoming with their misdeeds, you ought to recognize the free ride you’ve been on and stand to pay your fare...

...just as soon as news organizations start collecting it.

The Washington Post has a nice scoop today that the executive-pay provisions of the bailout law are basically unenforceable.

But at the last minute, the Bush administration insisted on a one-sentence change to the provision, congressional aides said. The change stipulated that the penalty would apply only to firms that received bailout funds by selling troubled assets to the government in an auction, which was the way the Treasury Department had said it planned to use the money.

Now, however, the small change looks more like a giant loophole, according to lawmakers and legal experts. In a reversal, the Bush administration has not used auctions for any of the $335 billion committed so far from the rescue package, nor does it plan to use them in the future. Lawmakers and legal experts say the change has effectively repealed the only enforcement mechanism in the law dealing with lavish pay for top executives.

Something's fishy with the Bush administration's actions here. It says it wanted that provision because it needed to lure "healthy" companies to participate, and they would have been unlikely to with pay-restriction rules. But has the government really given capital to "healthy" firms?

Adding to the stench, the Post catches the Treasury Department lying to Congress, but for some reason buries it toward the bottom of the story:

Meanwhile, Paulson repeatedly told lawmakers that he did not plan to use bailout funds to inject capital directly into financial institutions. Privately, however, his staff was developing plans to do just that, Paulson acknowledged in an interview.

That's it?

Rahm-nipresent Media

| No Comments

So the broadcast media, collectively, can probably expect to receive a dead fish in the mail at some point in the not too distant future. Because: They. Have. Royally. Pissed. Off. Rahmbo.

"I'm getting regular death threats," Emmanuel told an ABC cameraman. "You've put my home address on national television. I'm pissed at the networks. You've intruded too much."

Evidence? The cameraman on the receiving end of Emmanuel's burst of anger "was invited inside by Emmanuel to use his bathroom this morning."

Time to Tighten the Belt

| No Comments

There was a time when to be an employee at publishing behemoth Time Inc. was to enjoy the perks--charter planes! Rainbow Room memberships! newsroom drink carts!--of a booming industry. A time not that long ago, actually. The Daily Beast's Jesse Oxfeld offers a look back on the way we were.

Death by Obiticide

| No Comments

I have some bad news to pass along this week: two people were killed as a result of sloppy journalism.

It happens more often than you might expect. It’s frequent enough, in fact, that I’ve come up with a name for this phenomenon: obiticide. Death by media error.

Newsday was one of the guilty parties, as evidenced by this correction:

In an article published yesterday about autism, some editions reported incorrectly that Vito “Billy” Albanese Jr. died at an out-of-state residential facility. Albanese is living in Brooklyn with his father.

British paper The Observer also published a correction to atone for shunting Ted Sorensen into an early grave:

Ted Sorensen, the author of Counselor, was unfortunately described as ‘the late’ in our Books pages last week; we are happy to report that John F Kennedy’s adviser and speechwriter is still very much with us. And Julia Blackburn, not Blackwell, wrote The Three of Us, published by Cape (Books, last week). Apologies.

Sorensen is something of a mistake magnet. Last year, The New York Times admitted that it had misspelled his name more than 135 times over the last fifty-plus years. If given the choice, though, Sorensen probably prefers having his name mangled to being knocked off. Still, he’s in good company. This Wikipedia page shows just how many famous people have been felled before their time by premature obituaries.

I dedicated an entire chapter of my book to obiticide (and you can read a chapter excerpt here), but that’s hardly put the issue to rest. Just this past year, newspapers have killed off Frank McCourt, Billy Graham (twice!), Muhammad Ali, Pat Robertson and Victor Willis of Village People fame. (Okay, it’s a bit of a stretch to include the last one.)

A lot of not-so-famous people were also victims. Heck, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution even killed a funeral director:

James Thrash, a funeral home owner, was incorrectly listed as deceased in the deaths/funerals list of Tuesday’s Metro section.

As a rule, errors made about an individual, be it a misspelled name or incorrect age, taint that person’s perception of the media outlet in question. They may never be in the paper again, but they’ll always remember what happened when they were. So what happens when they’re incorrectly labeled as being deceased? Most seem to take it surprisingly well. Last year, the Bangor Daily News published this report about an incorrect obit:

Anne E. Hathaway was somewhat shocked Friday when a friend called to see if she was still alive.

The Orono resident’s obituary had appeared in Friday’s Bangor Daily News. The information in the short obituary and the list of death notices was correct, except for the part about her being dead.

The deceased was actually Ann Hathaway of Bangor.

Both women had made advance funeral arrangements at the same funeral home. When pulling the file for the deceased Ann Hathaway, the funeral home employee didn’t realize there were two women with very similar names and grabbed the wrong one.

One interesting note about obituaries is that they are perhaps the one section of the paper where the business side exercises more due diligence than the editorial side. As evidenced above, a paid obit can only be placed in the paper if the death is confirmed by a funeral home or a member of the family. That’s not necessarily the case on the editorial side.

I know the extent of the business side’s due diligence because years ago I attempted to help a friend who made a habit of pranking the press place a fake obit in a Canadian paper. I transformed myself into one of the owners of the Silverman Funeral home, taking great care to effect a somber tone and speak barely above a whisper while on the phone. (Everyone knows you have to whisper around dead people.) Yes, I assured the paper, the man in question had passed away.

In the end, because there was no listing for my upstanding funeral business, the paper declined to place the obit for one Mr. Hamburgler, a man who, among other things, “lived life with relish.”

In the end, I was very impressed with the sales department’s standards. Wish I could say the same for the editorial side.

Correction of the Week

"AN ARTICLE in last week’s Sunday Age, “Born to be, um, mild — and possibly damp”, contained views about biker groups that were inserted in the editing process.

As well, the survey of motorcyclists who rode for about three hours every weekend found that many had problems emptying their bladders.

The story stated that bike riders could be “bedwetters”. The error was made during editing." -- The Age

A Really Meaningful Implication

In a story Nov. 27, The Associated Press reported that Planned Parenthood of Indiana was offering gift certificates for health screenings, including birth control. Indiana Health Commissioner Dr. Judy Monroe called them a “really meaningful gift” in difficult economic times. The story should have made clear she was commenting only on the certificates’ use for health screenings, rather than for birth control or abortion. -- The Associated Press

Parting Shot

"Starla Kingsley, 21, of Owasso, Okla., who was featured in a photograph published in the Nov. 18 Business section, bought her wedding dress at Chatfields Boutique in Des Peres because she wanted a modest-style dress. She is not pregnant. While some customers go to the specialty store because it caters to brides who are pregnant, others, like Kingsley, are looking for different kinds of dresses and accessories, sometimes for specific religious ceremonies." -- Post-Dispatch

The Journal does some good work in looking at some of the pigs lined up at the $700 billion TARP trough. It reports that life-insurance companies that barely pay any taxes are eager for their taxpayer-funded bailouts.

For instance, Prudential Financial:

Despite reporting pretax profits to shareholders of nearly $25 billion over the past decade, Prudential has paid just $1.3 billion in taxes to federal, state and foreign governments in that period, filings show, for an effective tax rate of 5.1%. That compares with a statutory combined federal and state corporate income-tax rate of about 39.5%.

Check out the hubris:

A company spokesman said its taxes should have no bearing on its participation in TARP. He declined to comment on why Prudential was applying for assistance.

Rule No. 1 of the bailout should be you have to tell us why you want the money.

More:

The insurers aren't doing anything improper. They are benefiting from a variety of provisions in the tax code intended to favor the industry...

Some critics contend any bailout money should be accompanied by changes to boost the industry's future tax rates.

The life-insurance companies "want to be subsidized when they're making money and be bailed out when they're not," said Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal tax-policy research group in Washington, D.C. "If they're going to get a bailout I think they should promise they'll start paying taxes in the future"...

In general, the commercial banks and investment banks that have received the bulk of federal bailout money have much higher effective tax rates than life insurers.

This is good watchdog reporting by the Journal.

Hall & Oates revamp a classic to bid a fond farewell to Fox's resident "Token Liberal":

Fed Slaps Down Bloomberg FOIA

| No Comments

Bloomberg keeps the heat on the Federal Reserve to disclose to whom it's given $2 trillion in loans. The news service sued last month to try to force the disclosure.

But the Fed keeps stonewalling.

The Fed responded Dec. 8, saying it’s allowed to withhold internal memos as well as information about trade secrets and commercial information. The institution confirmed that a records search found 231 pages of documents pertaining to some of the requests.

“If they told us what they held, we would know the potential losses that the government may take and that’s what they don’t want us to know,” said Carlos Mendez, who oversees about $14 billion at New York-based ICP Capital LLC.

The Fed threw Bloomberg a small bone, disclosing who holds the collateral:

The Fed supplied copies of three e-mails in response to a request that it disclose the identities of those supplying data on collateral as well as their contracts.

While the senders and recipients of the messages were revealed, the contents were erased except for two phrases identifying a vendor as “IDC.” One of the e-mails’ subject lines refers to “Interactive Data -- Auction Rate Security Advisory May 1, 2008.”

While it quotes the Fed's defense, it would have been good for Bloomberg to report what the possible harm would be of disclosing the information:

“Notwithstanding calls for enhanced transparency, the Board must protect against the substantial, multiple harms that might result from disclosure,” Jennifer J. Johnson, the secretary for the Fed’s Board of Governors, said in a letter e-mailed to Bloomberg News.

“In its considered judgment and in view of current circumstances, it would be a dangerous step to release this otherwise confidential information,” she wrote.

Though this hints at the Fed's reasoning:

Banks oppose any release of information because that might signal weakness and spur short-selling or a run by depositors, Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group, said in an interview last month.

But Bloomberg is in the right here. It would be nice if other news organizations would jump on this bandwagon.

Audit Interview: Michael Hudson

| 1 Comment

Lots of people have asked why the press didn't tell us loudly enough that the subprime train was a-comin'. But if you read the work of Michael Hudson, you'd have had a good idea of what was in store.

Hudson, with colleague E. Scott Reckard, wrote what Audit chief Dean Starkman has called “two of the most revealing stories on the culture that overtook the lending industry” in February and March of 2005 on the criminal culture at now-disgraced Ameriquest.

Here's a sample:

“It was like a boiler room,” said Bomchill, 37. “You produce, you make a lot of money. Or you move on. There’s no real compassion or understanding of the position they’re putting their customers in.”


Indeed, Bomchill – who said he left Ameriquest because he didn’t like the way the company treated its employees and customers, and now works as a mortgage broker – contends that the drive to close deals and grab six-figure salaries led many Ameriquest employees astray: They forged documents, hyped customers’ creditworthiness and “juiced” mortgages with hidden rates and fees.

Such claims are not unusual against sub-prime lenders, which are a frequent target of consumer groups.

Dean has also pointed to an excellent story Hudson did on Citigroup's rotten subprime foundation in 2003:

But Hudson's stories on dirty home-lending practices go even further back. Here's one from 1992 in The Washington Monthly on predatory home-equity lenders.

And he wrote and edited a book in 1996 called “Merchants of Misery: How Corporate America Profits From Poverty”, which ripped subprime lending and other shady credit practices.

Hudson has been a staff reporter at The Wall Street Journal, where he wrote a great piece looking at Wall Street's role in creating the subprime mess (and once co-wrote a story—most of which ended up on the cutting-room floor—with me on coming problems in commercial mortgages) and The Roanoke Times and written for many other major publications, including The New York Times.

Hudson is now a senior investigator for the Center for Responsible Lending and is writing a book on the rise and fall of the subprime market.

The Audit talked to him recently.

Floyd Norris in the NYT points out something worth watching: a lawsuit against Countrywide Financial that's been allowed to go forward by a federal judge in California.

The Countrywide complaint, she wrote, presents “the extraordinary case where a company’s essential operations are so at odds with the company’s public statements that many statements that would not be actionable in the vast majority of cases” can form the basis of a complaint.

“For example,” she wrote, “descriptions such as ‘high quality’ are generally not actionable; they are vague and subjective puffery not capable of being material as a matter of law.”

But in this case, she said, the complaint claims “Countrywide’s practices so departed from its public statements that even ‘high quality’ became materially false and misleading; and that to apply the puffery rule to such allegations would deny that ‘high quality’ has any meaning.”

Norris connects this case to the rising public anger (I say you ain't seen nothin' yet) over the crisis and says it could provide a template for prosecuting others in the financial industry if that anger boils over:

The executives may not have understood how badly they were hurting their banks, but perhaps it can be proved they knew, or should have known, that claims of disciplined and high-quality lending practices were woefully wrong.

That seems indisputable.

A Worthwhile Canadian Article

| No Comments

Americans could be forgiven for being a little preoccupied. After all, in the last several weeks, we've had a presidential transition, an economy in death spiral, and a state government meltdown. Oh, and Oprah's put on some weight.

But let's just admit it--even without all that, we'd still probably be ignoring what's going on in Canada. I could argue that this is a bad thing for all the usual reasons. You know how it goes: largest trading partner, major ally in Afghanistan, cross-border production in the suddenly-timely auto industry, etc. And that's all true enough.

But here’s another reason it’s worth paying attention: right now Canada's politics are really, really interesting. Really!

After a once in a century attempt to form a coalition government and thereby topple the Conservative government, Prime Minister Stephen Harper got the Queen’s representative to suspend parliament, sending the nation into the freeze-tag portion of its unfolding constitutional crisis. There’s a decent chance that the minority Conservative government could fall, and that the newly installed Liberal leader could emerge, with the backing of two other parties, as the country’s prime minister by February.

That new Liberal leader is Michael Ignatieff, who, just three years ago, was a contributing writer to The New York Times Magazine, which he abandoned to enter Canada’s parliament in January 2006.

That summer, Micheal Valpy, a veteran Canadian journalist, admirably profiled this man who could be prime minister for the Toronto Globe and Mail. While Valpy’s 13,000 word piece is less than revealing of his policy positions—in a remarkably erudite reader chat, Valpy referred a questioner to Ignatieff’s website—it is extraordinarily revealing of Ignatieff’s psychology and biography, from the night he lost his virginity, to his intellectual estrangement from his closest friends over Britain’s Thatcher-era mining strike, to the dissolution of his first marriage, his troubled relationship with his brother, and his rise to intellectual celebrity.

Ignatieff’s led a rather striking life for a potential leader of one of the world’s largest industrial democracies, and one completely different from the American norm. It’s hard to imagine there’s a better way to find that out than Valpy’s stunningly researched piece.

Blago's Mother Knows Best?

| No Comments

ABC News highlights 2006 footage of Gov. Blagojevich speaking at a Democratic Party event in Chicago in which he mentions how his mother said to him after he was elected governor, "Promise me, son, you'll never take bribes," and how he told her, '"Of course I'll never take bribes. Not only would that be dishonest, it would be illegal..." (It was a kind of set-up to the punchline that his mother went on to ask him, "Do you think you can get Aunt Daisy's son-in-law a job?")

Have a listen:

An outfit for radio

| No Comments

On Tuesday morning, Chicago's reporters had no idea what sort of day they'd be facing. Not surprisingly, some were caught unprepared when Blagojevich was arrested, and their state thrown into turmoil.

So the below video of radio-man Ben Calhoun, a WBEZ reporter, borrowing a tie from a business staffer is downright adorable. You can't go on the NewsHour without a tie!


Putting the "tie" in "teamwork" from WBEZ on Vimeo.

On WBEZ's news blog, where the video is posted, you'll find this joking comment from the station's web editor:

Well, truth be told, Newshour wanted me to do the spot yesterday but I wore my cut-off jeans short and Miller high-life half-shirt to work. So they moved on to Ben who at least had a suit jacket. Lesson today: don’t wear cut-off jean shorts to work.

Ah, the dangers of radio couture.

NYT Lets Treasury Off Too Easy

| No Comments

The Times lets Neel Kashkari, the Treasury's bailout guy, off the hook in a news story on congressional hearings yesterday.

Congress wants bailout funds to be accompanied by serious disclosure rules and a mandate that banks actually lend the money given to them instead of hoarding it. Kashkari doesn't:

In response, Mr. Kashkari drew a distinction between the conditions imposed on failing institutions as they were being rescued and strings tied to the money being injected into healthy banks to strengthen the financial system.

The Treasury has been “very aggressive” in dealing with failing institutions like Fannie Mae and the American International Group, he said. It has required the replacement of top management and demanded “the ultimate sacrifice” from shareholders as the price of the bailout.

But he argued that it would be counterproductive to impose similarly drastic conditions on healthy banks that receive money because the goal of those investments is to encourage the private sector to invest alongside the government.

Overly harsh conditions “will discourage private investors from getting in,” he said. “We don’t want to scare them off.”

Wait a minute. Congress is asking to disclose lending here, not fire managers and wipe out shareholders.

The Times shouldn't have let Kashkari get away with opposing a straw man.

Google "looked at the most popular searches conducted for 11 months of 2008 (we compile this list by early December) and ranked them based on how much their frequency increased compared to 2007," dubbing these the "fastest rising" search terms of the year (h/t Kevin Drum). And?

"Fastest rising" search in Google News? "Sarah Palin." "Fastest rising" search in Google Images? "Sarah Palin". "Fastest rising" search for Google proper? "Obama." And "Fox News" is sixth and the only news org on that list. (Why so many more "Fox News" Google searches this past year than in 2007? All entirely election-related? Or, what?)

"Fox" also tops the "Top Sources [Searched] For Political News" in 2008 list:

1) Fox
2) CNN
3) ABC
4) CBS
5) MSNBC
6) Drudge Report
7) New York Times
8) SNL (thanks to searches for the "show's up-to-the-minute spoofs on the campaign.")
9) Huffington Post
10) Wall Street Journal

Not surprisingly, "Joe the Plumber" is first on the list of top "Campaign Buzzwords" searched in 2008 ("lipstick pig" is sixth).

Portfolio Pries Into Pequot

| 2 Comments

Portfolio's Scot Paltrow has a very interesting story on some doings between Pequot Capital and one of the firm's former employees, who had funneled inside information to it about Microsoft several years ago, causing an SEC investigation.

Divorce-court proceedings show Pequot has paid the ex-employee $1.4 million since last year and pledge another $700,000. All this to someone who hasn't worked at the firm in seven years and was under investigation by the feds for giving inside information to Pequot to help it make money on Microsoft stock.

That investigation, which also included allegations about Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack, went nowhere, to the chagrin of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the SEC's inspector general. Here's why:

Records made public in the investigation show that in February 2001, in the same email in which he offered Zilkha a job, Samberg pressed him for information about Microsoft. Zilkha then was still employed by Microsoft. The email said "might as well pick your brain before you go on the payroll!"

On April 6, 2001, Samberg in an email pressed Zilkha for any "tidbits" about Microsoft. Zilkha responded the next day that he would get back to Samberg "ASAP."

Three days later, Samberg, who had been betting that Microsoft's stock would go down, reversed course and began amassing 30,000 Microsoft options in a bet the stock would go up, according to S.E.C. records from the case.

On April 17, Zilkha reported in an email to Samberg that Microsoft's chief financial officer had been unusually upbeat in advance of the company's pending quarterly earnings announcement. The email appears in S.E.C. files.

Microsoft announced its earnings on April 19, beating analysts' expectations. The stock rose, and a day later Samberg closed out his positions, reaping that $12 million profit. That day, Samberg emailed Zilkha that "I shouldn't say this, but you probably have paid for yourself already," investigators found.

Seem like it's hard not to bring an insider-trading case with that kind of evidence.

So why the $2.1 million in payments? Paltrow notes that it could be some sort of settlement because the ex-employee was fired from Pequot in 2001, though he also notes that was a long time ago.

But he also reports that the ex-employee, who had been given immunity, gave testimony favorable to Pequot in the investigation before it ended in 2006. The payments began the next year.

This is good work by Portfolio to bring this to light.

889 Minus 64 at NPR

| No Comments

From the Washington Post:

Faced with a sharp decline in revenue, National Public Radio said Wednesday it will pare back its programming and institute its first organization-wide layoffs in 25 years...


The cutback of 64 of NPR's 889 employees ... will affect all departments, including reporters, producers, researchers and digital media employees...About half the 64 people cut are journalists...

...including Ketzel Levine, "an NPR reporter since 1977," who debuted on Monday's Morning Edition a series on "how Americans are surviving the economic downturn" and "said that if editors allow it, she will make a final installment of the series about the experience of losing her own job."

A Laurel to the Rocky Mountain News

| No Comments

Laurel to the Rocky Mountain News for uncovering a systemic effort by a federal Department of Labor program to deny compensation to former nuclear-arms workers sickened by exposure to radiation.

In January 2008, the Denver-based Rocky launched a six-month investigation to examine why thousands of sick workers were experiencing extensive delays and rejections when they sought compensation from a federal program created to serve them. In the three-part series that resulted, deadly denial, published in July, reporter Laura Frank, with the help of project editor Jim Trotter and reporter Ann Imse, showed that the “Labor Department has delayed the cases of sick nuclear weapons workers or their survivors across the nation by giving misleading information, withholding records essential to their cases, failing to inform them of alternative paths to aid, repeatedly claiming to have lost evidence sent by ill workers and making requirements for compensation impossibly high.” Throughout the series, the Rocky hammered home a central point: these problems were not a result of bureaucratic bungling, but rather a conscious plan by the Labor Department to avoid paying claims.

Frank wrote her first story about the plight of the nuclear workers in 1997 as a reporter at The Tennessean. Former employees at plants where uranium was processed into bomb fuel began developing a variety of cancers and other diseases that their doctors couldn’t explain. At first, the government denied that radioactive materials and related toxic substances were making the workers sick. Then in 2000, in a surprising about-face, the Clinton administration created the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program within the Department of Energy to pay medical bills and provide compensation.

The New York Times takes a nuanced look at FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair this morning. She's the Bush administration member who's been loudest about the need to bail out homeowners since we're bailing out Wall Street with trillions of dollars. And she's taking fire, some of it justified, from others in the administration.

This is a good scoop:

White House and Treasury officials argue that Mrs. Bair’s high-profile campaigning is meant to promote herself while making them look heartless. As a result, they have begun excluding Mrs. Bair from some discussions, though she remains active in conversations where the F.D.I.C.’s support is needed, like the Citigroup rescue.

While Bair has gotten lots of good press for casting her lot with homeowners, the Times is good to check up on how these programs are doing. Terrible, it turns out:

quickly aid millions of homeowners at a reasonable cost. Mrs. Bair unveiled a program to help the 65,000 borrowers who are more than two months delinquent on their mortgages at IndyMac, the giant failed bank taken over by her agency this summer. But so far, that program has benefited only 7,200 people.

A representative of IndyMac said that many of the overdue loans turned out to be ineligible for the program, and that some borrowers had not yet responded to the bank’s modification offers.

Other efforts have also stumbled. A $300 billion foreclosure prevention program passed by Congress this summer to help up to 400,000 homeowners wound up larded with requirements, like requiring background checks and restricting eligibility for mortgage relief to people at risk of foreclosure as of March 1.

As a result, fewer than 200 people have applied for the program since it opened in October...

If there's a flaw with the story it's that it leaned too much on administration critics of Bair. But it balances that out by letting the administration embarrass itself:

“Every one of these programs seems like a great idea at first,” said Tony Fratto, the White House deputy press secretary. “Our concerns are that many of them pay off people who knowingly made bad decisions and lenders who created the subprime crisis. It’s unquestionable that rewarding those people lacks support among the American people.”

Neat little trick there, combining borrowers with lenders. But the lenders (or lots of them, anyway) are already getting bailed out by the very same government.

And this is a shame:

“It’s become clear that if you stick your head up, it’ll get cut off,” said one White House official. “We’re done in two months. The next administration can try to find a way out of that maze.”

That will probably come too late for Ms. Middleton, whose home is scheduled to be sold this month.

Nice work by the Times.

Winners & Sinners

| No Comments

Here is everything U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said at his news conference Tuesday about any possible involvement Barack Obama might have had with the alleged attempt of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell Obama's newly vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder:

I should make clear, the complaint makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever, his conduct. This part of the scheme lost steam when the person that the governor thought was the president- elect's choice of senator took herself out of the running. But after the deal never happened, this is the governor's reaction, quote, "They're not willing to give me anything but appreciation. Bleep them," close quote. And again, the bleep is a redaction....

But we ask that the press, in particular, recognize that we're not casting aspersions on people other than the two people we charged, and bear that in mind and be responsible....

Okay. I'm not going to speak for what the president-elect was aware of. We make no allegations that he's aware of anything, and that's as simply as I can put it....

So I simply pointed out that if you look at the complaint, there's no allegation that the president-elect--there's no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving the president-elect or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it. And that's all I can say....

[Q: Sir, just to be crystal-clear on this point, you're not aware of any conversation, then, that took place between the governor and any member of Barack Obama's transition team at all?]

And what I simply said is you can read the complaint. I'm not going to sit here with a seventy-six-page complaint and parse through it. You know, that's all we're alleging. And I'm just--I'm not going to start going down and saying, "Did anyone ever talk to anyone?" You can read what we allege in the complaint. It's pretty detailed. Look in the seventy-six pages, and if you don't see it, it's not there.

Once upon a time, a blanket statement like that would have led reporters to say in their stories, "The U.S. Attorney said there was no evidence that Obama was involved in any way with the governor's effort." And then moved on from there.

No more.

SinnersMike McIntire and Jeff Zeleny of The New York Times, for a truly exotic story about how Obama was somehow besmirched by a role in all this. Last September, at the height of the presidential campaign, Obama successfully lobbied his political mentor, the president of the Illinois State Senate, to override the governor's veto of an ethics reform bill. Per McIntire and Zeleny: "After the call from Mr. Obama, the Senate overrode the veto, prompting the governor to press state contractors for campaign contributions before the law's restrictions could take effect on Jan. 1, prosecutors say."

Sounds like Obama couldn't be cleaner on this issue, right? But according to the Times, there's a dark side to all of this:

Mr. Obama's unusual decision to inject himself into a statewide issue during the height of his presidential campaign was a reminder that despite his historic ascendancy to the White House, he has never quite escaped the murky and insular world of Illinois politics. It is a world he has long navigated, to the consternation of his critics, by engaging in a kind of realpolitik, Chicago-style, which allowed him to draw strength from his relationships with important players without becoming compromised by their many weaknesses.

Here is how Winner and Philadelphia Daily Newser Will Bunch dissected the problems with the Times reporters' approach, in a column titled "Obama's support of ethics reform is good news for the GOP...or Rudy Giuliani, or something like that":

Seriously, I'm trying to get my arms around this new story on the Blagojevich scandal that The New York Times has put out there. The lede of the article is tantalizing:
In a sequence of events that neatly captures the contradictions of Barack Obama's rise through Illinois politics, a phone call he made three months ago to urge passage of a state ethics bill indirectly contributed to the downfall of a fellow Democrat he twice supported, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.

Mr. Obama placed the call to his political mentor, Emil Jones Jr., president of the Illinois Senate. Mr. Jones was a critic of the legislation, which sought to curb the influence of money in politics, as was Mr. Blagojevich, who had vetoed it. But after the call from Mr. Obama, the Senate overrode the veto, prompting the governor to press state contractors for campaign contributions before the law's restrictions could take effect on Jan. 1, prosecutors say.


OK, so what I'm getting from that is that Barack Obama supports ethics in government, that he doesn't think state contractors should be making large campaign contributions. Hey, that's a good thing, right?

Right?

Uh, according to The New York Times, not necessarily:

Beyond the irony of its outcome, Mr. Obama's unusual decision to inject himself into a statewide issue during the height of his presidential campaign was a reminder that despite his historic ascendancy to the White House, he has never quite escaped the murky and insular world of Illinois politics. It is a world he has long navigated, to the consternation of his critics, by engaging in a kind of realpolitik, Chicago-style, which allowed him to draw strength from his relationships with important players without becoming compromised by their many weaknesses.

"Beyond the irony of its outcome..."? Huh? How about...beyond the irony of the fact that an Obama phone call for an ethics reform bill -- strongly opposed by none other than Rod Blagojevich -- is an excuse to somehow tie him to the "murky" world of Chicago politics. Look (as Obama himself might say), there's some interesting new information in this Times article, but their basic perspective is all upside-down wrong.



Did it occur to them that maybe Obama was elected 44th president of the United States exactly because he HAS escaped "the murky and insular world of Illinois politics"? When people ask why would someone like Obama involve himself in Chicago politics, the bottom line is Chicago is where he lived -- he moved there to organize laid-off steelworkers, got a job there and then even married a Windy City native.



Most people run for office in THE CITY WHERE THEY LIVE -- that caused Obama to cross paths with an interesting cast of characters, but in the case of Rod Blagojevich, it seems like once he took the measure of the man he didn't want much to do with him. He had little to do with Blago after 2006, didn't even ask him to speak at the Dem convention in 2008, and his people didn't give the governor the time of day regarding his recent Senate machinations. Obama mostly kept their "murky" world at arm's length, which is a reason why he is president-elect and why the notion that a machine hack like Blagojevich could even think about running for president in 2016 is almost proof of his insanity.



But this Times story is Day One of what is going to be a brand new silly season in American politics, just when you thought it was safe. No matter how much the next few days demonstrate that Obama didn't want any part of Blago's scam, every phone call in which a junior staffer didn't immediately hang up, or any time that Obama and Blagojevich were in the same room and Obama didn't slap a pair of cuffs on the governor will be more proof of the "murky" circles that Obama travels in.



Wait until they found out that Obama's set foot in Philadelphia, too.

Sinners: For a whole series of similarly ridiculous stories, see all of them cited in this morning's Note from ABC News—except, of course, The Note doesn't characterize them that way.

WinnerDave Aeikens, president of the Society of Professional Journalists, for calling on NBC News six days ago "to sever the network's relationship with retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey to re-establish the integrity of its reporting on military-related issues, including the war in Iraq" in the wake of David Barstow's brilliant investigation of McCaffrey's multiple conflicts of interest, which I discussed here last week.

NBC ignored the SPJ entirely until Full Court Press asked NBC's senior vice president for media  relations, Allison Gollust, for a comment. Reaching for FCP's chutzpah award of 2008, Sinner Gollust offered this response:

SPJ's Ethics Committee came to its conclusion without seeking any information or facts from NBC News—they simply took the reporting of David Barstow as evidence of an ethical problem at NBC News. For a group of journalists in an organization that supposedly is committed to a "free-flow of information vital to a well-informed citizenry," we find this rush to judgement unfortunate and irresponsible.

Note to Gollust: The reporting of Barstow is indisputable evidence of a gigantic ethical problem at NBC News. That's why it wasn't necessary to contact you before making a very obvious recommendation.

FCP also asked, "Has NBC ever mentioned this controversy on Nightly News, or any of its other broadcasts? If so, please tell me when and where." Gollust replied, "We covered it following the first article in April."  However, FCP is quite certain the controversy has never been mentioned on Nightly News, and Gollust ignored three requests to point us to specific broadcasts in which it was covered. According to one of Glenn Greenwald's posts last week, Gollust's answer is a lie: "Clocks were even created to count the number of days the networks blackballed Barstow's story--and it currently stands at 223 days, and counting."

Winner: Blogger Jerome Little for remembering that back in May of 2000, the indispensable Sy Hersh wrote 25,000 words in the New Yorker suggesting that McCaffrey might have committed war crimes during  the first Gulf War, by carrying out an all-out attack on "a retreating Republican Guard tank division off Highway 8 west of Basra." Hersh wrote,

McCaffrey's assault was one of the biggest and most one-sided-of the Gulf War, but no journalists appear to have been in the area at the time, and, unlike the "highway of death," it did not produce pictures and descriptions that immediately appeared on international television and in the world press....
 

McCaffrey refused to be interviewed by Hersh but issued a statement denying any wrongdoing. The bottom line in Hersh's piece:

McCaffrey's insistence that the Iraqis attacked first was disputed in interviews for this article by some of his subordinates in the wartime headquarters of the 24th Division, and also by soldiers and officers who were at the scene on March 2nd. The accounts of these men, taken together, suggest that McCaffrey's offensive, two days into a ceasefire, was not so much a counterattack provoked by enemy fire as a systematic destruction of Iraqis who were generally fulfilling the requirements of the retreat; most of the Iraqi tanks travelled from the battlefield with their cannons reversed and secured, in a position known as travel-lock. According to these witnesses, the 24th faced little determined Iraqi resistance at any point during the war or its aftermath; they also said that McCaffrey and other senior officers exaggerated the extent of Iraqi resistance throughout the war.

Update: Yesterday, NBC News senior vice president Allison Gollust issued the statement above, attacking the Society for Professional Journalists for failing to contact NBC before it called upon the network to sever its ties to General Barry McCaffrey.

It turns out Ms. Gollust's accusation is flatly false.

Today, Scott A. Leadingham, Communications Coordinator, Society of Professional Journalists, supplied FCP with a copy of this e-mail, which he sent to Ms. Gollust the day before SPJ issued its statement. Leadingham told FCP he also spoke with Gollust's assistant twice on the day he sent the e-mail, but Ms. Gollust never responded to any of his messages. Here is the e-mail:

Hello, Ms. Gollust.

I’m contacting you in regard to the Society of Professional Journalists responding to media reports about NBC analyst Gen. Barry McCaffrey. Our ethics committee is preparing to issue a statement calling on NBC to sever its relationship with Gen. McCaffrey in light of a conflict of interest recently reported by the New York Times. Specifically, the ethic committee is calling on NBC News President Steve Capus and Nightly News Anchor/Managing Editor Brian Williams to respond.

Before issuing such a statement, however, SPJ would like to give NBC a chance to respond. If NBC so chooses, we will include your response in our statement, in the interest of fairness.

Please contact me by phone or e-mail at your earliest convenience. We would like to issue this statement before the end of the week.

Best Regards,

Scott A. Leadingham Society of Professional Journalists

Update II: Ms. Gollust confirmed to FCP today that, contrary to another statement she made yesterday, no NBC News Broadcast has ever made any mention of the McCaffrey controversy since David Barstow's first article ran in The New York Times last spring.

Update III: Ms. Gollust responds:

Mr. Kaiser,

My statement of yesterday still stands, and I take issue with your accusation that I am a liar. I am not.

Mr. Leadingham, and SPJ, offered me the opportunity to respond to the findings and subsequent actions of the Ethics Committee. By the time he offered us the chance to respond, the Committee had already come to their conclusions, as is evidenced in his note. We decided not to offer a statement in their release, as is our prerogative.

As for our coverage, when I told you that we covered it in April, I was referring to Brian's "Daily Nightly" blog, as well as the brief mention on MSNBC, per my earlier email. The majority of the limited response we had to the initial article was on the "Daily Nightly" site and other internet sites, so we determined that was the most appropriate way to respond.

I believe that answers all your questions.

FCP: This ignores the fact that Gollust's statement about SPJ left the clear impression that the organization had made no effort to contact NBC News before it called upon the network to sever its ties to McCaffrey. And her statement to FCP yesterday that NBC had covered this controversy in April was in response to the question, "Has NBC ever covered this on any of its broadcasts?" It was not a question about MSNBC, or about Brian Williams's posting--which I first wrote about here--immediately after he made it.

Maybe you've heard? That other news out of Chicago this week? "Oprah says she weighs 200 pounds?"

And she's "saying" so on the cover of her magazine's January issue (as well as in an essay inside). She's also going to be "saying" so frequently on her TV show starting in January. Her best friend, Gayle King, was "saying" so on Good Morning America this morning. And, Winfrey will guest on King's radio show in January to "say" so some more.

And, of course, the media (beyond Oprah's own) are also doing their part. "Oprah Says She's O-bese," reports the (New York) Daily News, for example.

How? How did this happen? Fox News's Steve Doocy was working through that very question this morning on Fox & Friends and came up with this:

I wonder if part of it -- you know, it's funny because any time there's a story like this, suddenly the newspapers talk to clinical psychologists, talking about depression and stuff like that. But you have to wonder if Oprah, after she endorsed Obama, she got lambasted in a lot of the right-leaning blogs and stuff like that. I can't believe that she's gone political. You've got to wonder whether or not that took its toll, and she's thinking, "I wonder if I've done something politically that could damage my reputation in the industry?" And one thing leads to another...

Patrick Fitzgerald, a.k.a. Folk Hero?

| 1 Comment

A New York Times profile of smokin’ hot U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald proclaims in its title: “Fond Ties Have Grown Between Chicago and Its Corruption Fighter.” Writes Scott Shane: “As the United States attorney in Chicago, Patrick J. Fitzgerald on Tuesday unveiled the indictment of his second Illinois governor in five years, the latest in a streak of prosecutions that have made him a folk hero in a state beleaguered by official crime.”

As a laudatory appellation, folk hero has a nice ring to it, for sure. In fact, Shane sketches a portrait worthy of a comic book superhero: Fitzgerald “has become a prominent figure as he has taken on the dark, cynical world of local government, where abuse of power appears to have become a way of life.” In New York, he was “long a workaholic bachelor who slept in the office during big mob and terrorism trials.” His friends say he is “a natural for pursuing criminals” and possesses “a sort of righteous indignation at wrongdoing.” Watch your back, denizens of governors’ mansions; hard-assed righteousness is on the move!

But something’s missing in all this: Shane doesn’t quote a single ordinary Chicagoan to back up his "folk hero" claim. Who does he interview? Sources who tell him how The People of Chicago feel about Fitzgerald (my emphases):

People see him as the only ally we have against political corruption,” one source, the executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, is quoted as saying. “Every time there’s a hint that he might be replaced there’s an outcry.”

And then there’s the city’s official cultural historian, who is quoted thusly: “When people tell the story of Illinois politics, Patrick Fitzgerald will unquestionably have a major role. People talk about him as having a lot of guts in a tough job, and it’s a job he seems to like.”

It’s not that the echo chamber doesn’t house the truth: the people of Chicago may very well think these things of Fitzgerald, for being zealous about his work and doing a damn good job. It’s just that if we’re going to call someone a “folk hero,” we kind of expect to hear from the folks themselves.

MRAP in Paper

| 9 Comments

“One excellent way to show your concern for wounded veterans is not to make so many of them,” noted The New York Times in an editorial yesterday. The Times was praising the appointment of General Eric Shinseki to head the Department of Veteran’s affairs. But meanwhile, another national paper was concerned with another lumbering bureaucracy—the one that supplies the veterans-to-be.

On Monday, USA Today got hold of a Pentagon Inspector General’s report explaining that, before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Department of Defense knew that roadside “Improvised Explosive Devices” (IEDs) were a major threat to troops in the field. The Department also knew about a class of vehicles—Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) trucks—most likely to defend soldiers from this threat. But the Department didn’t fund the MRAPs, and even balked at urgent requests for them from commanders facing mounting casualties from IEDs—which have since become the number one killer of US troops in Iraq.

The Pentagon report was a response to a damning investigation by Marine science advisor Franz Gayl, which USA Today’s Peter Eisler and Tom Vanden Brook wrote about in February. Gayl made the astonishing claim that 700 US troops had died needlessly in IED attacks because the Marine Corps had delayed acquisition of MRAP vehicles. Because MRAP trucks sit high on V-shaped hulls, they can deflect the blast of buried bombs that explode under the vehicles. Armored Humvees are protected only on the sides, and they sit lower, closer to the impact of buried bombs. Insurgents took heed even if the Defense Department didn’t—buried bombs became much more prevalent on Iraq’s roads as the insurgency grew.

The reports by Gayl and the Pentagon Inspector General officially ratify concerns USA Today had raised publicly since at least 2007. It was USA Today’s Vanden Brook who, in April 2007, reported that not a single Marine had died in more than 300 IED attacks on MRAPs in Anbar province in 2006. (The Marines then had about 100 such vehicles in Anbar province, used primarily in bomb disarming missions, and wanted 3,000 more.)

The Marines did not release the number of deaths involving Humvees, but Vanden Brook reported an average of less than one injury per attack on an MRAP, versus an average of two injuries, including deaths, in attacks on other vehicles. At the time, the Pentagon’s own records showed that IED attacks were responsible for 70 percent of U.S. casualties in Iraq. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, then only four months into his tenure, noticed the report and declared the MRAP a top Pentagon priority at a news conference in May 2007.
USA Today followed up that July with an eight-reporter investigation into what military leaders had been doing with well-known information about the MRAPs’ superior safety record before Gates embraced the vehicle. The answer, it turned out, was not much. The paper catalogued reports dating back to 2003 on the MRAP, and concerns about armored Humvees, all of which “went up the chain of command and withered.” In one example, Marine officials stopped processing an early 2005 request for more of the vehicles from a Marine commander in Anbar province, then the seat of the insurgency. The commander wrote that the Marines “cannot continue to lose … serious and grave casualties to IED … at current rates when a commercial off the shelf capability exists to mitigate” them.
The Pentagon had other budget priorities, and, besides, no one expected the war to last much longer. By May 2005, Dick Cheney was ready to declare the insurgency “in its last throes,” the paper pointed out.

Indeed, the vehicles could cost up to $1 million per truck (as opposed to $14,000 to put armor on a Humvee). But globalsecurity.org, a source for security news, somewhat ghoulishly notes that replacing troops in an all-volunteer force is yet more expensive than purchasing MRAPs. Official statistics indicate that the financial cost for care and replacement reaches $500,000 for each enlisted casualty—the cost is one to two million dollars for officers. “This meant the average light tactical vehicle with one officer and four enlisted personnel was protecting 2.5 million dollars of the [Defense Department’s] budget… The argument that ‘we can't afford armored vehicles’ has been said to be specious.”

Given the stupendous loss of life that can be traced to military leaders’ sluggishness on MRAPs, USA Today’s vindication in the form of the Pentagon Inspector General’s report (which was due out yesterday but is so far only in summary format (pdf)) can’t feel very good. But USA Today has been doing its bit for the troops, and its reporting has helped save lives. If only the Pentagon had done its job so well.

Another Chicago Musical

| No Comments

From a scene from Blagojevich! The Musical by Ben Greenman. (You may remember Greenman from such hits as Palin! The Musical; Edwards! The Musical; and Spitzer! The Musical).

[ROD BLAGOJEVICH goes to the phone. In the wire-tapping van, BILL scrambles to press record.]


ROD BLAGOJEVICH:
You have reached
The Blagojeviches


DEPUTY GOVERNOR A.:
Those Tribune scumbags
Should sleep with the fishes.


ROD BLAGOJEVICH:
What do you propose?
Harming the writers who compose
The paper’s editorials?
That’s far too dictatorial...

[PATRICIA BLAGOJEVICH grabs the phone from her husband’s hands.]...

Media Matters is asking readers to vote on "What was the Most Inane Punditry of the 2008 presidential campaign?" Three (only three!) of the ten options are Chris Matthews-related.

UPDATE: No Matthews on Foreign Policy's "The Ten Worst Predictions for 2008" list. Among the singled out: William Kristol (No. 1), Jim Cramer, The Economist, BusinessWeek, and Charles Krauthammer.

The trouble with reporting, as the New York Times did yesterday, "Kennedy Is Said To Be Politicking For His Niece"? Allow today's "Editor's Note" in the Times to explain:

An article on Tuesday about politicking on behalf of Caroline Kennedy as a possible candidate for the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton reported that Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Ms. Kennedy’s uncle, had called Gov. David A. Paterson to advocate for his niece. The information was attributed to Democratic aides, speaking anonymously.


On Tuesday, both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Paterson said no such conversation had taken place. The Times should have sought their comment before publication. A corrective article is on Page A38.

The headline on today's "corrective article:" "Patterson Says Kennedy Has Not Called About Niece."

Yes, ClintonSenateSeatStakes is exciting (for political reporters, anyway), what with MeetThePressStakes having come to an end and CabinetStakes nearly played out. But, haste still makes waste (or, Editor's Note). Not that this will prevent the next "said to be" story...

Truncated Thoughts

| No Comments

Sometimes technology is a vexing demon: The homepage of the Chicago Sun-Times has a rotating News Alert box that teases headlines from inside the site.

The problem is the box is too small and cuts off practically every headline that runs in the space, such as "Another state agency interested," "No one can gripe at this version of," "Worker in city van accused of," "Jennifer Hudson getting back to," and "Jack in the Box's burger tops". Of the five featured stories, the burger teaser is the only one that approximates sense making.

It's too bad, because everyone always says how the Internet is so clever and dynamic and has room for everything, but I guess that doesn't work when no one's checking if the text in the box makes sense.

The Day after the Blago Arrest

| No Comments

After yesterday’s federal court hearing in which Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris heard the charges brought against them, Blagojevich attorney Sheldon Sorosky said that his client "is very surprised and certainly feels that he did not do anything wrong." The nonchalance of this statement, and the adjectives that Sorosky uses to describe Blago’s state of mind—“sad, surprised and innocent”—jar with the sense of moralistic outrage that characterizes today’s Chicago-area editorials and columns.

They are, unsurprisingly, strongly worded. The Southtown Star’s editorial leads the no-question-about-how-we-feel category with its title: “Our View: Get Out, Gov,” and brief explanation: “We’ve had enough. This nation is in a crisis…He must resign now.”

The Daily Herald’s editorial agrees in principle (“Governor should resign immediately”), but takes a more pragmatic tone: “It will be near impossible for him to have any effectiveness in the legislative process with these charges hanging over his head.”

And the Chicago Tribune’s editorial wins for eloquence: “Rod Blagojevich is, more than before, the governor who cannot govern.”

John Kass was the first opinion columnist featured this morning at the Tribune’s Web site, and he pulls his punches, writing, “This is not Camelot. This is Chicago. And a governor is on the grill.” Addressing the potential fallout for Obama, he adds that while “Illinois isn’t surprised…the national media must be shocked,” and warns that while many “see Obama as some pristine creature…unstained by our grubby politics,” the president-elect at some point “must address the stench in his home state.”

(Kass also offered up some context for the situation when he appeared yesterday on “Kathy and Judy,” a radio show on WGN, a Tribune-owned station. By turns amused and fuming, he praised U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald: “Everything changed when U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald brought Patrick Fitzgerald here to be the United States attorney. And all of a sudden…it wasn’t Jim Thompson and his collective guys running the U.S. attorney’s office anymore. It was an outsider who didn’t want to run for governor, an outsider who didn’t care about being a member of a white shoes law firm with a corner office…you’ll never clean everything up, but it’s just astounding to see when people actually realize how filthy this state is.”)

The Tribune’s Mary Schmich uses her column to address that filthiness (“Yeah, well, bleep you, too.”), but ends it with a somber plea: “Even if these charges haven't been proven, they're so strong and the evidence is so compelling that this state and this city are weakened if you stay. Give up your job. Give Illinois back.”

The Chicago Sun-Times prominently features several of their columnists writing on the Blago affair. Mary Mitchell dashes off a rather one-tone column, basically asking, “How could anyone be that dumb?” But Neil Steinberg and Lynn Sweet hit the mark with vociferous opinions.

Sweet, the Sun-Times Washington bureau chief, mentions the egregiousness of Blagojevich’s actions, even within the lineage of the state’s history of corruption: “Usually in Illinois, politicians know how to walk right up to the pay-to-play line and not cross it. Based on this complaint, it looks like Blagojevich, a runner, leaped across the line in a variety of schemes to try to leverage the appointment.” And she adds what most surprises her, a reminder of how removed Blagojevich’s desires were from reality:

What’s hard to believe is that Blagojevich thought that Obama would appoint him to any slot in his administration. Blagojevich was under a cloud during Obama’s entire presidential campaign, and the Obama team kept him at a distance. The Illinois governor never stumped for Obama — they did not want him — and unlike other Democratic governors, he did not play any significant role in the campaign.

Steinberg calls Blagojevich’s reign an “obscenity of governance” and points out what most astounds him—the governor’s lack of common sense:

The actions that led to these charges transpired within the past few weeks -- that’s the most incredible part of all -- long after a rational corrupt official would know that the heat is on and he should lay low. Any idiot, any speeding driver with half a brain at least slows down when he passes a squad car with a radar gun out.

Blago sped up. What could he have been thinking? And what should we be thinking now?”

Indeed, that last question—what happens next, and what are we to think—floats throughout this morning’s opinion offerings. In the news coverage, it doesn’t get answered very well, mostly because this is merely the start of a very long news narrative: early this morning, the top story at the Sun-Times Web site boasted the headline, “What Next?” with a picture of Blago-in-transit splayed across the front. But the article didn’t answer the question, other than to report that the governor was released and returned home by way of a back ally, and that federal agents “also executed search warrants at the offices of Friends of Blagojevich.” (Another article now offers some more concrete bullet points.)

But editorial and opinion writers are having their say on the what’s next question, even if the story is changing too quickly for their columns. On the topic of the open Senate seat, a Daily Herald editorial earnestly calls for the governor to make his appointment quickly, and comes out in favor of Jesse Jackson Jr., a “thoughtful, articulate and independent veteran…[who] clearly shares the values and goals of the man he would be replacing.” But the Sun-Times’s Sweet says the opposite, advising: “Let the Senate opening sit for now. Blagojevich is under no timetable to pick. Illinois will loose a little seniority if a new junior senator is not in place in a few weeks, but that’s minor compared to the mess the state is in right now.” Sweet now updates her take, given that the Illinois General Assembly has decided to meet next week to strip the governor of his appointment power: “If a brazen Blagojevich insists on selecting an Obama successor in the meantime -- who in their right mind would accept? -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will invoke a rarely used power that senators have to decide whom to seat.”

In the midst of the seriousness, there are, of course, a few more humorous takes. The Sun-Times’ Steinberg notes that he hurried over to the Thompson Center, where the state government offices are located, expecting to see a meltdown in action. “Silly me,” he writes. There was instead, “near the elevators, a big sign, ‘HAPPY HOLIDAYS’ in red letters, two feet high. Underneath, ‘Governor Rod Blagojevich,’ written in an unmistakable cash green.”

First the Tribune and now the Sun-Times can’t resist shining a light on Patricia Blagojevich, the governor’s wife. Both papers carry news reports that manage to needle the first lady some for her foul mouth. The Trib’s Stacy St. Clair gets in a literary shot, labeling her a “modern-day Lady Macbeth who plotted against her husband’s perceived enemies and backed his corrupt schemes,” and describing (with verbs like “angled” and “unleashed”) her brash ambitions. The Sun-Times’ Kara Spak, employing some potent imagery, has the first lady “stringing obscenities together like holiday lights on the Thompson Center Christmas tree.”

The Sun-Times’ Backtalk Blog, for its part, has formed an impromptu Blago Book Club. “You can love or hate the criminal charges against Gov. Blagojevich,” it states. “But you've got to admit, the criminal complaint is a heckuva read…what's your favorite part? Is it when the governor allegedly considers yanking the state funding to Children's Memorial? Or when he talks about the possibility of an ambassadorship?”

Perhaps ready to join in the wicked fun, WGN’s John Williams, in an interview with the Tribune’s John McCormick, who was specifically named in the complaint, introduced him by saying, “John McCormick is chuckling right now.”

As a counterpoint to the necessary outrage, that’s probably a good thing.

Advice for David Gregory on how to approach his new job, from Jack Shafer at Slate:

Get rid of the Russert regulars. Who hasn't heard enough from James Carville and Mary Matalin by now? Hasn't plagiarist Doris Kearns Goodwin run out of gas? Doesn't William Safire phone it in? Can't NBC do the right thing and give Andrea Mitchell her own show? And why does the mere sight of David Broder, Bob Shrum, E.J. Dionne, or Peggy Noonan on television make me want to kill myself?

Me, too! Me, too. More Shafer:

Blacklisting these usual guests from the Meet the Press round table and recruiting a younger band of participants would mark the passing of an era and acknowledge the arrival of a young president. It's not even a very radical step...

Shafer's suggestions: Jeff Zeleny and Helene Cooper of the New York Times; Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times; Thomas Frank, Wall Street Journal columnist; New York Times contributor and George Mason University economic professor Tyler Cowen; Washington Post editorial writer and columnist Ruth A. Marcus; and Terence Samuel, deputy editor of The Root. (Mix in a few of Tina Brown's panel picks and it's starting to sound compelling.)

Also, Shafer says Gregory should get a "gimmick," (because Russert had several, from "the flip-flop graphic," to "Buffalo" to "his blue collar") and proposes the "That's three and you're out" rule: when a guest evades a question, Gregory should respond with three follow-up questions and, when the guest inevitably evades those as well, Gregory should say, "That's three and you're out" in hopes that it might become "the most feared phrase in political reporting" and, just maybe, encourage candor.

Call me a pessimist, but I can't see a guest getting candid for fear of a catchphrase. So I'd still vote for going over their heads with the gimmick I proposed back in June: Pop Up Video, Meet The Press (the "hard work of 'challenging' [a guest] would be outsourced to the fun graphical bubbles floating above the heads of MTP guests as they are talking, rather than the moderator having to actually directly challenge his or her guests, personally alienate them, and possibly deprive him/herself of a future booking).

And just who would be behind the curtain creating those fact-check-ish bubbles, on the fly (in most cases, live), as the MTP guest is speaking/evading? Who's knowledgeable and tech-savvy enough to do that? Maybe that other NBC News name that kept coming up in all the MeetThePressStakes chatter: Chuck Todd. And Todd could enlist the help of each week's panelists; might as well give them something to do during the "newsmaker" segment of the show...

On the List

| No Comments

Liz's list of Time's lists sent me down a rabbit hole of empty, soulless, clicks.

Of course that's the point--each item on the list gets its own page, so if you read ten top ten lists, you've just gifted Time Inc. 100 pageviews. Ka-ching!

Still, Time was wise enough to recognize Bill Clinton's WHYY radio interview from the eve of the Pennsylvania primary--"I don’t think I should have to take anymore shit for this"--as the 8th best/worse "Open Mic Moment." Susan Phillips, the reporter who got the tape wrote about the surreal aftermath for CJR here.

From House Gym to Big House?

| No Comments

Well, there was nothing about Blagojevich's behavior on the Congressional Stairmaster way back when that foreshadowed all this, according to some of the regulars (and ex-Congressmen) on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning. Ditto Duke Cunningham. (Also, no, Joe Scarborough didn't see Blagojevich's hair as some sort of a red flag):

HAROLD FORD (MSNBC analyst and former Democratic Congressman from Tennessee): If these [allegations] turn out to be true, I never saw this dimension to his personality at all.


MIKE BARNICLE: Both of you served with him. Did either one of you ever walk up to the guy in the House gym and say, what's the deal on the hair, Rod?

JOE SCARBOROUGH: No, I went to University of Alabama. That's standard in Alabama and Ole Miss. Seemed pretty normal to me. We talked about the Cubs. He seemed like a hard working guy. It is all shocking, guys like this and [Duke] Cunningham...

FORD: Duke I spent more time with. In the gym every day. I never knew, when all of this happened...

Another highlight from today's Blagojevich reporting, courtesy of the AP:

llinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich could still appoint someone to fill Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat despite charges that he tried to barter it away for cash or a plum job in what prosecutors call "a political corruption crime spree."


But it would take a lot of nerve...

$73 an Hour Doesn't Add Up

| 11 Comments

I like David Leonhardt's column this morning in the Times, debunking the $73 figure widely thrown around as what the average Big Three employee rakes in an hour.

It's used as a bludgeon by anti-labor forces to say that unions have led to the downfall of Detroit. Now, I'll be the first to admit they're hardly blameless (ever heard of the Jobs Bank?), but management—by the folks that made the real money—isn't either: You can't make junk cars year after year and expect to stay in business, no matter what your labor costs are.

Here's how it breaks down, according to Leonhardt: The average autoworker makes $40 an hour in take-home pay. That's $83,000 a year, which is very good money (especially when the average house price in Detroit is $20,000), but as far as I can tell, that number includes executives and white-collar employees, too. So union employees make less than that.

The benefits are where the sting really comes in. They add another $15 an hour, an amount that Detroit's overseas competitors don't have to match because their governments provide health care and other benefits.

Add the two together, and you get the true hourly compensation of Detroit’s unionized work force: roughly $55 an hour. It’s a little more than twice as much as the typical American worker makes, benefits included. The more relevant comparison, though, is probably to Honda’s or Toyota’s (nonunionized) workers. They make in the neighborhood of $45 an hour, and most of the gap stems from their less generous benefits.

But Detroit also has another $18 an hour in retiree-benefit costs, which is a killer. Still, Leonhardt calculates that if that were wiped away and the $10-an-hour pay differential with Japanese companies disappeared, it would save $800 per car. Leonhardt is right to point out that it's not a massive number, but he's wrong to downplay its importance.

Here's why via some back-of-the-napkin math: GM, for instance, sold 9.4 million cars last year. Multiply that by $800 a car and that's $7.5 billion in extra revenue (and, presumably, 100 percent profit). It's operating loss last year was $4.4 billion. You do the math.

Still, he's right to point out that the essential Detroit problem is that people don't want its cars badly enough. And good for him for giving us a clear explanation of the compensation structure so we can have a debate based on reality.

Blagojevich's Home State Headlines

| 3 Comments

A selection of front pages from Illinois this morning:









































Journal's Legg Mason "Get"

| 1 Comment

The Journal scores an interview with Legg Mason's Bill Miller, a legendary investor who's run into a brick wall in the financial crisis, and pulls off a nice profile.

Here's the old Miller:

Fueled by winning bets on stocks other investors feared, Mr. Miller's Legg Mason Value Trust outperformed the broad market every year from 1991 to 2005. It's a streak no other fund manager has come close to matching.

And the new:

A year ago, his Value Trust fund had $16.5 billion under management. Now, after losses and redemptions, it has assets of $4.3 billion, according to Morningstar Inc. Value Trust's investors have lost 58% of their money over the past year, 20 percentage points worse than the decline on the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index.

These losses have wiped away Value Trust's years of market-beating performance. The fund is now among the worst-performing in its class for the last one-, three-, five- and 10-year periods, according to Morningstar.

The paper chronicles Miller's bad bets over the last couple of years, including Fannie and Freddie, Wachovia, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, homebuilders, AIG. Did he pick every bad stock in the market?

The story's also nice at explaining how contrarian philosophy led him off the rails.

"Bill said, 'What matters is how much you make when you're right. If you're wrong nine times out of 10 and your stocks go to zero -- but the tenth one goes up 20 times -- you'll be just fine,' " Mr. Davis recalls. "I just can't live like that."

Last week, journalism lost its most incisive, stubbornly accurate, and unfailingly hilarious chronicler of the failings of the mortgage industry with the death of Doris Dungey of ovarian cancer, at age forty-seven.

Never heard of Dungey? Thousands of devoted readers knew her as “Tanta,” the blogger who made up one half of Calculated Risk, the hard-hitting and informative chronicler of the industry that brought us Exploding ARMs, NINJA loans, and other abominations of finance that have brought down millions of homeowners and now the world’s economy. Those readers included a number of journalists, and I’d like to add my own voice to those who have celebrated her role.

Bloomberg has an excellent story this morning about how the free-trade policies foisted upon poor countries by rich ones have ended up making it harder for the former to feed themselves.

Bloomberg tells the story through the problems of El Salvador, which the World Bank told to grow crops that it could export and import basics like rice and corn—tearing up the nation's self-sufficiency and leaving them vulnerable to the whims—and distortions—of the global market.

It's about time someone took a hard look at the Washington Consensus—the program of free trade, privatization and debt reduction—which the World Bank, led by the U.S., arrogantly exported across the world as a condition for aid and financing. I say long overdue, because it's been apparent for several months that the U.S. was breaking just about every rule that it made other, poorer countries live by.

As food prices have soared in the last year, people are now going hungry because their countries can't feed themselves.

The increases hit hard in countries such as El Salvador, which had adopted the principles of the Washington Consensus in return for loans. El Salvador’s Central Reserve Bank said the total amount of the lending was “not available.” The Agriculture Ministry did provide this measure of their effects: The country was a net exporter of rice 20 years ago; now it imports 75 to 80 percent of what it consumes.

The World Bank has “given consistently wrong advice,” said Jose Ramos-Horta, the president of East Timor in Asia and the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize winner.

“It is their advice -- that buying externally is cheaper than producing -- that has resulted in this,” he said.

I like that Bloomberg's in-depth stories so often take a distinct point of view instead of being wishy-washy, milquetoast neutral. That's not to say it doesn't give plenty of space to qualifying points by the free-trade/free-markets side; it does. But it allows its reporters to use their expertise to come to a conclusion.

The story, like many at Bloomberg, could have used some better editing, but that's a quibble: The wire service is doing some of the best business journalism out there right now.

This story, part three in a series of seven, is a more-than-worthy effort that the rest of the press would do well to follow.

On Monday, Tribune Company, the jobs-shedding media conglomerate, filed for bankruptcy, casting a heavy cloud over its future.

But then came Tuesday, and the two count federal criminal complaint against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, which describes an attempt by the governor and his chief of staff, John Harris, to leverage at least $100 million in state funds for the Chicago Cubs—owned by Tribune Company since 1981—in exchange for changes to the paper’s editorial page, possibly including firing the entire board.

What was Tribune’s response to this corrupt bargain? We don’t know. But, according to Harris’ reports to his boss, it wasn’t a plain, firm, “No.”

That, along side the rest of the complaint, raises a lot of uncomfortable questions to which Zell presumably knows the answers. Until we hear from him, the implications aren’t pretty.

The governor’s scheme looks like it was hatched during a series of taped phone calls in early November. The indictment describes how Blagojevich suggested that an advisor compile a package of the Chicago Tribune’s negative coverage of his administration, and pointedly raise it in a discussion of the Cubs assistance. But even that veneer of subtlety gives way in subsequent conversations. “Our recommendation,” the governor says in one, “is fire all those fucking people, get ‘em the fuck out of there and get us some editorial support.”

Blagojevich has been in hot water from the earliest days of his administration, and that’s led him to come under frequent criticism from the Tribune’s editorial page. Twice this fall, the editorial board asked state legislators to investigate grounds for impeachment. But it seems that a Tribune editorial from November 3, knocking the way the governor distributed state funds without legislative or voter approval, particularly raised Blagojevich’s ire. The governor hoped to use a contradiction he saw between that editorial criticism and the parent company’s request that Blagojevich take title of the Cubs’ Wrigley Field, which would save the Tribune upwards of $100 million. In two conversations, Blagojevich makes it clear that he was especially upset with John McCormick, a deputy editorial page editor, and wanted to see him fired.

On November 5, gubernatorial chief of staff John Harris made the governor’s case to someone the complaint identifies only as “Tribune Financial Advisor.” Harris says the advisor told him it was a delicate request, but agreed to sound out “Tribune Owner”—Zell. Harris also says the advisor asked to meet Harris in person to discuss the request.

In a later call, Harris says he met the Tribune advisor the next Monday. Recounting their conversation, Harris told the governor that the advisor assured him that Tribune Owner “got the message and is very sensitive to the message.” Harris also said he was told that “certain corporate reorganizations and budget cuts [were] coming and, reading between the lines, he’s going after that section”—i.e. that he believed that Zell had the Trib’s editorial board in his crosshairs. The governor asked Harris if Tribune understood that the Cubs deal was in jeopardy if changes weren’t made soon, and Harris said they did.

In a taped call from November 21, Blagojevich pressed Harris on his progress, remarking that “the Tribune thing is important, if we can get that.” Harris told his boss that the request was “delicate, very delicate,” but promised to press ahead.

When the Tribune announced eleven staff cuts on December 4, Blagojevich’s press secretary called the governor to say that McCormick was not among them. The next morning, Harris and the governor spoke again, and Blagojevich asked if “there’s still more coming.” Harris assured him that “they’ve got a lot of cuts to make,” and the two resolved to contact the Tribune advisor again.

Where does that leave Tribune? United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said he was “not going to opine” on how the Tribune Company responded to governor’s offer. And Tribune, in a statement, denied any wrongdoing:

[T]he actions of the company, its executives and advisors working on the disposition of Wrigley Field have been appropriate at all times. No one working for the company or on its behalf has ever attempted to influence staffing decisions at the Chicago Tribune or any aspect of the newspaper’s editorial coverage as a result of conversations with officials in the governor’s administration.

That’s followed by a quote from Chicago Tribune editor Gerould Kern denying that Tribune corporate has ever contacted him to complain about the paper’s editorials, or to influence its coverage of the governor.

But the statement leaves a few questions unaddressed.

*Did the financial advisor make the deal that Harris implied he did?

*Did Zell “get the message” from the advisor, as Harris says he was told he did, and, if so, what did he do about it?

*Did Zell or anyone else at Tribune corporate contact law enforcement about the governor’s offer? Did they contact anyone at the Tribune’s newsroom?

*Fitzgerald says the Tribune had been prepared to run a story on the wiretaps eight weeks before the investigation went public, but agreed to hold the story. Was Zell involved in or did he know about the Tribune’s decision not to publish?

*Did the Tribune know the investigation was coming into its backyard, and if so, was that information passed on to executives at the Tribune Company before Fitzgerald made it public? If so, when?

*And who’s that Tribune Financial Advisor, and what does he have to say?

With so many questions striking at Sam Zell and Tribune’s ethical conduct, we need a full accounting to assure readers and other Tribune stakeholders that he remains fit to lead a respectable newsgathering organization, one that is unwilling to compromise the most basic principles of journalistic independence, even in the face of dire financial circumstances.

Time's wasting.

Voices of Chicago

| 2 Comments

When a local story—your state’s governor gets arrested for corruption, say—goes national, all eyes turn to the hometown publications for the latest. With a massive scandal in their backyard, Chicago’s own are on the case. Here—as of 6:00 PM on Tuesday—is how they’re doing.

Chicago Tribune

At the epicenter of the allegations, the Tribune has the most original reporting on the story than any other publication. In addition to a growing list of front page stories updated as the saga unfolds, the Trib is also keeping tabs on other pieces around the Web.But the paper hasn’t been very forthcoming about their piece of the puzzle. The paper has released several statements, but none from John McCormick, the editorial writer who is mentioned by name in the indictment, who spoke to Alan Mutter at Reflections of a Newsosaur.

Chicago Sun-Times

The Tribune’s competitor has a greater number of links to stories on its front page, but neither has scooped the other in terms of new information. The Sun-Times seems to be taking a slightly more scandalous approach, with a “Blagojevich Led Away In Cuffs” headline and some expletive-tinged links leading into stories, including “ Blagojevich calls Obama a 'mother f***er' | Patti Blagojevich: 'Hold up f***ing Cubs s***.” The Sun-Times also did a better job mobilizing and publicizing its editorial columnists, with three prominently featured links to notable columnists like Lynn Sweet and others.

WBEZ-Chicago

The Chicago Public Radio station has been doing some good work on its blog, including an audio slideshow of interviews with the governor’s neighbors. They’ve also engaged some crowd-sourcing techniques, pointing readers to an aggregation of tweets about Blagojevich and a Flickr stream for photos for the governor.

The Capitol Fax

This site has maintained a good running list of developments and time stamps, which makes it easy for readers to see what’s happened and when. There’s clearly a local focus here, with a story like “Children's Memorial target of guv's shakedown efforts, charges say” highlighted from a Crain’s story about the seventy-eight page affidavit. This site has been updated frequently throughout the day, and feels very up-to-the-minute.

Chicago Reader

The Reader’s Clout City blog did well this afternoon with a reasoned assessment of the five mystery candidates mentioned in the indictment, but then it seems that political writer Mick Dumke was booked to appear on the radio, and the posts suddenly ceased. After all the asterisks obscuring obscenities in the Sun-Times and Tribune it’s strangely refreshing to read the word “fuck” unobscured at the Reader. Seeing it appear so unapologetically makes me think just how silly all the attempts at decency are.

Chicagoist

Chicagoist did what snarky blogs do best, the liveblogging the arrest press conference, (but without any snark, surprisingly) and digging up a clip of Blagojevich on the Daily Show. But they also had time for other stories, such as the latest installment in Oprah’s weight saga.

Chi Town Daily News

A disappointing showing from the a Web site that claims to deliver the news geared at Chicagoans. None of the “TOP” stories mention the Blago affair, and the “Blog Farm” section mostly has links to other sites, and nothing from the staff’s reporters on the story. Today’s only original piece was a missive from the editor-in-chief for journalists to “step up” in light of the Tribune co. bankruptcy.

Windy Citizen

This little-blog-that-could quickly created a sub-section on the Web site dedicated exclusively to covering the arrest and the aftermath. The site not only did a good job compiling the Web’s best reporting and dispatches, but also got creative with a Blago Cloud, a graphically appealing “visual guide to the Federal complaint.” They also set up an easy-on-the-eyes tweet tracker about both Blago and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. In particular, this site was impressive for the speed and grace with which it deployed its technological tools.

Remember the "McCain Ends Classy" theme that sprung up in the media in the minutes and hours after McCain delivered his ("gracious," "classy") concession speech? The Daily Beast's Tina Brown, for example, wrote: "McCain seemed a different man when he conceded. Noble again. A Man of honor. The curse of this campaign has been lifted from him too."

In case you weren't convinced (or had simply forgotten), Nicole Wallace, a McCain campaign senior adviser, took to the Daily Beast yesterday to reinforce all that.

Wallace, who notes her unemployment since McCain's defeat, has nonetheless been "filled with a warm and fuzzy feeling" and fills a column at The Daily Beast explaining why.

First, there was John McCain’s exquisite concession speech...[T]he speech set a new standard for grace in defeat.


The speech sent a powerful signal around the world about the strength of our democracy. It also opened the door for the McCains to return, unscathed, to their previous lives of impressive service—Cindy McCain as an advocate for international aid and relief efforts, and John McCain as a powerful, pragmatic senator known, liked, and respected by a sizable swath of Democrats, Republicans, the media, and world leaders.

"Unscathed." Understood?

Speaking of, Wallace, who was an assistant to President George W. Bush and White House director of communications, also writes:

But some of the most heartwarming stories I’ve heard this holiday season are the ones that have leaked out of both the East and West wings of the White House about George and Laura Bush, two people whose grace has gone under-reported and unappreciated for too long...


George Bush reportedly fought back tears at a recent holiday gathering with advance staff—the unsung heroes of any White House. According to one former staffer who attended, Bush choked up as he thanked them for their years of service.

Which you might regard as fairly standard human behavior for an outgoing leader of a team or organization, but if you were President Bush's former communications director you could identify as "grace" ("under-reported" but, luckily, "leaked" to her).

Have you heard about the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program? It’s a recently created Department of Energy loan program that provides funds to companies for the development of fuel-efficient vehicles. It’s also the pot of money from which the automakers, should the rescue bill for the auto industry pass a congressional vote, will receive their $15 billion in emergency bridge loans.

You wouldn’t know it from reading today’s NYT article about the auto bailout, which doesn’t say where the funds, should they be made available, will originate from:

The president’s designee would disburse the short-term emergency loans to General Motors and Chrysler, which are at risk of financial collapse, and would directly supervise the reorganization plans that the auto manufacturers have agreed to carry out in exchange for government aid.

After a long weekend of drafting the auto bailout plan, Congressional Democrats on Monday afternoon delivered their draft bill to the White House, where senior officials quickly raised a number of concerns. The White House press secretary, Dana M. Perino, said Mr. Bush would insist on aiding only those automakers that can survive long term.

What the Times article doesn’t mention is that, in order to sell the White House on the plan, the Democrats agreed to pull the funds from the pre-existing DOE loan program (authorized in November under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007), and not from the $700 billion designated for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), the Democrats’ preferred funding source.

It’s information that has been reported throughout these negotiations. (This earlier NYT article, for one, both addresses the decision to take the money from the DOE loan program (a compromise that sought to “end a weeks-long stalemate” between Bush and Pelosi) and notes the lingering concern of how the program’s funds will be restored. But this is information that should be included in any story about the auto bailout, and today’s story is no different. (And it’s ultimately irresponsible to assume that readers of today’s newspapers also read Saturday’s paper, which reported the compromise.)

The Washington Post, for one, succinctly works in the information: “Democrats bent to the will of the president on several key demands, most notably in agreeing that the emergency funding would be drawn from an existing loan program aimed at promoting fuel-efficient technologies.” It’s a single line, but it provides context, and brings the reader up to speed.

Stephen M. Davidoff at the NYT’s Dealbook blog comes out and says it perhaps most clearly:

The first auto bailout bill – introduced mid-November and which drew on TARP funding – has been abandoned.

As the New York Times reported Monday, there is a new compromise bill circulating, this version drawing financing from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Congress recently appropriated $25 billion to be loaned under that bill to the automakers to build more energy efficient and environmentally sound automobiles.

The latest bill is entitled the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act and it takes that $25 billion funding and simply loans it to the automakers without the environmental or energy efficiency conditions.

That’s clear language, some of which the straight news report could have adopted. Along the same lines, Ed O’Keefe at The Washington Post provides more details on the program, which is run through the Energy Department’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer:

The loan program already has received nine loan applications, DOE press secretary Healy Baumgardner said in an e-mail statement Monday night. Energy continues to carry out the program, Baumgardner says "unless and until Congress takes action which revises the DOE program in such a way as to require DOE to revisit the current regulatory scheme and/or the way it is being implemented."

O’Keefe cites Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who yesterday spouted reassurances that this redirection of funds wouldn’t affect other applicants to the DOE loan program just because some of that money is being used for emergency loans, and that the program’s funding would be replenished. Still, he ends his post with questions: “Will DOE get its money back and when? How much money will other loan applicants receive?”

Those are questions for the future, but they also represent the other side of today’s top auto bailout story, which makes them important to keep in mind—even if talk of who will be the new “car czar” is more titillating as speculative news.

Bankruptcy. Buyouts. Political scandal. It's been a rough week, to say the least, for the Tribune Company. But just as necessity can be the mother of invention, adversity can be the mother of innovation. As the always enthusiastic Lee Abrams wrote about newspapers in a memo yesterday to Trib staff, "We need to figure out how to deliver this invaluable daily icon on today's terms. Holding nothing sacred…. We're all hoping the economy makes a sudden rebound and everything is just wonderful again. That would be nice, but I doubt that'll happen. We need to adapt. The culture...the product and the focus need to get in sync regardless of how painful."

How can we expect the Tribune Company’s newspapers to adapt—for better and for worse?

Every Tuesday, CJR outlines a news-related question and opens the floor for debate. For previous News Meeting topics, click here.

In an age when newspapers are supposed to be dying, and small papers are supposed to be dead by now (or at least on life support by press release), it was refreshing and somewhat reassuring to see three small market papers do some fine health coverage of late. They weren’t the big blockbuster stories written for Pulitzer juries, but good, everyday stories relevant to their audiences—the kind of reporting that too many papers have abandoned.

A laurel to the El Paso Times for its post-election coverage of the struggles faced by the one-third of El Paso’s population that is uninsured. The series gives an important voice to those left out of the reform dialogue by the policy wonks, the pollsters, and most of the media. It also does something we at CJR have been urging the media to do: tell how ordinary people would be affected by the candidates’ proposals.

The paper did that by looking at how some El Pasoans would fare under Barack Obama’s campaign proposals. For example, when Nora Arzate, her husband, and their five children get sick, they use drug store remedies or cross the border to see a doctor in Juarez. They can’t afford one in El Paso. Paying a doctor ranks behind putting food on the table, paying the mortgage, and their other bills. Without Medicaid, her kids would have no insurance. Her husband Javier works as a janitor at a small private school, and his salary doesn’t allow the family to spend even a few hundred dollars a month for coverage. The paper talked about how the family might benefit if the school, a small business, could get a tax credit of up to 50 percent of the premiums. We hope the paper will keep these people in mind as the health care tug of war begins, and go back to see if they will indeed be helped by what comes out of the legislative sausage grinder.

A laurel to the Dayton Daily News for exploring the local boom in hospital construction. The headlines asked the right questions: “Is hospital construction boom good for area?” and “Hospitals keep building in hard times.” Those are fundamental questions that strike at the heart of health reform: What’s causing the relentless rise in medical costs? Hospitals, which account for about one-third of U.S. health care expenditures, have hardly been mentioned this year. It’s almost as if the media have declared them off limits, since they wear the halo of good angels in this business.

But the Dayton paper took a hard look at area hospitals, which have embarked on twenty-two projects totaling more than $1 billion. Hospitals defended their construction spree, saying that they are bringing health care closer to where patients live and giving area residents top quality specialty treatment. But the paper pointed out that more beds, more equipment, and more facilities mean more unnecessary procedures that raise costs and lead to poorer outcomes. It noted that the payment system is perverse—providers do more procedures to keep beds full and the money flowing in, all of which adds to the national tab. To drive home how much money is involved, the paper created a chart that listed all twenty-two projects, which health network was sponsoring them, what each would do, and how much each one cost. The numbers are staggering.

The paper has given itself a news hook for the future. Just how will reform legislation affect one of the major cost drivers in the American health care? Will it curtail the building boom in Dayton and elsewhere, which some observers believe must happen in order to put a brake on hospital spending? We hope the Daily News stays on top of this story. And while they're at it, they might look at primary care in their area. There is a shortage of primary care docs all over the country. Does Dayton really need more treatment from specialists—even if they are as top quality as the hospitals say?

A laurel to the Colorado Springs Gazette for its story on problems at Memorial Health system, a city-owned health care provider that has fallen on hard financial times. Gazettereporters uncovered a memo from hospital administrators that laid out the hospital’s grim financial outlook. The memo, which talked of layoffs, told the system’s 4,000 employees that the money situation will worsen, but that they should “not become paralyzed in the fog of fear.” The story touched on a theme that deserves further investigation by that paper and others. Municipal hospitals all over the country are having trouble, and the current economic crisis makes the situation worse.

As the cost of care increases and insurers pass on those costs to patients, patients begin to use fewer services, particularly elective procedures. They delay hip and knee replacements—and that’s bad news for hospital budgets. Some experts believe in making patients responsible for cost containment by forcing them to use the system less. But when they do that, as we see in Colorado and other places, some hospitals suffer, particularly the ones that serve poor people in inner city neighborhoods. We hope that the Gazette will stay with the story, and that other papers will explore this topic and look at how reform will change the financial picture for these hospitals, if at all.

List season's here.

Time presents the "Top Ten of Everything in 2008." And by "Everything," Time means 50 things. Here are 10 of the most media-centric lists:

1) Top 10 News Stories (Number one: "When We Realized The Sky Was Falling," which was, apparently, September 13, 2008. No Iraq on the list.)

2) Top 10 Underreported Stories (First: "The Pentagon's latest nuclear snafu." Huh? Exactly. No Iraq here either.)

3) Top 10 Oddball News Stories" (Which I was going to re-dub "Top 10 Overreported News Stories" except that Justin's favorite -- that Footless In Vancouver story, which Justin argued was underreported-- grabs third. One of my favorites -- Sasquatch In A Cooler-- squeaked in at nine.)

4) Top 10 Magazine Covers (Four of ten are Obama-themed. And Time didn't vote for itself. Not even once).

5) Top 10 Photos (And the number one photo of all of 2008 is....Cindy McCain Beside Glass of White Wine? Oh, it's, "As her husband John worked on a speech, Time photographer Christopher Morris grabbed this shot of [Cindy McCain] enjoying a glass of white wine." Top photo of 2008, if we don't say so ourselves.)

6) Top 10 Campaign Gaffes (How did LipstickOnAPigGate not make the list? I guess it'd be more at home on some kind of "Top 10 Campaign 'Gaffes' Sold To And Bought By The Media" List).

7) Top 10 Open Mic Moments (NutsGate wins! And is, probably, the reason this List made the Lists at all.)

8) Top 10 Editorial Cartoons (Half are election-related).

9) Top 10 Religion Stories (Number one story is that religion wasn't the story in election 2008.)

10) And, Top 10 Financial Collapses (Lehman wins!)

News:

""Iraq translators' mask ban dropped" (BBC: "The Pentagon has rescinded a controversial decision that banned Iraqi interpreters working for US troops in Baghdad from protecting their identities by wearing ski-masks. The ban was meant to reflect the improved security situation - in which interpreters were no longer afraid of retaliation. But that is not the case.")

Behind that news:

"The debt we owe Iraqi interpreters" (Michael Breen, a former Army captain who served with the infantry in Iraq and helps lead the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project, describes why "after the foolish mask ban, more protection is a must.")

Before that news:

"Military To Interpreters: Drop Dead" (George Packer wrote that in enforcing the ban the U.S. military was "standing on a principle in the shape of a land mine.")

"The Press Is The Enemy..."

| No Comments

"...write that on the blackboard 100 times." Nixon, heard on the most recently-released batch of audio tapes from 1972 (h/t County Fair).

Also, Nixon talking press strategy with his chief of staff:

Return the calls to those poor dumb bastards ... who I know are our friends. Now do it ... We made the same mistake [Dwight] Eisenhower made, but not as bad as Eisenhower made, because he sucked the [New York ] Times too much ... G-d damn it, don't talk to them for a while. Will you enforce that now?

Murrow's Boy

| 4 Comments

The headquarters of Dan Rather Reports is a small, disheveled space just off Times Square in Manhattan, cluttered with temporary office equipment and distinguished by a low drop ceiling that evokes the abode of an insurgency of pamphleteers. In a far corner is Rather’s office. Much of his old furniture has been transplanted from CBS, and a khaki trench coat from his globetrotting days hangs nostalgically in a nook. On a sea chest rests a plaque bearing advice from Benjamin Franklin: “If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you were dead and rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth the writing.” Rather is enmeshed in a $70 million breach-of-contract lawsuit against CBS that could help determine how he will be remembered, but the quote registers more as inspiration than epitaph. “I’m still trying to do great journalism,” he told me. “I don’t feel I’ve ever really done that. I keep hoping there’s the potential. Kennedy, Vietnam, Watergate, Afghanistan, any number of exposés for 60 Minutes, Tiananmen Square, 9/11—all of that is part of the record, which is not yet complete.”

Like a lot of things in Rather’s world, Reports was conceived as an ode to his “polar star,” Edward R. Murrow, and specifically as an update on See It Now, Murrow’s landmark television show from the 1950s. Notwithstanding the persistent attempts over the years to decipher Rather’s personality and the odd moments that have pocked his career, his allegiance to Murrow is often missed, or misunderstood. Rather, who turned seventy-seven in October, has been imitating Murrow ever since he was a child bedridden for months with rheumatic fever, inhabiting the universe of Murrow’s radio dispatches from Europe during World War II. When he took over the CBS anchor chair from Walter Cronkite in 1981, Rather decided to “dance with the one that brought me” and emphasize his reporting skills; against many peoples’ advice, he exhumed the reporter-anchor hybrid created by Murrow and made it his own. When George Clooney’s biopic on Murrow, Good Night, and Good Luck, arrived in New York in 2005, Rather saw it immediately—and then he saw it several more times. At the Manhattan premiere, Rather said, he “nearly levitated” from his chair. “It brought back a flood of memories. I was humbled. Here’s Murrow, who could have retired in 1947 and been on everybody’s all-time team, but he didn’t. I was the last person to leave the screening. I wanted to learn.” Rather, of course, was suggesting that in 2004, after CBS eased him off the air over his unsubstantiated report that President Bush got preferential treatment in the Texas Air National Guard, he could have retired, too.

On See It Now, Murrow gave the audience what Rather likes to call “added value”—his high standard for depth and originality. But Murrow was, more essentially, a television pioneer, and a central attraction of Rather’s show is seeing a former stalwart of the establishment, a millionaire and an icon of a decidedly different era, recast in similar terms, on HDNet, a boutique cable channel and with a fraction of his former audience (HDNet has around ten million subscribers, but won’t release numbers for how many watch Reports; when Rather left the anchor chair at CBS Evening News, he had nearly eight million viewers nightly). Playing Rather’s William Paley in this improbable sequel is Mark Cuban, the billionaire Internet entrepreneur who co-founded HDNet hoping to cash in on the high-definition technology craze, and who, in the summer of 2006, plucked Rather from the purgatorial aftermath of his 60 Minutes II report on Bush, offering him carte blanche to develop an investigative news show that would function as a counterpoint to the superficial inclinations of network news. While the analogy isn’t perfect, the show is, surely, a throwback. Many of the twenty-five staff members are exiles from big media companies, happily untethered from the burden of ratings, and the productions have an anachronistic bent: long, sober, and largely advertisement-free documentaries thoroughly devoid of excessive sentiment and the “gets” and “money shots” of prime-time TV. “Cuban deserves a lot of credit. I had my doubts,” Rather told me. “But the only thing he ever said to me was, ‘Have guts and do excellent work.’ ” The effect, Rather claims, has been rejuvenating. “This is sheer joy for me. I’ve never been happier or more satisfied. One reason I’m talking to you is to spread the word.”

It was interesting, given the degree of animus surrounding Rather, to hear him talk about happiness and satisfaction, neither of which has ever been considered indispensable to the Rather brand. One reason I was talking to him was that there was something intriguing about the notion of Dan Rather at peace, even though I had never fully bought the various simplistic characterizations that he had been saddled with over the years, from “bizarro Rather” to “liberal Rather” to “folksy, sentimental Rather.” He dodges most questions that attempt to get at his place in history, but Wayne Nelson, his executive producer on Reports, told me that Rather is “enjoying life for the first time,” and I thought maybe he’d open up and talk candidly about his departure from CBS, and about his most dramatic career moments, many of which are among his most contentious. I wanted to reconcile all the ideas that people have about him with the ideas that he has about himself. I also thought that sooner or later he might revert to form. In June, he’d indicated the possibility of getting exclusive interviews with the presidential candidates for what he called “a sit down, not a debate—a talk about things not normally talked about, like crumbling national infrastructure and schools.” Given his notorious run-ins with politicians—he once publicly mocked President Nixon at a press conference in Houston during the Watergate crisis, and later sparred with vice president George H. W. Bush during an interview about the Iran-Contra scandal—I wondered what might happen if he sat with, say, John McCain, and dug into the senator’s positions on the war in Iraq.

But the idea fizzled. Part of it was no doubt due to HDNet’s stature. “We can’t make the argument for a mass audience,” Rather told me. “I think we have a good argument to make about the quality of audience. But we’re seen as peripheral.” Still, any high-profile interview Rather now seeks is also affected by lingering questions about his reputation that are at the center of his lawsuit against CBS, in which he alleges that he was made the scapegoat for the forged-document scandal at the heart of the Bush story. The gaudiest claim is a kind of Washington conspiracy theory: Rather alleges that Viacom, CBS’s parent company in 2004, fired him to curry favor with the Bush administration and protect its business interests in Washington, which in 2004 included the relaxing of media-ownership laws. “The whole beating heart of the suit,” Rather has said, “is to put some sunlight on a fact—and it is a fact—that these huge conglomerates that control eighty to eighty-five percent of communications need favors in Washington.” Clearly, though, the lawsuit has an additional purpose: to provide a stage for the evidence Rather says he has that proves he and his 60 Minutes II producer, Mary Mapes, got the Bush story right.

One morning in June, I met Rather for breakfast at Nectar, a modest Upper East Side coffee shop where Rather blended into the time-worn surroundings. When talk turned to the lawsuit, he again invoked his polar star. “I’m constantly asking myself, ‘What would Murrow do?’ ” he said. “He spoke truth to the powerful at their height, the great fear inducers.” This was a day after Rather had attended Tim Russert’s funeral and a day before he would head to the Gulf Coast to fish for speckled trout with his grandson. “There’s nothing professionally I like better than getting to the bottom of a big story. Short of the power of subpoena, and the pain of perjury, I’m doing all I can. Either you move forward and have the moxie, or . . .”—he collected himself. “I’m taking on a giant corporation; they spend their stockholders’ money. I had the guts to spend my own money and get to the bottom of this. That’s what that’s about.”

Last summer, Rather lived a kind of double life. When he was in New York he was often away from the office, meeting with attorneys or giving depositions. But then he’d “compartmentalize” and do journalism in bundles. In June alone, he traveled to the Galapagos to report a story on illegal shark-fin hunts; to Colombia, where he interviewed President Uribe about a free-trade agreement that’s in the works; and to Washington, where he met the Venezuelan ambassador and tried to arrange an interview with Hugo Chavez.

Later that same month, Rather and a producer, Mishi Ibrahim, went to Kansas City to report a story on a spate of exploding gas cans that Rather called “ticking time bombs.” The plastic gas cans had been manufactured without a flame arrester, a metal shield that could have stopped the vapor trails from backtracking, ignited, into the can, and Rather’s report, like many Dan Rather Reports stories, had a 60 Minutes feel—a morality tale culminating in a moment of truth when, on cue, an expert (in this case Lori Hasselbring, a chemical engineer) demonstrates how a flame arrester could have prevented the gas cans from blowing up. This contradicted statements by the manufacturer, Blitz USA, and the primary distributor, Wal-Mart, that insisted such internal combustion wasn’t possible. If it wasn’t as glamorous as a confrontation with a president, it had a populist, investigative bent that Rather said brought its own kind of pleasure.

Rather has always seen himself as a reporter, and central to the narrative of his rebirth at HDNet is the notion that he is returning to his roots—he cut his teeth covering the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War for CBS—without the political and bureaucratic obstacles of working within a huge corporation. “What we have to sell here is quality journalism,” he told me. “We play no favorites. We pull no punches. What we have is absolute editorial freedom.” Cuban added: “The show is a hundred percent his.” To be sure, Cuban’s management style is entirely hands-off, even when the heat comes down, as it did last year after Reports broke the story about potential safety problems with Boeing’s new Dreamliner airplane (which the company subsequently delayed in bringing to market after trying to marginalize the story’s main source, a former Boeing employee). The story generated considerable debate; Wired’s science blog, for instance, questioned the veracity of the report, saying Rather had taken a “cheap shot” at Boeing by alleging that the composite material used in the plane’s construction was likely to shatter and emit poisonous fumes on impact. “Perhaps this is part of an attempt by Rather to make a comeback after the debacle that resulted in his departure from CBS News,” suggested Aaron Rowe, the author of the Wired post.

I was interested in what all this freedom meant to Rather, and so I went to Kansas City to meet him as he reported the gas-can story. HDNet’s travel department was no match for the purchasing power at CBS, and declined to pay for his room at the posh InterContinental hotel. Instead, Rather flew to Texas and spent the night with family members, arriving in Kansas City early the following morning. Rather is keen on stealthy entries and exits (a hired car typically shuttles him promptly to and from secondary entrances), and though I kept a vigil from the lobby for his arrival, he managed to elude me. I ended up hearing him first—his familiar timbre resonating somewhere on the second floor, near where Ibrahim had commandeered a conference room for interviews.

In the conference room, Rather dutifully plied his star routine for a clearly star-struck audience. This included Hasselbring, the engineer, as well as Diane Breneman, an attorney for several people who had been burned by the exploding gas cans. During his interviews with Hasselbring and Breneman, Rather read questions prepared by Ibrahim, his producer, who sat behind a camera watching the proceedings play out and offering direction whenever Rather missed a beat. “I need Lori to explain the flammability range issue,” she said at one point. “It’s very rare you have the right combination of factors.” Rather jotted down something on his note pad, and then repeated the question verbatim. Occasionally, Rather veered from the script and told a story or a joke. At one point, he commented on Breneman’s shiny black heels, which she’d bought in New York City for the occasion. “I recognize all women’s shoes,” Rather said. “Back when I was a reporter in Houston, the murder capital of the USA, a detective once said of murder suspects, ‘Show me their shoes, their women, and their cars.’ ” The reminiscence led him to describe his upbringing around “all these oil hands, who all had their sayings about women: ‘Never drink with a tattooed woman called Tanker.’ ‘Never lay down with a woman who has more trouble than you do.’ ”

“We need to keep this going,” Ibrahim said.

During a break, I asked Rather what he found so appealing about the gas-can story, which he’d previously suggested was a perfect example of what made working at HDNet so rejuvenating. “Well, gasoline containers are killing and maiming people. There’s a way to fix it. And it’s not very expensive,” he said. “The question to the powerful is, Why hasn’t it been done? When we get to the end, there may be good answers. If so, we want to hear them. But up to now, by and large, the questions haven’t been asked.”

The idea of speaking truth to power, however hackneyed that phrase has become, is in the DNA of all investigative journalism, but for Rather its significance can seem transcendent, even caricaturized. Rather’s conception of the idea comes straight from Murrow, but the strain with which he often expressed it at CBS—brow furrowed, eyes urgent—speaks to the degree that being Dan Rather, anchor of CBS Evening News, constrained his ability to openly express it. The cult of Murrow, in general, translates discordantly these days—part of the success of Good Night is surely due to how improbable it all seems in today’s media world—and for Rather the effect of his Murrow modeling was often that of supreme effort yielding mixed results. This is apparent in the episodes of questionable judgment and melodrama that punctuate his career—his domineering interview with vice president George H. W. Bush during Iran-Contra, for example, or his decision to walk off the set in protest of the U.S. Open’s intrusion into his coverage of Pope John Paul II’s visit to America. The interesting thing about Rather is that this tension arguably produced some of his best work. There is the sense, when watching the Bush interview, for example, of a man doing full battle with himself, straining to invoke some Murrowesque ideal in an era in which its meaning had been distorted. It makes for excellent TV:

BUSH: Let’s be careful here.

RATHER: I want you to be careful . . . . I don’t want to be argumentative, Mr. Vice President.

BUSH: (smirking) Yes you do, Dan.

To some extent, Rather’s fate was a matter of timing. Soon after he took over the Evening News in 1981, the program underwent a full-scale conversion, as Van Gordon Sauter, the swashbuckling new president of CBS News, morphed the show from a straightforward presentation of headlines into an obsessively honed quest for viewers. “I got involved in research, in the interpretation of research, the advertising, the peripheral messages we conveyed, that Dan conveyed, the slogans we had, the graphics,” Sauter told me. “It was very important to us because we had a change in image. As we were changing the broadcast we were changing the image of the broadcast, the image of CBS News.” A few years later, this trend accelerated and expanded: the bottom-line-driven Lawrence Tisch took over CBS, the news division began to shrink, and the networks entered a destructive struggle with cable news that continues to this day.

Through all of this, there was the sense that the covenant between Rather and CBS meant different things to each party—that what was interpreted as a commodity by CBS was, for Rather, the essence of “tough journalism.” “This is a guy who they brought in to be the aggressor,” a longtime colleague of Rather’s told me. “Audiences always had a mixed reaction because he was so tough on presidents. There was nobody quite like him. CBS embraced that.” Rather, meanwhile, never saw his aggressive style as maudlin or marketable; he simply saw it as being hard-nosed and driven to uncover truth—as being like Murrow. “People used to say, ‘You need to stop thinking like a reporter and more like an anchor,’ ” he told me. “But my plan—and it worked—was to keep doing what had gotten me the job: reporter and anchor. I was a student of Murrow. He was a bold, vigorous investigative reporter. I knew—like Murrow knew—that you want to signal the viewer with a constant beacon that the person bringing you the news is passionately involved in gathering the news. On TV, if you’re on every night, the audience will pick up who and what you are. It’s a big mistake to hide that—they’ll know. I wanted to keep the trust of the audience.

“Like Popeye, I yam what I yam.”

In 1958, Murrow delivered a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association that presaged Rather’s predicament, in which he chastised CBS for pandering to television’s insulated masses after See It Now was removed, during a quiz-show craze, from its regular time slot and aired as a series of specials. The speech came to be seen as a warning about corporate excess. And by the time a clinically depressed Mike Wallace prepared to take the witness stand in 1985 to defend 60 Minutes against accusations that its exposé, “The Uncounted Enemy,” had libeled General William Westmoreland by accusing him of distorting the strength of Communist forces in Vietnam, the role of the correspondent was understood—at least within the entertainment companies that had swallowed TV news operations—to be of primary importance not for its journalistic prowess but for providing a handsome face to be exploited with close-ups and dramatic cuts in a postmodern form of debate. “It made Wallace crazy that George Crile, his producer, was the central defendant,” said Lowell Bergman, who was Wallace’s producer during 60 Minutes’s next big scandal, involving a self-censored report on the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, depicted in the 1999 movie The Insider as proof of the destruction of the barrier between corporate and editorial. “It presented the reality that correspondents aren’t reporters.”

In his lawsuit, Rather both utilizes and eschews this “reality.” He says he was off covering Hurricane Frances when crucial decisions were made about the National Guard story, thus distancing himself from its production, and yet claims the ensuing scandal hurt his reputation as a reporter. Following him around at HDNet, I saw this disconnect, between how Rather sees himself and how others see him, repeatedly on display. At a sold-out interview with Scott McClellan, the former Bush administration press secretary, at the Ninety-second Street Y in Manhattan, Rather’s stature as a commodity on the anti-Bush front clearly fed the audience’s bellows whenever McClellan said something juicy. On another occasion, after an interview with New York Congressman Gary Ackerman about delays in resettling Iraqi refugees in America, the congressman’s entire staff—interns, volunteers, secretaries—giddily gathered with Rather for a photo op.

In Kansas City, this paradox was driven home more directly. Rather had been introduced to the gas-can story by Mary Lyn Villanueva, the co-owner of Flagler Productions, a video production company based in Lenexa, outside of Kansas City. For more than twenty years, Flagler had been paid by Wal-Mart to record its executive events; when that handshake agreement was scuttled in 2006, Flagler (for whom the Wal-Mart contract tallied 95 percent of its income) was left all but bankrupt—until the company realized that its video library might fetch a tidy sum on the open market. After Wal-Mart declined to buy the library for $150 million, Villanueva began leaking segments to the television media, hoping to create a market for her product (at $250 per viewing hour) among attorneys engaged in a range of anti-Wal-Mart litigation. The videos—featuring cross-dressing executives slapping each others’ rears, and a pep talk encouraging middle managers to bankroll the company’s political action committee—became a cable-news sensation, most tellingly on CNBC, which promoted a segment with the news scroll, “Coming Up Next: Sex, Lies, and Videotape,” then admitted: “Actually, there’s no sex and lies, but there is videotape!”

The media swoon left Flagler disenchanted. “All they wanted were sound bites,” said Villanueva, “but this was a far more serious issue than guys dancing in women’s underwear.” Flagler sought a more sober reporter to purchase exclusive rights to the library’s crown jewels: a pair of videos in which Wal-Mart employees joked about the gas cans’ propensity to blow up. Enter Rather, whose program had earlier used the Flagler tapes to produce a report, “Wal-Mart Goes to Washington,” on the retailer’s linking of donations by store managers to its corporate pac to a safety-net initiative for its lowest-paid employees. I asked Villanueva, who is fifty, why she chose to place her company’s best prospect for financial rebirth in the hands of an aging newsman who had been exiled from the mainstream for what some consider dereliction of duty. “I can’t remember a time without Dan Rather being on TV,” she said. “Back in the day, there were only three stations. Those were the icons. When things got tough in America, those were the people you trusted to deliver. He brings a lot of credibility—almost like family. In today’s world, there’s so much choice, so much spin. And I don’t associate spin with Dan Rather.” Then she got to a larger point. “We want this story to get lots of exposure. He is Dan Rather, and he told us, once this story gets done, maybe he can go on Larry King or the Today show and generate some publicity.”

It was interesting to hear Villanueva—someone unconcerned with the parochial fixations of Washington and Manhattan media cliques—home in on “exposure” and “publicity.” In her calculated approach to professional salvation, she seemed to suggest an alternate, apolitical idea of Rather, based not on all the attempts to “understand” or vilify him (for example, Villanueva knew next to nothing about Rather’s lawsuit), but on something more intriguing: the way, perhaps, that his omnipresence on television in the latter half of the twentieth century branded his visage upon the American psyche. Since 1979, each of Rather’s contracts with CBS included an airtime provision, guaranteeing Rather a considerable amount of prime on-air spots, which was understood as dually beneficial: it increased Rather’s exposure, the lifeblood of a television personality, while bolstering CBS News’s credibility, since the anchor was its personification. As went the fortunes of Dan Rather, in other words, went the fortunes of CBS News. Indeed, the rulings thus far in Rather’s lawsuit leave open the possibility that CBS owes Rather financial damages for breaking its fiduciary duty to him—an extra-contractual, symbiotic relationship based on loyalty and trust. This may help explain why CBS let twelve days pass after the 60 Minutes II report on Bush aired before backtracking from its support of Rather and saying it couldn’t guarantee the authenticity of the documents that indicated Bush got preferential treatment. “Rather was us,” a longtime colleague of Rather’s said to me. “We wanted to see him succeed, and we weren’t into self-immolation.”

It’s worth noting that in the wake of General Westmoreland’s 1982 libel case against CBS, the network assigned one of its own executive producers, Burton Benjamin, to investigate the alleged journalistic transgressions. In 2004, however, the network tapped two outsiders—former attorney general Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi, the former head of The Associated Press—to investigate the Bush story. Their report is published on the Internet for all to see, while CBS had literally begged the presiding judge in the Westmoreland case to not release Benjamin’s findings, calling them “oppressive.”

The disparity underscores not only two vastly different media eras, but informs a final example of Rather’s misreading of his place in the equation. During those awkward twelve days following the 60 Minutes II piece, Rather reported on the fallout from his own story on the Evening News, announcing with a kind of stoic defiance that CBS would stand behind it, as it was based on “a preponderance of evidence.” It is no surprise that Rather helped write the script for many of these shows; the theme is straight from Murrow. Once, during one of our interviews, Rather had mentioned a scene from Good Night, and Good Luck that spoke to his decision to defend the Bush piece even when the walls of his universe were crumbling. It concerned a story on Milo Radulovich, an Air Force reserve officer facing dismissal because of his father’s alleged Communist sympathies. Shortly before the story was to air, an Air Force general and a lieutenant colonel came to visit Fred Friendly, the creator and producer of See It Now, and pressured him not to run it. “He was cold steel to them,” Rather said. “He listened, but he didn’t give them an edge. ‘Let’s not have any misunderstanding,’ he said. ‘We’re doing this piece. Murrow believes in it, you’re not going to talk us out of it.’ ” Rather paused, and then said, “In the old way of doing things, management protected the talent.”

The gas-can story came and went on HDNet; in terms of buzz, a Google News search turns up little more than a few items on an anti-Wal-Mart blog that mentioned the manufacturer’s nonchalant reaction and the fact that Wal-Mart seems to have no plans to pull the product from its shelves. In its finished form, the piece seems to go on and on in an anesthetized state, suggesting the burden of seriousness amid the overwhelming din of digital media. Meanwhile, in September, New York Supreme Court Judge Ira Gammerman dismissed Rather’s fraud claims while allowing his breach-of-contract claim to continue. Thus truncated, even if a trial occurs, it remains to be seen the extent to which Rather will be able to introduce his larger ideological agenda about Viacom’s meddling, or even to rehash certain details of the Bush story based on the new evidence Rather claims he has. Gammerman would likely have to create an exceptionally large evidentiary berth for Rather to broach all the First Amendment questions he says motivated the suit in the first place. His lawyers, though, maintain that CBS misrepresented the agenda of the Thornburgh-Boccardi investigation, which they call “a public administration gimmick to appease the Bush administration and throw Rather under the bus,” and coerced Rather into not continuing to defend the story even though company officials knew there was more to it. Both could theoretically qualify as breaches of fiduciary duty—a claim likely to survive until the suit’s bitter end—based on the expectation of mutual trust that Rather and CBS had developed over the years.

Last July, I was in court when Judge Gammerman issued perhaps the most favorable decision for Rather since his suit began, allowing his attorneys to depose nearly all of the major actors in the case. He alluded to a November trial date, suggesting a certain build-up of momentum. Rather attended this proceeding, entering the courtroom after the endless line of attorneys. He seemed cool and dispassionate, reacting more to Gammerman’s contrarian angst than to the forward or backward sway of argument, which included an unsuccessful attempt by his attorney, Martin Gold, to have released to the media ten documents already produced in depositions that Gold said were “matters of national importance.” A few days later, I received the second of two late-night telephone calls from Rather, and in talking about developments in the case, he passed along a gossip trail that seemed, to him, significant. “I hear a Hollywood producer is thinking about making a movie about all of this. I’m not surprised. You know, there have already been two recent movies about the inner workings of CBS. They both got nominated for an Oscar, and one made $70 million.

You Think I'd Lay Down And Die?

| No Comments

Per NPR:

Even a paper the size of The New York Times isn't immune. Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor, says his company's stock price was sliding even before the economic crisis hit. But he tells NPR's Steve Inskeep that his newspaper is still profitable — and when asked to write the headline for his institution at this moment in time, he says it would be this: "We will survive."

The Journal Gets a Scalp

| No Comments

A day after the Journal went page one with a story about Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain begging the board for a $10 million bonus, the company decided to give him nothing, the paper says today.

Score one for the Journal.

And looks like we've got some internal strife at Merrill:

The compensation committee met for several hours to discuss the issue and some people familiar with the matter say Mr. Thain was initially resistant to the suggestion of taking no bonus. However, a Merrill spokeswoman said Mr. Thain kicked off the meeting by requesting no bonus.

And this is right on:

The moves by Merrill and Morgan Stanley essentially mark the end of an era for giant CEO bonuses on Wall Street, at least until the next bull market. From Credit Suisse Group to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to UBS, the year-end payouts that enriched top executives and symbolized the record profits that investment banks raked in before the housing bubble burst suddenly are an endangered species. And with business expected to remain dismal, Wall Street chiefs face the prospect of foregoing another bonus in 2009.

Tribune Aftermath

| 2 Comments

The NYT's Andrew Ross Sorkin has an excellent column today on Tribune. He slams a list of players, including the company's board for knowingly putting the company—and especially its employees—at serious risk by selling to a man with no newspaper experience who planned to load it to the gills with debt, an utter fiasco:

With one of the grand old names of American journalism now confronting an uncertain future, it is worth remembering all the people who mismanaged the company before hand and helped orchestrate this ill-fated deal — and made a lot of money in the process. They include members of the Tribune board, the company’s management and the bankers who walked away with millions of dollars for financing and advising on a transaction that many of them knew, or should have known, could end in ruin.

It was Tribune’s board that sold the company to Mr. Zell — and allowed him to use the employee’s pension plan to do so. Despite early resistance, Dennis J. FitzSimons, then the company’s chief executive, backed the plan. He was paid about $17.7 million in severance and other payments. The sale also bought all the shares he owned — $23.8 million worth. The day he left, he said in a note to employees that “completing this ‘going private’ transaction is a great outcome for our shareholders, employees and customers.”

Well, at least for some of them.

Tribune’s board was advised by a group of bankers from Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, which walked off with $35.8 million and $37 million, respectively. But those banks played both sides of the deal: they also lent Mr. Zell the money to buy the company. For that, they shared an additional $47 million pot of fees with several other banks, according to Thomson Reuters. And then there was Morgan Stanley, which wrote a “fairness opinion” blessing the deal, for which it was paid a $7.5 million fee (plus an additional $2.5 million advisory fee).

On top of that, a firm called the Valuation Research Corporation wrote a “solvency opinion” suggesting that Tribune could meet its debt covenants. Thomson Reuters, which tracks fees, estimates V.R.C. was paid $1 million for that opinion. V.R.C. was so enamored with its role that it put out a press release.

And he's right to point out that Zell had almost no skin in the game:

Granted, Mr. Zell, 67, put up some money. He invested $315 million in the form of subordinated debt in exchange for a warrant to buy 40 percent of Tribune in the future for $500 million. It is unclear how much he’ll lose, but one thing is clear: when creditors get in line, he gets to stand ahead of the employees.

The Tribune-owned LA Times explains what bankruptcy means for operating the business:

During a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, major management decisions must pass muster with a bankruptcy judge, and the ultimate fate of a company -- including whether it remains intact or is sold off in pieces -- could be decided in part by its creditors...

With Tribune now in bankruptcy protection, its creditors will have to decide whether they're willing to restructure the debt, as Zell hopes, or try to get at least some of their money back another way, such as by a sale of its assets.

A breakup seems unlikely, however. Even if buyers were to emerge for some of the company's media properties, financing such purchases could be a major stumbling block given that credit remains tight.

In many bankruptcies, creditors exchange debt for an ownership stake in the business, in the hope of eventually selling that stake at a profit. Barring a breakup of the company, the issue facing Tribune's creditors could come down to how much of a debt load to leave on the company's balance sheet and how much of an equity stake to demand.

This is good reporting by the LA Times here that others should have had. The key for the future of Tribune will be how much debt the reorganized company gets to offload:

The big losers in the Tribune bankruptcy may be banks and bond investors that funded Zell's buyout.

The credit analysis firm Fitch Ratings said Monday that the bank lenders that provided the bulk of the financing might recover as little as 31% of the investments.

For other debt holders, Fitch said, "0% recovery is realistic."

The bond market had anticipated Tribune's looming distress. As recently as two weeks ago, some Tribune bonds were trading as low as 14 cents on the dollar.

The NYT points out that ex-employees are getting the shaft, too:

A note on an internal Tribune Company Web site said, “All ongoing severance payments, deferred compensation and other payments to former employees have been discontinued and will be the subject of later proceedings before the court.” That made it apparent that employees who recently were laid off or took buyouts would join the long list of unsecured creditors.

The Journal says Zell will be wiped out:

Last year, Mr. Zell's firm invested $315 million in Tribune in exchange for a subordinated note and a warrant entitling it to acquire 40% of the stock. He now says he assumes his investment is worthless.

The Chicago Tribune's story is a good roundup that hits most of the issues, and this is useful:

Douglas Baird, a bankruptcy specialist at the University of Chicago Law School, agreed that Tribune Co.'s Chapter 11 filing is much less complicated than other big ones such as United Airlines. Since the company's papers and TV stations generate cash flow on their own, the bankruptcy court will focus on restructuring the balance sheet, not operations, he said.

But Baird and others also said that the bankruptcy process tends to accelerate any sort of operational restructuring that is under way.

The Britishisms Are Coming!

| 3 Comments

“I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could easily have come from a President McCain,” Max Boot, a journalist who served as a foreign policy adviser to John McCain, said recently of Barack Obama’s cabinet choices. Someone else, commenting anonymously on the collapse of a prominent law firm after the arrest, in Canada, of one of the firm’s principals, said: “This has just been a complete lightning strike. The lawyers are completely gobsmacked.’’

“Gobsmacked” is British slang, originating in northern England and in use since about 1975, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. But you don’t have to know what the term means to understand its impact. The “smacked” part makes it clear that someone who is “gobsmacked” is stunned, taken completely aback, utterly astonished.

And despite what you may imagine about “gob,” it’s actually a clean term. Slang for “mouth,” the term “gob” apparently originated in Scotland but has been used in British slang for hundreds of years. (In the United States, “gob” mean something soft and lumpy, or is slang for a Navy sailor.) Put together, “gobsmacked” means the feeling of having been suddenly smacked in the mouth.

“Gobsmacked” and its close cousin “gobstruck” have appeared in U.S. publications more than two dozen times since September. The word is something new and different here—it hasn’t even made it into an American online slang dictionary yet, though an obscene “gob” suffix has—and so far has appeared mostly in quotes, some of them from people with British backgrounds. But the evocative term is likely to show up more and more.

At least it’s clean, even if it sounds otherwise. The same can’t be said of another Britishism, “wanker,” which appears in U.S. publications more frequently than “gobsmacked.” In this case, “wanker” means just what you think it means—someone who is fond of, um, let’s say self-love, or it could mean the object of his self-love. In British slang, “wanker” is usually applied to someone who is lazy, indolent, or contemptible, and almost always to someone who is male. But on this side of the Atlantic, it seems to be used more often to mean someone who is merely a jerk (a term originating in American slang), not a jerk-off. It’s unclear whether the people using it here know its derivation, or would care.

British slang has, of course, been incorporated into American slang for hundreds of years, and will continue to be. While there’s nothing un-American about using British slang, it’s important to know the derivation of the term in question to avoid unnecessary offense and to resist its use if an American audience wouldn’t understand it. While nearly every American knows “the loo” and “stiff upper lip” and all that, it’s not safe as houses to assume the same of all British slang.

Consider Yourself Warned

| No Comments

The New York Times's Katharine Q. Seeyle previews Inauguration Day (including a hint of what she'll be up to):

Much of the day is pro forma, but presidents like to customize details like which marching bands join the parade and which inaugural balls will be designated as official. All those choices will be dissected for meaning.

Tribune Files For Bankruptcy

| No Comments

"It is only the latest -- and biggest-- sign of duress for the newspaper industry yet," says the New York Times. See Ryan's Audit post from earlier today for what to make of it.

Video: Climate Central

| No Comments

Climate Central, a novel and unique partnership between journalists and scientists based in Princeton, New Jersey, recently set out to improve the coverage of climate change. The goal is to "localize" the story in order to highlight the ways that global warming is impacting people's daily lives and to educate the public to make informed decisions about mitigation and adaptation. CJR's video coverage of the project is below, and the full story is here.

 

Edited by Betwa Sharma

 

Who Will Be at the Table?

| No Comments

During the campaign, Barack Obama promised his cheering crowds that, when he rolled up his sleeves to work on health care, he would “have insurance company representatives and drug company representatives at the table. They just won’t be able to buy every chair.” Now is a good time to take a look at just what kind of seats special interest groups will have at Obama’s table, and what they’re doing to bring the public around to their ways of thinking. This is the second of an occasional series of posts that will analyze their activities and how the media are covering them. The entire series is archived here.

Who woulda thunk it? That AHIP, American’s Health Insurance Plans, the big bad industry trade group trashed by the media fifteen years ago for torpedoing the Clinton health reforms, would turn out to be Mr. and (Ms.) Nice Guy. Its public persona is downright friendly; conciliatory and helpful. The group, as some in the media have put it, has moved beyond Harry and Louise, the infamous advertising duo who supposedly turned the tide against the earlier reform efforts. (Those efforts were defeated for factors more complicated than either Harry or Louise, but let’s move on.)

Lately, press coverage of AHIP has been so positive that president Karen Ignani and her PR staff must clap their hands with glee every time they pick up a newspaper. A recent Wall Street Journal story read like an AHIP press release. Perhaps that’s not too surprising, since another Journal story, published a few weeks before, also gave AHIP a decidedly positive spin. Said the Journal:

The insurance industry may provide the best case study of how things have changed. Two years ago, America’s Health Insurance Plans proposed a coverage plan, and since then the group has worked with other interests to help build momentum for action. The group’s board made a conscious decision to be a “productive participant” in the debate this time, said Ms. Ignani. She said members are excited by a variety of aspects of the Democratic approach, including the idea that every American would have coverage.

A Boston Globe story quoted Ignani saying that her group began working on reform strategies two full years ago, out of a sense of responsibility and pragmatism. In the Los Angeles Times, Ignani said: “We are coming to the table with a specific set of proposals. We believe reform needs to be comprehensive, and it needs to happen now.” Even Ted Kennedy’s office issued a statement praising AHIP: “The insurance industry has advanced serious proposals that deserve serious analysis and consideration.”

The Globe’s story, and another one by Politico, did try to temper the media’s AHIP adulation with a bit of balance. Both quoted a representative from the liberal coalition Health Care for America Now, who was skeptical of AHIP’s motives and proposal. In the Politico story, HCAN national campaign manager Richard Kirsch explained:

What they’re trying to do politically is to get ahead of health care reform and shape health care reform in such a way to protect their bottom line as opposed to actually fixing the problems in the health care system.

In the last graph came a comment from Rose Ann DeMoro, who heads the California Nurses Association and is a vocal opponent of the insurance companies. “What their proposal does is privatize profits and socialize risk,” she said.

In most of today’s formulaic writing and reporting, the requisite “balance quotes” come toward the end, serving to obscure the article’s dominant story line. In this case, the media’s dominant story line is the same one that AHIP wants it to tell—that insurance companies are good guys and team players this year. When the balance quotes that begin to pick apart what the trade group is really saying are relegated to the end of an article—almost as an afterthought—they are not very effective.

We need a new journalistic paradigm for examining what the special interests, including the insurers, are up to—one that deeply examines what their proposals really mean, and who will benefit from them. Politico’s examination was much too brief. It noted that AHIP’s insurance proposals did not include an option for a public plan that would compete with private insurance policies sold by the group’s members. Health reform advocates see the public option as a necessary ingredient in mix of proposals for change. An AHIP spokesman told Politico: “We don’t think there will be a need to get the government in the insurance business.”

AHIP’s self interest is now emerging, and so are the beginnings of a fight to protect its turf. Despite polite comments from their PR types, insurers will fight to the death on this one. The last thing they want is competition from a more efficient public program that might offer more comprehensive coverage at less cost.

The press needs to look critically at another of the industry’s major proposals—its offer to insure every American, no matter how sick, in exchange for requiring every American to have health insurance. That means if people don’t get it at work or from public programs like Medicare or Medicaid, they will have to buy it in the so-called individual market, where companies are already at the drawing boards dreaming up new policies to sell. Robert Laszewski, who blogs at Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review and who has been around insurance reform efforts before, says “AHIP’s proposal is “not a proposal for reform. It’s a Trojan horse.” The industry knows that no reform will cover everyone.

This fall, a report by consulting firm The Lewin Group said that, under Obama’s plan, 45 percent of the currently uninsured would remain without coverage. With people still uninsured, companies could still pick and choose only the healthiest for coverage. It will be business as usual for the carriers.

An industry insider put it another way: “They are not doing anything that puts their skin in the game.” If by some chance everyone is covered, insurers will win big. Think of the business that will flow to AHIP members. No wonder Karen Ignani is excited by Democratic approaches that include the idea of every American having coverage. What a deal! That’s a new storyline for the media, one that the public just may want to hear.

Who's (Re)Counting? You!

| No Comments

While you're waiting: The (Minneapolis) StarTribune.com lets you view contested ballots from the Norm Coleman v. Al Franken Senate race and decide for whom the voter meant to vote (h/t, Eve Fairbanks).

Jeffrey D. Austen lost his job making cookies in Ohio. Some ambitious PR firm needs to hire him, stat.

It looks to me like he scored a PR coup this weekend, landing a page-one story in The Wall Street Journal on Saturday and a National section cover story in The New York Times on Sunday. Of course, he had a great story to sell.

And, of course, I'm just trying to read the lines here on how this coincidence happened. Take it with a grain of salt, but the Journal's story reports that he formed an ex-employee group called The Burnt Cookies and is suing the company.

Let's see how the stories stack up.

Both have pensive pictures of Austen, but the Journal's photography (and this is a true shock) is better.

Both use a disturbing anecdote of an employee who had her labor induced early so she would be covered by her soon-to-expire health coverage (which ended up not covering her anyway).

Both say this snapshot illustrates how the economic crisis is exacerbating the health-care crisis.

It's unfair to compare the Journal's story with the Times's—I don't know if the NYT's version was better, but got chopped down because the Journal beat it to print, so I'll leave aside a value judgment on that and just say both are worthy. In fact, applaud the Times for not stuffing its story even though the Journal beat it by a day. Most of its readers don't read the WSJ.

Here's why these stories are important, from the Times:

“When I heard that I was losing my insurance,” she said, “I was scared. I remember that the bill for my son’s delivery in 2005 was about $9,000, and I knew I would never be able to pay that by myself.”

So Ms. Darling asked her midwife to induce labor two days before her health insurance expired.

“I was determined that we were getting this baby out, and it was going to be paid for,” said Ms. Darling, who was interviewed at her home here as she cradled the infant in her arms.

As it turned out, the insurance company denied her claim, leaving Ms. Darling with more than $17,000 in medical bills.

And from the Journal:

In May, Jevic Transportation, a New Jersey trucking company owned by buyout firm Sun Capital Partners Inc., told employees in a letter that it was shutting down and terminating insurance. "Continuation of these plans via Cobra is not an option since Jevic no longer provides any group health plan to any employee," a human resources official wrote.

"My whole world ended when I opened that letter," says Elizabeth Vaughn of Bordentown, N.J.

Her husband, D.S. "Sam" Vaughn, a 63-year-old Jevic driver, put off chemotherapy treatments when the company closed, she said. He later went to a government-subsidized clinic, Ms. Vaughn says, to get medicine for heart disease. She said he was ashamed.

"After he was laid off," she says, "he'd just sit at the kitchen table saying, 'I'm sorry.'"

Mr. Vaughn died over the summer of pneumonia. His obituary in the local paper, written by his wife, said: "He worked for 15 years for Jevic Transportation until they closed their doors and broke his heart."

Somewhat maudlin, but gut-wrenching all the same.

And I'd like to zero in on this paragraph from the Journal:

Now that Archway is bankrupt, all its assets will be divided among creditors, including those with health claims. Archway bankruptcy documents list liabilities of $143 million and assets of $92 million.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say workers' health claims ought to be paid before just about any other debt. Why aren't they?

Cognitive neuroscientist Michael Posner is an internationally recognized expert on attentional networks and cognition. CJR contributor Russ Juskalian recently talked to Posner about attention, cognition, and how media consumption affects both. This is a full transcript of their discussion.

Michael Posner: I’m Michael Posner, I’m a professor emeritus at the University of Oregon, where I’ve been since 1965. My main interest is the study of attention networks in human beings, and particularly their development. We’ve been interested in recent years in how genes and experience shape the development of these networks.

Russ Juskalian: OK, so we’re talking about attention and media consumption and kind of the rise of the Web and other technologies. But I was wondering if you can give us an overview of what attention actually is.

MP: Let me first say something about what attention actually is. I’d like to talk about the physical basis of attention. And neuroimaging particularly has given us a chance to look at the areas of the brain that are active when we attend in different ways. And we’ve revealed three important networks that carry out different functions of attention.

One of them involves maintaining—achieving and maintaining the alert state, and particularly this involves norepinephrine system, arising in the locus coeruleus and activating centers in the frontal and parietal lobes. Another network involves orienting the sensory events. Because this network is very common between human beings and other animal organisms, it has probably been the most widely studied of all the brain networks underlying attention. It involves areas of the parietal lobe and frontal cortex, and seems to be particularly affected by the, uh, neuromodulator acetylcholine. And finally there’s an executive network.

We’ve called it the executive network because it interacts with many other brain networks in regulating their activity, particularly in adjudicating conflicts, because neuroimaging has shown many parts of the brain active during tasks, and one has to have a method of producing coherent behavior in the presence of, uh, widespread activation. This network involves frontal structures such as the anterior singulate and lateral prefrontal cortex, as well as the basal ganglia, and we’ve seen this network as being crucial to what, in childhood, is called self-regulation—that is, the ability to control emotions and to deal with conflicts and neuroactivity, leading to, perhaps, different behaviors. In adults, sometimes we call this a network involved in self-control or voluntary will. It’s obviously the one that poses the largest influence on various distractions, because, of course, in adjudicating conflicts between the different brain networks it’s influenced by widespread activity in networks that might be active due to sensory stimulation or other factors.

RJ: So, for someone who’s maybe reading news on the Web or watching television: Do all three of these come into play in terms of attention?

MP: Yes, of course, these networks interact in most real life tasks. They’re all probably involved. I mean, when we’re dealing with information—let’s say visual information—coming over the Web, we have to move our eyes from position to position to take in the detailed information. This involves orienting, and we all know that, sometimes, depending on what the information is, the alert state wanes and we space out and miss information. And, of course, because the Web produces a lot of information, including deliberately conflicting information—that is, ads, for example, that pop up and move around and are in color and so on, designed to attract attention, to attract orienting—we have to, of course, try to maintain some kind of central control that allows us to maintain focus and attention despite all these distractions.

RJ: So is attention a finite thing? Or is it kind of fungible in how we can train ourselves to pay attention?

MP: Well, it’s certainly finite—it’s a physical system, so it has to be finite. But it is a system that is susceptible to developmental processes and to training. In recent years, a number of different training exercises have been developed to improve, particularly, executive network, but also orienting network. And, of course, we know there are pharmaceutical interventions we all use, like coffee, and things to control the alerting network. So, yes, they’re definitely finite networks, but they’re susceptible to all sorts of environmental influences, both in improvement and in boost efficiency.

RJ: So what about multi-tasking? Is it something that you see as a misnomer? People can’t really do multiple tasks at once? Or is it something that some people just haven’t learned how to do?

MP: Well, the question of multi-tasking is a complicated one, because there are many grains or levels at which we could ask the question. In fact, we are pretty limited in what we can do at any one given time. But given time is usually thought of in psychological studies as in the millisecond range. However, we can shift from task to task, and of course we all do this during the course of a day. That can be pretty efficient—and in that sense we can multi-task, start on one task, and switch to something else, and come back again.

What the psychologist is usually saying when he says there’s a limit to attention is really to look at this millisecond range—what we’re doing at any one time. So if you’re listening to me intently, you’re going to miss things in the background. And you might feel that you’re aware of everything, but, in fact, psychological studies have shown that, really, vast changes can occur in the background. And provided they don’t produce the cues—the particular physical cues that lead to reorienting of attention—you’ll just miss them. So, at one level, we’re pretty severely limited; at another level, gross level of time, we are able to shift from task to task. Of course, this is something that depends a lot on our interest and on our training and so on.

RJ: In shifting from task to task at that level, does it take a certain amount of time to really get into the task where you can pay full attention to it?

MP: Yes, and that time is definitely measurable by psychological experiment. On the other hand, it isn’t like twenty minutes or so. It’s in, probably, millisecond-to-second range to shift from one task to another. In terms of the overall day, or what people are trying to talk about in terms of being able to do more than one thing at a time, in the gross lay sense, it isn’t really severe punishment, but it does cost. And these costs can be measured.

RJ: Is there any indication that young people, for instance, who were brought up instant-messaging while watching TV, are able to do this better than adults? And that, kind of, some of the issues people are bringing up about information overload and that sort of thing actually has to do with the amount of training?

MP: Uh, the question about whether young people, being raised in a more Web culture, are better able to do this than their older contemporaries not raised in that culture… as far as I know, that question hasn’t really been definitively answered. My guess would be that they’ll have made certain adaptations, or developed certain skills. Anyway, in older age, we lose some of these abilities, probably due to changes in the nervous system that come with age, so although I can’t really say that the definitive experiments have been done, it seems quite likely that people raised with access to all the information that’s available on the Web with the click of a button are maybe better able to take advantage of it than people who are always having to write things down, go to the library sometime later and so on.

RJ: So if there’s a finite amount that we can pay attention to at a given time, is it possible to overload the brain circuitry over a larger period of time? Throughout our day, the more things we’re exposed to, the more stimulus, that the less our ability is to pay attention?

MP: The question of whether we can overload and get fatigue… again I might have a little difficulty in pointing to the best studies that deal with this, but it seems almost certain that we can get fatigued from high mental effort during the day. And that is like any other kind of fatigue; it requires a certain amount of restoration. There are psychological theories to this effect—that restoration is required after intense mental effort—and that seems likely to be the case. But, again, I’m not certain we have the definitive answer to this question.

RJ: Is that the sort of thing where, if you were exposed to lots of flashing advertisements and signs, thatpotentially those could be forces that wear us down?

MP: This is probably less likely. It probably depends on how much you process this information. So I think that the key probably arises from exercise of the attentional networks, not just from exposure to flashing lights and so on. Because we’re pretty good at being able to, you know, tune out some of this. But, again, I don’t know… obviously, the more effective the ads are in getting in and getting some processing, the more they will probably take your sources and lead to a certain amount of fatigue.

RJ: Going back to the three aspects of attention—alerting, reacting, and executive—do we have an idea why our brains are this way? The evolution process or that sort of thing?

MP: So the evolution of these brain networks… two of them are extremely old; one of them, certainly the alerting network, goes back to the animal kingdom, and it has to do, of course, with the way in which the animals adapt to awaking and sleep and Circadian rhythms, the rhythms of the day and so on—these are ancient networks. Different animals have of course adapted in somewhat different ways. Why we change in alertness over the day, why we have a diurnal cycle and so on, I’m not really able to say.

There are quite a number of theories on why this is so, but it certainly is ubiquitous in the animal kingdom. The orienting network has been studied in all the way down to rodents and so on, and although there are certainly lots of differences that occur between rodents and monkeys, and then some differences between monkeys and humans, these networks have been preserved pretty well in evolution, probably because they work effectively. The executive network seems to have a very big change between primates and humans. There are cells available in the anterior singular in humans—and to a lesser degree in some great apes—that aren’t available in even other monkeys (non great ape monkeys). These cells provide greatly increased connectivity between the executive network and other parts of the brain, and that, I believe, underlies the human skill at self-regulation—although obviously we’re not as skillful as many of us would like to be, but in comparison to cats or other primates, we’re highly skilled at being able to bring a coherent focus of attention over relatively long periods of time, and this seems to be a late evolutionary adaptation, and probably is one of the things that make us human.

RJ: So it seems that some of these systems are ancient; some are, at least in evolutionary terms, pretty new. Where does that leave us in the 20th and 21st century, in the information society?

MP: Where does it leave us in the 21st century? Well, it’s hard to say. Definitely in a society in which there’s a lot of information available, and we should expect the human to continue to adapt to this, because although genetic adaptation is relatively slow and long term, many of the genes that we have that shape these networks are also influenced by our experiences—not the genes themselves, but their expression. And so we should expect exposure to the network—to increased information—to change the skills that people have. We can point to the advantages of those changes—perhaps in multitasking, that’s one that you discussed—and you can also point to disadvantages. People often use the term attention span, suggesting that we can’t sustain attention for long periods of time. I don’t know if there’s really any strong evidence for that, but there is a certain amount of plasticity in these networks, and that suggests that they’re adapting to circumstances that we’re in in this century.

RJ: Are there any specific genes or gene expressions that researchers are focusing on in this regard?

MP: Oh, yes. Well, we’ve worked on several genes that show influence. For example, style of parenting. For example, dopamine genes that interact with the style of parenting to shape aspects of the ability of people to, for example, their activity level and impulsivity and so on. So, yes, there’s increasing interest, particularly in dopamine and serotonin genes, in how their expression might be influenced by things that happen in the culture, or things that might be deliberately designed to improve performance by training.

RJ: To get back to one of the things you mentioned about attention span—do you see any trends in the media in changing attention span? Or do you think that’s just something that’s like a meme that maybe doesn’t have as much meaning as some people have—

MP: Well, the problem with “attention span” is that the psychologists mean something quite different than the lay definition. So the psychological definition is the number of items you can take in at a single glance. That is very limited, and probably hasn’t been changed. Now, I could be wrong about that; certainly the definitive studies haven’t and maybe can’t be done, because, of course, things are changing all the time, so if you study one cohort, you’d be studying a different group than another cohort.

But the layperson means, by “attention span”, “How long will I continue to work on a particular task?” And that’s much more difficult to know whether there’s been any change there. It could very well be… people usually say “Well, people won’t sit down and read War and Peace because they’re used to reading short.” And that may very well be true, but the adaptations that’ll allow us to read short pieces on the Web and to move back and forth between one source of information, one blog and so on, you know, if we choose to change those by settling down, turning off and working on something else… since plasticity is rare, we probably could change to a different style of processing information. But there are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to every style.

RJ: So, in your opinion, is there a concern for society? The kind of rapid changes in available information and kind of dissemination of news, information, from formation of knowledge?

MP: Well, the human is an adaptable person. Changing all the time. If we believe that we are or were kind of the best that we can be now or fifty years ago or a hundred years ago, then those changes will be seen as disadvantages. But of course we’re changing as the media industry changes. There is, of course, a lot of conservation. It isn’t that the human is a completely different organism. But there is adaptability, too, and there are changes, and they have advantages and disadvantages. Depends on what you like, I guess.

RJ: So I take it you’re—would you say on the balance optimistic as far as the technological changes and information?

MP: Well, yeah, I guess that would be said to be. At least, I don’t think that we’re in a dire situation, and that the media has dumbed us down to a huge degree or anything like that. I don’t see any real evidence. In fact, worldwide measures of intelligence, such as we can make them, have improved greatly over the last hundred years or so.

RJ: Are there trends—I don’t know if you’ve looked at them—but are there trends in media consumption and attention that you’ve seen change? Or maybe not even just attention, but the amount of information available, and how people—

MP: Yeah, this question I really can’t answer; that is, I haven’t done anything to look at the actual media changes. But, of course, in our daily life, we’re all familiar with things that we can do, like, you know, record telephone calls. If you wanted to have me visually present, you could do that now, which wouldn’t have been possible a few years ago and so on. So, yes, of course, we’re all familiar with some changes. But I haven’t really studied this at all.

RJ: OK. Do you have any ideas for the sort of things journalists or editors can learn from the study of cognitive science and attention, whether it’s packaging their information differently, or anything like that?

MP: Well, you know, media people seem fairly well knowledgeable about what’ll get orienting of attention. I notice that the ads now on the Web—you know, in the newspaper, it’s pretty easy to avoid the ads. But on the Web, now, if you click on the wrong place you suddenly have a moving, colorful display, which is, of course, totally unrelated to what you wanted to think about. And so it’s clear that a lot of what we know attracts attention has been exploited by advertisers. And, I assume that people who are writing journalistic pieces are studying, you know, memory aspects and what leads to sustaining interest in articles and so on and so on, like that. So, yes, I think everything we know in cognitive science gets kind of written for people who are, you know, producing media and they are presumably adapting things that will be of better usage.

RJ: And kind of continuing on that, as far as, you know, using principles learned from the study of cognitive science to design better applications for filtering information on the Web. Or, I’m thinking about what you were saying about advertisements and, you know, one of the big things with Google or other companies is that they can, ideally, match the advertisements to what the reader is interested in. You know, I’m reading an article about digital cameras, for instance, and then advertisements for that sort of thing pop up. Do you see this as potentially beneficial, or is this just kind of another way to sort of pull us off of news?

MP: Well, again, it could, you know, having ads that fit with the content of what you’re looking at, could be either way. But, you know, it’s going to be vastly annoying to think that the ads know exactly what I’m thinking about and they’re going to trying to be targeted this way. So, obviously it could be effective. I guess it could be useful in some way. It’s also going to probably be taking actions to try to prevent people from figuring out what we’re interested in.

RJ: I think that we’ve covered, actually, most of what I was looking for. I’m wondering, though, what …

MP: Well, I’m exhausted, I hope so.

RJ: One other thing I wanted to know, though, was what are the next steps for what people who study attention are going to be looking at, in terms of all that’s going on right now and what we’ve …

MP: Well, the agenda that I’ve talked about, that is the looking at neuro-networks and trying to get the physical base to understand how genes shape those networks, and how what, specifically, environmental influences do to change the efficiency of that network. That’s a big agenda which has just been, you know... I tried to give you some picture of our interests and what we’d like to be doing. But, we’ve just begun to understand even a little bit about this physical basis. And I think there will be vast consequences as we understand the physical basis of self-regulation. And this will have a lot to do with schooling, and with treatment of methodologies and, presumably, also ways in which media shaped information. There’s a tremendous amount – there’s some done, but mostly it’s undone.

This article is part of our online supplement to the November/December print issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. To read that issue’s cover story, entitled “Overload!: Journalism’s battle for relevance in an age of too much information”, click here.

Howard Kurtz attempts to distill What Meet The Press Is For:

At the heart of these programs is the questioning of candidates, administration officials and members of Congress, generally on inside-the-Beltway matters, in the hope of producing something resembling news for the Monday papers.

Today's "something resembling news" (President-elect Barack Obama was Tom Brokaw's guest on yesterday's Meet the Press)?

"Obama Warns of Further Economic Pain," New York Times


"Obama expects economy to worsen," LA Times

"Barack Obama says he won't smoke cigarettes in White House," Chicago Tribune

(Ok, so the Tribune also has this: "Worst of economic pain yet to come, Obama says.")

Your Browser Knows

| No Comments

"This recession got deeper faster because we knew more bad stuff quickly," according to David Carr in his New York Times column yesterday, headlined: "Stoking Fear Everywhere You Look" (and please, don't look at what's flanking Carr's column).

Per Carr:

Every modern recession includes a media séance about how horrible things are and how much worse they will be, but there have never been so many ways for the fear to leak in...


The recession was actually not officially declared until last week, but the psychology that drives it had already been e-mailed, blogged and broadcast for months. I used to worry that my TiVo thought I was gay — doesn’t everyone enjoy a little “Project Runway” at the end of a long, hard week? Now I worry that my browser knows I am about to lose my job.

This Journal headline is irritating:

Hard Times Offer a Chance To Overcome Protectionism

Some of us fervently hope that the hard times offer a chance to overcome free-tradeism. What's the WSJ doing with a slanted headline like that? Leave that for the editorial page.

And the story is just poorly cobbled together, to boot.

The Ratings Scam

| No Comments

Gretchen Morgenson in yesterday's Times keeps her eye on the ball with a look at one of the biggest scandals of the last decade, the ratings-agency debacle.

The paper gave it very nice display with multiple columns above the fold on page one. It's space this story deserves because these ratings are at the heart of the problems that led to the collapse. They gave creampuff ratings to subprime securities that never should have been above junk status. Why'd they do that? The Times's lede:

The housing mania was in full swing in 2005 when analysts at Moody’s Investors Service, the nation’s oldest and most prestigious credit-rating agency, were pressured to go back to the drawing board.

Moody’s, which judges the quality of debt that corporations and banks issue to raise money, had just graded a pool of securities underwritten by Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest mortgage lender. But Countrywide complained that the assessment was too tough.

The next day, Moody’s changed its rating, even though no new and significant information had come to light, according to two people briefed on the change who requested anonymity to preserve their professional relationships.

The story has some other new stuff, like this:

Reversals like this have enraged investors. Internal e-mail messages disclosed by Congress in October, for example, recounted a July 2007 conversation Moody's had with an irate customer at Pimco, a major money management firm.

"He feels that Moody's has a powerful control over Wall Street but is frustrated that Moody's doesn't stand up to Wall Street," the e-mail stated. "They are disappointed that in this case Moody's has 'toed the line. Someone up there just wasn't on top of it,' he said."

But it's mainly an explainer and history of the problem. It's good that the Times is keeping this critical story on the front burner.

There Will Be Kennedy

| No Comments

With Caroline Kennedy ahead in the media speculation that is ClintonSenateSeatStakes, here is how MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Morning Joe today (lamely) teased the lineup for her own afternoon show:

I'm heading to California to the Reagan Library for a big event out there but Nora O'Donnell will be here and one of the guests, she'll have Kerry Kennedy who is, you know, of course, related to [pause, half-laugh] to... her cousin, Caroline Kennedy...

Brace yourself. Because another Kennedy cousin issued this forward-looking warning to the AP:

Robert Kennedy said his extended family would come out en masse for [Caroline Kennedy] if she does get the appointment and has to run for election in 2010.


"If she runs, you will see more Kennedys than you have ever seen in your life," he said.

Tribune on the Brink

| 2 Comments

The Journal scooped last night that Tribune Company may file for bankruptcy this week. The other papers follow suit (not in bankruptcy—give that a few months) and while this news shouldn't be too surprising to anyone in the news business, it adds to an already beyond-bleak landscape, one that has deteriorated sharply in the last few weeks.

Tribune is not exactly emblematic of the state of the rest of the industry, it's an accelerated version of it. It's demise was essentially assured from the day bubble-era Wall Street lenders gave Sam Zell billions of dollars to leverage up the company to the point where it was likely to fail even if the economy and markets hadn't fallen off a cliff.

To meet the company's incredibly high debt payments, Zell always intended to parcel off the company's assets, including valuable ones like the Chicago Cubs. He sold Newsday to the Dolans in May for $650 million, a price the Cablevision crazies surely rued almost immediately. But the Cubbies still haven't gone, and Zell made a critical error in not selling them in the spring. Whatever price he gets now will be limited by selling into the most distressed market since the Depression.

Still, any bid to stave off bankruptcy almost certainly depends on their sale. I'm sure The Audit's own Lou Piniella, Dean Starkman, wouldn't mind running that show, so maybe I'll pass the cap later (it actually wouldn't be a bad idea to let the Cubbies be civic-owned like the NFL's Packers). Even a sale of the Cubs or other assets like Food Network will only delay the inevitable.

In fact, Tribune is probably already in default, having breached debt covenants that it barely cleared when the deal was closed a year ago. As I wrote in the magazine in March:

The company loaded itself up with so much debt that it will struggle to pay the interest—about $1 billion a year. As you see below, that is nearly as much as its 2008 estimated cash flow. Tribune has little room for error.

But what do lenders have to lose letting them slide a bit? The Washington Post adds an interesting, if incomplete, detail along those lines:

Bankruptcy, however, may not be the endgame for Tribune: Some creditors feel that newspapers forced into bankruptcy protection have even less chance of repaying their loans.

Why? The Post doesn't say.

But the WSJ reports that the banks may not be able to cut Trib any more slack:

Lenders so far have been willing to give the companies a pass in exchange for higher interest rates and other concessions, but Tribune has little wiggle room. Terms of the company's debt already are so loose and its financial standing so unsteady that a covenant waiver may not help.

Though it notes that:

To be sure, a restructuring outside of bankruptcy court remains an option for Tribune. Executives have indicated that its talks with lenders are amicable, and it remains possible the two sides can agree to rework the company's borrowings on their own, as other newspaper publishers are doing.

And the Trib-owned LA Times's story has this bit from an ex-executive:

"This might all be posturing and positioning. They could be looking for a new [debt] structure . . . without actually having to take the bankruptcy action."

A new structure would delay some of the big payments until financing becomes easier, presumably.

But while Tribune's woes are somewhat unique in the industry because of the leveraged buyout Zell engineered (with almost none of his own money at risk), that doesn't mean it's not a canary in the coal mine. The average paper's revenues are deteriorating so rapidly that many are going to go out of business in the next year. It's going to be gut-wrenching.

The last hope for the newspaper industry to avoid a massacre was the brand value, the cachet, of newspapers. They are (yes, still) power centers in their communities and are trophy assets for the rich players in those places. Those rich folks aren't so rich anymore and nobody will lend them money to buy a fifty-cent copy of a paper now, much less $500 million for the whole operation.

Think the news has been bad for the industry in the last couple of years? The real blood-letting is about to begin.

"I'm Not Tim"

| No Comments

MeetThePressstakes is formally (finally) no more. "These are treasured platforms," said (new moderator) David Gregory to (outgoing temp) Tom Brokaw, of Meet and similar Sunday morning shows. Gregory told Brokaw that he learned from Tim Russert to "ask the tough question" and "think of the smart follow-up."

In case you missed the Brokaw-to-Gregory baton pass:

Above the Fold: Stand by Me

| 10 Comments

If you're feeling overwhelmed by never ending suicide bombings in Iraq, escalating conflict in Afghanistan, hand-to-hand (if unarmed) conflict over gay marriage, IRAs which once looked like giant pumpkins now the size of grapes, torture by the American government, and reporters who remain reluctant to portray it as a crime—if you need proof that, throughout all the catastrophes of the last eight last years, a much brighter side of humanity was still alive and well and thriving in every corner of the world—consider this story, which reached us through Bill Moyers:

Many years ago, Mark Johnson's brother Greg—"a huge inspiration" for Mark—gave him a book called A Day in the Life of Africa. Greg had taken one picture out of the book and framed it. The caption read, "One of the more dangerous townships in South Africa finds solace through backyard jazz." Mark kept the picture on his wall for years; eventually he learned the upright bass player in the band in the picture was Pokei Klaas, and that Pokei was also the leader of the band.

Fast forward ten years. Mark, now all grown up as a successful music producer, is walking underground through the New York subway. He comes upon two monks painted from head to toe in white, one playing a nylon guitar, the other "singing in a language that I didn't understand." And two hundred hurried New Yorkers stopped in their tracks by the performance. "It occurred to me that here is a group of people that would normally run by each other. And here they are, collectively coming together." An idea was born. Now it just needed its soundtrack.

A few months later Mark was on the street in his own neighborhood, Santa Monica, one of the only neighborhoods in the City of Angels which enjoys actual street life—even pedestrians! Suddenly he heard the powerful tones of "Stand By Me" wafting towards him from more than a block away. Ben E. King's hit from 1961 was being performed on the sidewalk by another soulful black man, Roger Ridley, and Mark ran over to hear the performance. When Ridley agreed to be recorded and filmed, Mark was launched on a ten year voyage.

For the next decade, he circled the globe to get dozens and dozens of musicians to contribute to a single performance of “Stand by Me.” To see some of the results, go here, set the embedded video at the 2:39 mark, crank up the volume—and prepare yourself for a four minute, twenty-five second tour de force.

It begins with Roger Ridley's soulful California introduction from a Santa Monica sidewalk. Then Grandpa Elliott—"Though I won't be afraid, though I won't shed one tear"—comes in with a deep baritone, flowing out over a huge white beard and a belly shaking to the beat under his New Orleans overalls (with rhythmic back up from a smiling Washboard Chaz). Clarence Bekker, an astonishing black singer from Amsterdam, shouts out, "When the sky, that we look upon," and six members of a native American Band called the Twin Eagle drum group join in on a single drum from Zuni, New Mexico. "I won't cry, I won't cry, no I won't shed a tear," Bekker wails while shaking his dreadlocks. François Vigulé, all in black, starts rapping his tambourine in Toulouse, as Cesar Pope strums a ukulele down in Rio. From Moscow, Dmitri Doganon is pulling his bow across his cello, just as Grandpa Elliott comes back in, and Robert Lui rocks out on his guitar in New Orleans. Geraldo (acoustic) and Dionisio (electric) strum their guitars on the street in Caracas, and Junior Kissangwa taps his white drum set lightly in Mboth (The Congo).

Then Pokei Klass—you remember Pokei, the man pictured on the wall of Mark Johnson's bedroom—appears on the double bass from Gugela, South Africa, where Johnson has finally tracked him down. Django Degan thumps his congos over Grandpa Elliott's harmonica, and an extraordinary South African chorus called Sinamuya (focus on the large woman on the right, the one with the pink necklace and the golden belt) sways with the rhythm in Umlazi. Stefano Tomaseli (the man with the headband over the big hair) comes blazing in on his sax from Pisa, Italy, with vocal harmony from South African Vusi Mahlasela. Then we're back on the Santa Monica sidewalk with Roger Ridley, and the song is over.

It is a soaring moment of hope. It also the perfect bookend to a video that made me feel this way at the beginning of the year, when Jesse Dylan directed Will.i.am and everyone from Herbie Hancock to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in "Yes, We Can," the most powerful political video in black and white I have ever seen. That one began this way:

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.

Yes, we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights.

Yes, we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.

Yes, we can.

It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballot; a president who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the promised land.

Back then I could barely allow myself to hope that America would finally rediscover its better instincts and elect the most compelling presidential candidate I have seen since John F. Kennedy took office, the same year Ben E. King sang "Stand By Me." To my astonishment, that earlier video’s refrain came true in November: "no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change."

Now pause for a moment, to reflect on what a gigantic achievement that is.

Twenty years ago I wrote of another promising moment from my youth: "We did experience hope in 1968: hope and ambition and amazing joy. But to millions of us, Bobby Kennedy's assassination felt like the resounding chord that ended Sgt. Pepper's: a note of stunning finality. For me, at least, I hope the memory of that trauma and all the others of 1968 will now begin to fade away, so that our dream to make a better world may one again become vivid."

With Barack Obama's election to the White House, it finally has.

The Journal is excellent this morning with an in-depth report on the Reserve Primary Fund, the money-market fund that "broke the buck" in September and was a key contributor to the wave of panic that hit in the middle of that month.

Its good narrative journalism built around the story of an innovator who lost his way.

All this heightens a unique Wall Street drama: of a financier who pioneered a way for small savers to earn more, grew rich in the process, preached a principle of extremely cautious investing for decades, and then abandoned that principle -- in time to see the credit crisis decimate his empire...

For years, Mr. Bent railed against investing money funds' cash in anything riskier than Treasury bills and bank certificates of deposit. He singled out for scorn commercial paper, short-term corporate debt that's commonly unsecured.

"Commercial paper is anathema to the concept of the money fund," Mr. Bent told Reuters in 2001. "People prostituted the concept by putting garbage in the funds and reaching for yield." The following year, he told Investor's Business Daily that "we don't drink, smoke or buy commercial paper."

Yet in 2006, with the Primary Fund underperforming rivals, it went on a commercial-paper buying spree. It acquired so much of this higher-yielding but riskier asset that by September 2008, the fund's yield was tops in its class. But $785 million of that paper was Lehman's.

And it has great detail on the company, including a food anecdote that actually illustrates something instead of being, ahem, fodder for one of our "useless-detail alerts":

They ran a frugal shop, their Manhattan office so modest that Messrs. Brown and Bent sat in the same room, at facing desks. The office Christmas party, ex-employees say, amounted to free sandwiches, eaten at the desk.

And this anecdote tells us all we need to know about whether to have sympathy for the guy (who is also doing this):

In 2001, Mr. Bent tried his hand at politics, running as a Republican for county executive of Nassau County, N.Y. Sen. John McCain appeared in a television ad for him, saying Mr. Bent was a Marine who would provide "straight talk."

One problem, says Mr. Bent's campaign manager, Michael Dawidziak, was that "you could not control his mouth." According to press reports at the time, Mr. Bent boasted that he had fired his brother, Arthur. Arthur says that wasn't the case. And before a televised debate with his Democratic opponent, whose dog had recently died, Mr. Bent, in an apparent attempt to rattle his foe, inquired, "How's your dog?"

Hey, Bent—how's your company?

The Journal clearly shows how Bent sold out his principles to chase a buck. What's worse, he kept preaching his one-time principles even after he'd gone over to the dark side. And it looks like he's got some big legal problems:

Reserve said an administrative error had caused it to miscalculate the fund's value throughout much of Tuesday, Sept. 16, the day it closed at 97 cents. The true price wasn't a $1 a share during most of the day, but actually 99 cents from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., the company said.

The reason was that Reserve had written down the value of its Lehman commercial paper by 20% the previous morning -- hours before telling investors it expected the paper to hold its value. Reserve declined to explain the apparent contradiction.

Great story from the Journal.

Jet-tisoned

| No Comments

As a journalist and an American citizen and an auto aficionado and a general admirer of absurdity, I would have loved—loved, loved—to have accompanied the Big Three auto executives last week as they drove from Detroit to Washington, D.C., on what had to have been one of the weirdest road trips ever. What must have been racing through the minds of Wagonner, Nardelli, Mulalley, and their companions as they navigated those long, lonely stretches of I-76? What must they have thought of the rest stops? (Would they appreciate the humble delights of the Roy Rogers Fixins Bar?) And—most importantly for any road trip—what tunes would they have chosen to blare over the speakers of their sad little fuel-efficient hybrids? "Life Is a Highway"? "Please Forgive Me (I Know Not What I Do)"?

Anyway, I mention the executives' road trip of humiliationty because other journalists seem to share my fascination with it. Not, alas, with the tunes chosen for the occasion, but rather with the Symbolic Meaning of the thing, with the whole story of profligacy-giving-way-to-humility that the trip was meant to symbolize. Indeed, many journalists narrated that trajectory, without apparent irony, in terms of religious morality—penance! contrition! chastity! salvation!—as the story of the three magi told in ironic reverse. We come bearing begging gifts.

The road trip was one of contrition and pseudo-religious conversion—or, at least, it was depicted that way—because, of course, our three not-so-wise men, as the Boston Globe kindly reminded us, "were pilloried last month when they arrived on corporate jets with their hands out for $25 billion." The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, always an eagle-eyed irony spotter, put it more succinctly: "It was a display of stone-cold tone-deafness by the automaker chiefs."

And, yeah, it was. But, still, all the melodramatic morality plays—the fall! the redemption! the Sturm! the Drang!—that we were treated to last week miss the point. "Tone-deafness" doesn't mean a thing when it comes to the ostensible point of the Congressional hearings—which was, in essence, to assess the creditworthiness of the Big Three corporations. The executives' mode of travel, both to Thursday's hearing and the previous one, says precisely nothing about how those executives will steer their companies back toward solvency. Sure, symbolically the leaving-on-a-private-jet-plane thing says a lot about the tin ear of the three guys with the tin cups—how disconnected they are from the workers whose interests they're ostensibly representing; how isolated are their lives from the vast majority of Americans'; how little they understand, perhaps, the power of irony.

But, ultimately, the executives' "tone-deafness" was exactly what Ryan called it last month: "a PR disaster." It was nothing less...but it was certainly nothing more. Friday's melodramatic assessments of the executives' "penance" and newfound "humility" and ridiculously enforced acts of contrition, basking as so many of them do in drama that unwound before us on Thursday, conveniently forget that humility and penance have nothing to do with the real story. Insert your favorite "reporters love drama" truism here.

The primary problem with all this, as it so often is in journalistic narrative, is in the implication. Because the contrition-focused narratives suggest that contrition is an active player in this particular pageant: that whether or not the Big Three CEOs are contrite for (what's been portrayed as) their prior prodigality will make a difference in the decision Congress comes to when it comes to the bailout.

To imply that the emotions or the humility of three little men—rather than the plans they present or the interests of the millions or workers who will be directly affected by the decision they make, not to mention the many more millions of workers who will be affected indirectly—is, in short, ridiculous. It's insulting to members of Congress. (If I were to find out that the particular penitence Bob Nardelli demonstrated Thursday had even a modicum of impact on my Representative's vote, come 2010, I'd be selecting another candidate.) And it's insulting to readers and listeners, who deserve more than to be told that a series of public relations failures and remedies are anything more than that.

Congress can be forgiven for grandstanding here. A situation such as Thursday’s hearing is pretty much precisely what the term "free media" was coined for; of course members of Congress are going to take advantage of the opportunity to ham it up for their constituents and everyone else. But the press shouldn't be following their lead. Even National Public Radio, though—so often the moral compass of the media at large—put the "PR" in "NPR" in its story about Thursday's hearings:

Last month, the CEOs went to Congress seeking a $25 billion bailout, but they left empty-handed after lawmakers expressed skepticism over the industry's ability to restructure in a way that would put it on a long-term path to profitability.

Their case was further weakened when it was reported that GM's Wagoner, Ford's Alan Mulally and Chrysler's Bob Nardelli arrived in Washington aboard luxury corporate jets.

If a single private-jet flight, luxurious and symbolically unfortunate though it may have been, really did "weaken" the auto execs' case...well, then, perhaps our problems are even bigger than we'd thought. And perhaps we could all use a dose of humility.

When it comes to improving the coverage of climate change, critics often suggest some variant of the idea that journalists and scientists should do a better job "communicating" with each other.

Over the last few years, a fairly large number of meetings, seminars, workshops, symposia, and conferences have attempted to improve the dialogue by bringing the two groups—some would say "cultures"—together. Countless examples of excellent climate news reports have reflected that exposure. At the end of the day, however, the journalists and scientists always returned to their respective workplaces. That is no longer the case, at least in one "newsroom."

Climate Central is a hybrid team of nearly two dozen journalists and scientists — spread between a main office in Princeton, New Jersey and a smaller one in Palo Alto, California — who work side by side on stories for television, print, and the Web. Relying upon a non-profit business model that is similar to The Center for Investigative Reporting , ProPublica, and others, Climate Central pitches its work to local and national news outlets, looking for collaborative editorial partnerships. It also makes its various experts, many of who are still affiliated with major research institutions, available as primary sources. The goal is to "localize" the story around regions, states, or even cities, in order to highlight the various and particular ways that changes in climate are affecting people's daily lives.

“We want to develop a reputation for impartiality and integrity, and we know that there is a long time constant for acquiring that sort of reputation, but a short one for losing it," said chairman Steve Pacala, who studies climate at Princeton University. "One of the main reasons for having the in-house scientific, technical and policy expert staff, and the almost unbelievable network within the scientific community, is to have the capacity to evaluate material and not make a serious misstep and not overreach as we struggle to educate the public.”

Edited and produced by Betwa Sharma

Like the other non-profit news outlets that have sprung up in recent years, Climate Central is trying to provide specialized coverage at a time when traditional news outlets around the country are losing the ability to produce it for themselves. Newspapers and television stations around the country (most recently at CNN) have axed their science and environment teams. And despite a boom in climate-change coverage since 2004, a study released at a United Nations global-warming conference in Poland last week found that it has dropped off rather significantly this year.

"This is a really difficult climate in which to talk about climate. It's an expensive story to tell and it usually ends up falling to the bottom of the list," said Heidi Cullen, who directs Climate Central's communications operation, serves as the on camera face of all its broadcasts, and is also one its senior research scientists. She is speaking from experience; two weeks ago, NBC Universal cut the entire staff of The Weather Channel's Forecast Earth program, where Cullen has worked for the last five years. She has been contributing to Forecast Earth as a correspondent since January 2008 and hopes "to continue doing that into the future." Climate Central's first broadcast, which aired on PBS's NewsHour at the end of October, identified her as a reporter for both organizations.

The piece, a ten-minute spot about how climate-related drought is threatening trout in Montana, shows that Climate Central is off to a good start. It has all the locally-focused science, commerce, and policy that the group set out to capture, as well a fair nod toward the opinion that declining snow packs, stream flows, and fish populations in the region have nothing to do with warming from greenhouse-gas emissions. The real beauty and innovation of the package is not the broadcast itself, however, but the bountiful range of supporting and complementary information that can be found at Climate Central's Web site. This includes an annotated transcript with links to relevant scientific research and other data; graphics on current wildfire, wind energy and average temperature statistics; and an interactive climate forecast map. In addition, there are supplementary interviews and reports at Climate Central's branded YouTube channel and Facebook group. The team hopes to produce state-by-state similar packages, building up an educational database where people can find many "levels" of information.

"It's almost like typing in your zip code and getting climate information," Cullen said, noting Climate Central's emphasis on local trends and statistics. "A lot of people feel like they're experiencing more extreme events. So their relationship with their daily weather very much informs their feelings about climate change."

The trout and drought piece will be part of an "occasional series" series at PBS. Climate Central is already putting the finishing touches on its next installment, about how growing biofuels is changing land use practices in Iowa. The broadcasts are collaborations between the two organizations. Linda Winslow, the NewsHour's executive producer, said she was very pleased with the finished project and with Climate Central's hard work, which involved a trip back to Montana, upon the program's request, to get additional material. Though she was "somewhat dubious" when the group approached her because the NewsHour does not have much experience in such partnerships, and relying on outside content was a "big departure" for the program, the benefits were clear.

The NewsHour has half a dozen "core staff" that are responsible for covering science and health full or part-time, but "we lack the resources to go out into the field with a camera crew and fly around the country," Winslow said. In that respect, Climate Central is providing a valuable service that helps the NewsHour "visualize" stories and meets its editorial standards. And two local radio stations, including an NPR affiliate, interviewed Cullen about climate change in Montana.

Yet the relatively long features it is producing for PBS are not what Climate Central wants to focus on in the long run, or where it thinks it can do the most good. Because the majority of Americans get their information from nightly news programs, the team wants to partner with local television stations directly to produce shorter broadcasts that are also radio and podcast ready.

Seventy-second spots should be organization's "bread and butter," said Climate Central executive producer Charles Lyons. With a public broadcasting station in Cleveland, Climate Central is starting to develop "Climate Minutes" for television and radio in northeastern Ohio that would also have "direct feeds" into local classrooms. Ideally, Lyons explained, the local producers would take the "driver's seat" in guiding content, and Climate Central would provide scientific information, expertise, and high-end "visualizations" (i.e graphics) of climate data, trends, and forecasts. Cullen added that they also hope to develop relationships with local meteorologists. (Cullen stirred up a controversy in 2006 when she suggested that meteorologists who "can't speak" about the fundamentals of climate science should not be given American Meteorological Society credentials, but she nonetheless stresses their importance as most people's "gateway to science.")

Climate Central is also building up a print operation under Michael Lemonick, who covered science for Time magazine for twenty-two years. Lemonick recently published a superbly nuanced article about the climate's sensitivity to carbon emissions in a special issue of Scientific American, and is now working on a number of other magazine assignments. But like TV, he said, the idea is to eventually "reach readers that aren't as knowledgeable" about climate by contributing to local newspapers, which are rapidly losing the expertise and resources to cover such technical stories.

Though Climate Central hopes to find partners that are willing to share production costs, the organization is partially funded for several years to come and does not charge for its stories or services. Seed money came from the Flora Family Foundation, but the majority of Climate Central's operational budget comes The 11th Hour Project, a group focused on "raising public awareness about global warming and promoting sustainable solutions to climate change." Wendy Schmidt, the project's president, sits on Climate Central's board members with Princeton's Pacala and Oregon State University's Jane Lubchenco.

Although the organization is new, the idea has been gestating since 2005, when participants at a climate conference in Aspen resolved to try and do something to improve the quantity and quality of climate coverage. In 2007, Berrien Moore III, who left his job running the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire, signed on as the group's first operational director. Climate Central's first official meeting took place in a Starbucks Coffee shop in Princeton between Moore, Cullen, Lyons, and staff scientist Ben Strauss. The group rapidly expanded to its current size after that, moving into its offices last June.

"I actually think this is the future of science journalism – non-profit partnerships providing independent and syndicated science coverage," said Matthew Nisbet, an associate professor of communications at American University who studies communications between journalists, scientists, and the public. "We need to build up the infrastructure to adapt to climate change and the media should be thought of as an important part piece of that infrastructure."

When it comes to providing better explanations of science, the biggest mistake that journalists usually make is overstating the significance of single studies, technologies, and solutions, according to Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "The issue is to what extent Climate Central can be a neutral arbiter," he said. "And can the fact that they have people who know what they're talking about on staff improve the context in which climate stories are reported?"

Though they expressed full confidence in the credibility and competence of Climate Central's team, a number of the scientists and journalists I spoke with expressed a certain leeriness about the non-profit model of journalism in general (which CJR, to large extent, also replies upon). The two main areas of concern are that foundational support will cause conflicts of interest in covering certain stories, and that such operations would simply never make up for the overwhelming number of journalism jobs being lost around the country.

So, as unique and impressive as Climate Central's qualifications may be, it will still have to fight the uphill battles that are inherent to an industry undergoing such great flux. Fortunately, everybody there seems abundantly aware of that fact and poised to meet the challenge.

[Correction: The paragraph about Climate Central's funding was changed to reflect that the group is partially funded, not endowed, for several years to come.]

Winners & Sinners

| No Comments

Winner: Janet Maslin for her spot-on review of The Man Who Owns The News, in which she dissects Michael Wolff's "supercilious yet star-struck portrait of Rupert Murdoch." FCP has always regarded Wolff's specialty as contemptuous envy, but "supercilious yet star-struck" is equally accurate.

Winners: Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry of Bloomberg News for a brilliant exposé of the $7.76 trillion in taxpayer money now at risk in the financial bailout. "It's tax dollars that are going out the window and we end up holding collateral we don't know anything about," said Republican congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey.

Winner: Neil Irwin, for detailing, in The Washington Post how the Fed is lending out $893 billion—"roughly the equivalent of the annual economic output of Mexico"—with no oversight, because it isn't acting under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act passed by Congress.

Winner: Jon Stewart, for doing what he does best: offering a summary of Charles Gibson's "exclusive interview" with George Bush on ABC, which is much more enlightening that the original:

Sinners: The NBC officials still trying to spin the unspinnable by portraying retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey as a national hero immune to the normal rules of journalistic conflicts of interest, long after New York Timesman David Barstow showed that the former war hero has degenerated into a deeply conflicted war profiteer. Glenn Greenwald shares the text of the NBC spinners’ e-mails here. So far, still no public acknowledgment by NBC of McCaffrey's conflicts on any of the network’s broadcasts.

Winner: Max Frankel, for being one of the first to attack Gen. McCaffrey for his willingness to manipulate the media for his own benefit, way back in February of 2000. Back then, when McCaffrey was Bill Clinton's drug czar, he had turned his office into "a full-blown script-review board" which "decided which TV stories and newspaper programs were 'on message' and 'on strategy' and which needed ''guidance'' and improvement"—before the networks and the newspapers could be rewarded for their participation in the national war on drugs.

Sinners: The other NBC officials who have reportedly chosen David Gregory to host Meet the Press–not because he's the best candidate, but because he gets the best ratings when he fills in on the Today Show. FCP would shatter the straight-white-boys club at NBC and choose Gwen Ifill instead.

Winner: Scott Horton, for this succinct summary of the problem with torture coverage at The New York Times: "I am increasingly convinced that the central note of their coverage is simpler: stupidity. They don't understand the rhetoric of the torture debate, the ticking bomb analogy and so forth--it all turns into an incomprehensible jumble in their minds, and then they whip it into a cappucino froth in the pages of the New York Times."

Winner: The always-sophisticated David Dunlap, for this lovely kicker on his piece in The New York Times about the refurbishment of the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine: "The short-lived construction project of the 1980s rendered the main facade resolutely asymmetrical. (Once again, Peter was robbed to pay Paul.) While this might offend Cram's vision, it has also secured St. John's pedigree as a true New Yorker: ambitious, audacious, ever-changing, indomitable and more than a little bit eccentric."

Winner: Steve Clemons, for explaining at CNN.com why Obama's pick of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State could turn out to be a masterstroke:

If Obama wants to change the strategic game on Iran, Israel-Palestine, Syria, Cuba, Russia and other challenges, he will need partners who are perceived as tough, smart, shrewd and even skeptical of the deals he wants to do. Clinton is all of these. Clinton may be the bad cop to Obama's good cop. Because she is trusted by Pentagon-hugging national security conservatives, she may legitimize his desire to respond to this pivot point in American history with bold strokes rather than incremental ones.

Winners: Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, for belatedly sharing the sentence from Dianne Feinstein's statement about torture which they inexplicably omitted from their front page story in Wednesday's New York Times: "However, my intent is to pass a law that effectively bans torture, complies with all laws and treaties, and provides a single standard across the government." The reporters' posting on theTimes’s Web site this [Friday] afternoon also included this expanded statement from Feinstein, which left no doubt that FCP's interpretation of that final sentence was correct:

I strongly believe there should be a single, clear standard for interrogation across the federal government, and that this standard should comply with the Geneva Convention, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and U.S. law. I plan to introduce legislation in January that would close Guantanamo, make the Army Field Manual the single standard for interrogations, prohibit contractors from being used to carry out interrogations and provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with access to detainees. If the incoming administration decides to propose an alternative to this legislation, I am willing to hear its views. But I believe we must put an end to coercive interrogations by the C.I.A.

Research assistance: Jessica S. Kramer

Every now and then, I come across an article with a killer lead sentence, like this one, by Anthony Daniels, in the latest issue of the new U.K. mag Standpoint:

On a recent short flight, an air hostess offered a snack to an enormously fat American lady sitting next to me.

Or this one, from James Angelos's recent Times article about a schoolbus skirmish on Staten Island that provoked an eleven million dollar lawsuit:

It began with a bean.

All the President's Men these ain't; but they're sharp and funny and worthy of comment. I always want to share ledes like these when I find them. To that end, I've created the #goodlede tag on Twitter. Whenever I see a story with a particularly funny, insightful, or otherwise striking lede, I'll post it, along with a link to the full story, and I'll preface each of these posts with the #goodlede hash tag. (My username is "justintrevett".)

If you see a good lede of your own, and if you're signed up with Twitter, you should do the same. (You can easily track all posts featuring that particular tag by searching for #goodlede at search.twitter.com.) If enough people participate, we might post the best ledes of the week in a regular Friday roundup here at CJR. Regardless, it'll be a good way to tip people off to some good journalism—or, at least, some funny first lines.

Conseco Redux

| 1 Comment

My colleague Ryan Chittum called attention this week to the maneuver by Conseco Senior Health Insurance Co. to rid itself of unprofitable long-term care policies—and the willingness of state regulators to let the company off the hook. Pennsylvania insurance regulators allowed Conseco to dump its unprofitable policies into a trust in order to pay claims, but it appears that the trust may not have enough capital to do that. And, in the end, policyholders may find their rates going up or their benefits going down. Sweet deal for the carrier; bad news for consumers who had counted on their long-term care policies to pay for costly nursing home stays.

It’s easy to dismiss such actions as just another corporate bailout, albeit one on a smaller scale than either Citibank or AIG. But what happened to Conseco was predictable two decades ago, when the insurance industry tried to sell the American public on private long-term care policies as a way to pay for nursing home care and later home care. They were touted as a “solution” to the growing problem of how to finance the care that the country’s aging population would eventually need. The industry promoted these policies as a better alternative than social insurance like Medicare, and persuaded Congress to offer tax breaks for buying them.

But you might say these policies were just as dangerous to consumers as some of the mortgage instruments which came crashing down on them this year. They have always been a bit of a gamble, and were laced with problems from the get-go. As a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Insurance Department told me yesterday, most of these policies were not properly priced.

No kidding. That was a point I made in stories over the years for Consumer Reports. When LTC policies first surfaced, every insurer and its uncle was selling the stuff. Using sleazy sales tactics, they couldn’t get them into the hands of consumers fast enough. But companies that got into the business sometimes quickly got out of it, and their policies were transferred to other companies. When Consumer Reports rated policies in 1991, it found that 25 percent of the companies whose policies were rated just three years earlier were no longer in business. CR advised:

There’s no way to judge whether an insurance company trying to sell you a long-term care policy is in the business for the long haul or a quick buck. Aside from avoiding companies that are already in trouble, there’s little shoppers can do to assure themselves that the company they pick today will be at their side tomorrow.
When CR rated policies again in 1997, more companies were gone. Conseco grew by buying up policies from other companies—policies that Consumer Reports said were underpriced and likely to see rate increases down the road, as policyholders went to nursing homes and needed the insurance to cover the bills. As those “blocks of business,” as they are called in the insurance biz, deteriorated, Conseco got in trouble and began to wiggle out of paying claims. Since people who bought policies fifteen and twenty years ago are just now beginning to use them, we don’t know much about how other carriers are paying claims either. So the gamble goes on.

The lessons for the public and the press go far beyond the Conseco mess and the question of whether the trust that Pennsylvania regulators cobbled together will hold up. Long-term care insurance demonstrates the limits of regulation—a strategy health reform advocates are banking on as they support proposals that could deliver 40 million new customers into insurance companies’ hands. As insurance products go, LTC policies are pretty tightly regulated—and still consumers have been hurt by deceptive sales practices and, now, the ultimate deception: whether the policy will pay when you need it. Can regulation really clean up a private health insurance market? And just how are Americans supposed to pay for long-term care? People with certain health conditions can’t buy any LTC policy. But apparently the industry believes there are enough of them who can to allow it to make a tidy profit.

Chittum urged the press to take a look at Conseco. I second that, but urge personal finance writers and health reporters to take a look not only at Conseco, but at other companies still in business. Perhaps that will spark a much needed dialogue on who will get long-term care and who will pay for it.

NYT's Norris Tweaks Trump

| No Comments

Floyd Norris has some good clean fun with Donald Trump and Deutsche Bank, whom Trump is suing in a brazen bid to get out of a $40 million payment. In the process, the column illustrates a lot of what was wrong in real estate and in banking in general in the bubble.

For this big project, built on the site of the old Chicago Sun-Times building, it appears from the court papers that Mr. Trump put in little of his own money. He got a construction loan for up to $640 million from a syndicate headed by Deutsche Bank and a $130 million junior loan from another syndicate headed by Fortress Investments, a hedge fund operator that has troubles stemming in part from bad loans made for other real estate projects.


The people who negotiated the construction loan did not think real estate prices could tumble.

Trump is saying he doesn't have to pay because the banks created the financial crisis that has caused his condo sales to dry up. He wants $3 billion for damage to his reputation.

But the best parts of the piece (and the real point) are Norris's masterly takedowns of the parties' hypocrisies (and I love the picture the Times used of Trump blowing hard):

Deutsche Bank thinks the idea that an economic downturn should free people from the obligation to pay their debts is laughable.


Mr. Trump, it may be noted, does not think remorseful condominium buyers are in a similar position. When I asked him if he would let them walk away from contracts to buy apartments at predepression prices, he said he would not. “They don’t have a force majeure clause,” he said.

Here Norris takes Deutsche Bank's (justified) needling of Trump and hoists the bank on its own petard.

The bank seized on the opportunity to discuss Mr. Trump’s reputation. “Trump is no stranger to overdue debt,” it said in asking that his suit be thrown out of court. It noted that Mr. Trump’s casino operations have filed for bankruptcy twice, adding, “This suit is classic Trump.”


The bank did not discuss why that history did not dissuade it from making the loan. One explanation might be that the fees it got for arranging the loan more than offset the risk from the small part of the loan it kept on its own books.

Right on. And good for Norris for including this:

Mr. Trump is vigilant in protecting his reputation. After I interviewed him and two associates, his general counsel sent me a note saying “it was a pleasure” talking to me, and adding: “Please be assured that if your article is not factually correct, we will have no choice but to sue you and The New York Times.”

And another example:

The Friday after Thanksgiving was not a really good one for Mr. Trump. Trump Entertainment Resorts, the casino company, announced it would miss an interest payment on its bonds, raising the likelihood of a third bankruptcy. Most of the shares are publicly owned, having been distributed to creditors in the last bankruptcy. They have fallen from a peak of $23.80 two years ago to 24 cents on Thursday.

Mr. Trump is doing his best to sound like that is not important to him. The casino company’s announcement emphasized that Mr. Trump was the “nonexecutive chairman” who was “not involved in the daily operations” of the company. He told me that “less than 1 percent of my net worth” is in the casino company.

At the current price, no shareholder could have a large net worth in that stock.

That is beautiful, my friends.

Cooper, speaking at Columbia, was asked about CNN's election coverage--and, specifically, about John King's magic wall.

"John King is like the Rain Man of politics," Cooper replied. Ask him about something political, and "literally, he's like, yes, Ohio, third district, 1932."

Cooper also mentioned the technological "advances" CNN employed so (in)famously in its election coverage. "It is possible to go overboard with bells and whistles," he said. "I was asked at one point to hold a pie chart," he joked, "and it was a disaster."

He mentioned The Hologram.

"We were on for ten hours, and the hologram was on for two minutes," Cooper said, "but what people keep talking about is the hologram." The bells and whistles "are what people pay attention to," he said. "I'm guessing that, frankly, that's why [the producers] do it."

Obviously, Cooper continued, "if every interview was done with a hologram, that'd be a problem--but to me, two minutes of that in ten hours of coverage isn't a problem."

"I think by and large we got it right," Cooper said. "I'm really proud of the election coverage we did."

Cooper, speaking at Columbia, was asked about the outrage and raw emotion he so famously displayed while covering the aftermath of Katrina. Normally, he said, "I don't believe in wearing my opinion on my sleeve, Cooper said. "I do believe in walking in other people's shoes and trying to see things from other people's point of view."

"To me, there's a lot of phony outrage in TV news," he continued--"it can very easily become cheesy"--"and I don't want to contribute to that."

What he saw in New Orleans and the other areas of the Gulf Coast, though, Cooper said, was overwhelming. He couldn't help but react. Normally, he added, "I'm the least emotional person ever. (I'm a WASP, and was taught to squelch my emotions from a very young age.) So it takes a lot to make me really mad," he said. But Katrina was more than a lot; he couldn't help but react emotionally.

"I think the audience knows who's faking it and who's not," though, he said, and the difference between "what reality is and what is not." There are "some correspondents who are well known for grabbing babies and putting them in front of the camera and saying, 'I want to help this baby!'" Cooper said.

"For me the best stories are the ones where you strip yourself away from them," Cooper continued. "The camera turns to you, and you just talk to the camera." Compared to the staged outrage so common on cable news, he said, "I think that's much more intimate, and much more real."

"The story is all around you," Cooper continued. "You just need to figure out to where to point the camera." And you have to remember that the mere fact of the camera "can change the reality" you're meant to report on. ("It's like the Heisenberg principle of TV journalism," my astute Coop-companion, Kathy Gilsinan, noted.) The key thing to remember, Cooper said, is: "It's not about you."

Cooper, speaking at Columbia, described his experiences reporting the genocide in Rwanda. One of the lessons the experience taught him, he said, was that "we're all capable of just about anything. We're capable of great acts of kindness and compassion. But we're also capable of great acts of brutality and barbarism. We saw plenty of that in Rwanda."

Cooper described the atmosphere "You would smell the towns before you got to them," he said, "because the people were dead, and the bodies were out in the sun."

"If you do combat reporting a lot," Cooper said, "there's a tendency to no longer react to the violence and the horror that you're seeing." Cooper described coming up to a grouping of bodies on the side of a road in Rwanda. The bodies, he said, had been lying out in the sun for days, and the fluids had had drained away from them, and they "had basically disintegrated. And the skin of the hands had basically peeled off like a glove."

Intrigued by the images, Cooper began taking photographs of the scene--"with my personal camera," he noted--of the various bodies. "It wasn't for a story," he said, "it was for my personal interest."

"I wasn't really viewing this body as a person," he said. "I was just viewing it as a body."

Cooper's companion on the trip, he said, proceeded to take photographs of Cooper as Cooper took his pictures of the bodies. The companion later sent him the photos, with a note highlighting the dispassion on display in the photos.

"That's when I realized," Cooper said. "To keep being a human being, I had to do more than just going to war zones and going from one tragedy to the next."

Cooper described the downward spiral that can take place in the mind of a war correspondent. "It takes more and more bodies to shock you," he said. "It takes more and more brutality to make you notice."

"If you find that happening," he continued, "you have to stop. Because your job is to see things from a new perspective," and if a correspondent loses his humanity, he can't be a good reporter. And you can't get to the point where one tragedy seems less tragic than another. "There shouldn't be a sliding scale of sorrow," Cooper said.

Ultimately, "the people who pretend to be these hard-bitten correspondents shouldn't be doing it," Cooper said. "Because if they can't be affected by the reality of what they see, they have no business being there."

Anderson Cooper is speaking at Columbia right now. I'll be sharing some of his comments periodically.

The first:

"I never really set out to be a TV anchor. I'm always rather suspicious of people who tell me they want to become an anchor. It's kind of like when a kid tells me he wants to be a politician. I sort of think you should become a real person before you become a fake one."

Scrubbing Away Their Sins

| 3 Comments

We used to be able to throw out the news; to disappear it.

The morning paper would find its way into the trash. A radio or television newscast would float off into the ether. It’s a cliché to say it by now, but the Web has changed that.

Articles and broadcasts now reside in online archives, are quoted or embedded on blogs, and republished on other news sites. Google keeps a snapshot of the original page cached on its servers. The new permanence of news makes it more important than ever to initially get a story right, lest an error rocket around the world. But when prevention fails, a suitable correction must follow. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen.

Some news organizations choose to “scrub” their errors. The New York Daily News scrubbed away an entire story this year after the paper erroneously reported about the injuries suffered by an NHL player. A similar thing happened on November 29 when Wales Online, a site built on content from several Welsh newspapers, published a story headlined, “We thought we were safe… then CNN stepped in!” The article was a wire story from the U.K’s Press Association. It began:

A South Wales couple caught in the Mumbai terror attacks claimed last night that CNN put their lives at risk by broadcasting where they were. Lynne and Kenneth Shaw, of Penarth, warned that terrorists were listening in to the media to pinpoint Western victims. Mrs. Shaw claimed the American cable TV channel had broadcast details of where they were at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel…

As Amy Gahran of Poynter noted in a blog post this week, the story was also picked up by other news outlets. Here’s how Gahran summarized the cause of the mistake:

According to CNN spokesperson Nigel Pritchard, when the Press Association contacted CNN for comment on the Shaw’s allegations, CNN issued a “holding statement” while they reviewed all their broadcast and streamed video from the relevant parts of the crisis. In the meantime, the Press Association account ran. When CNN found nothing to corroborate the Shaws’ alleged statements, they contacted the Press Association to refute those allegations. Shortly afterward, the Press Association story was retracted.

Gahran’s Poynter post also busted Wales Online for removing the story after it was revealed to have been false. Scrubbing usually refers to the practice of fixing an error in an online article without including a correction. Like the Daily News example, this was an extreme version of scrubbing. Wales Online decided to try and make the entire story disappear.

The site eventually published this correction on a different page:

ON SATURDAY, the Western Mail and South Wales Echo ran a story detailing how Lynne and Kenneth Shaw, of Penarth, claimed broadcaster CNN had put their lives at risk by detailing their location during the recent terror attacks in Mumbai.

The story was taken from the Press Association news agency, who have since stated:

“Press Association would like to make clear that the interviewee’s allegations that CNN broadcast details compromised her and her husband’s safety have since been clarified by the interviewee’s husband to Press Association as ‘not valid’.”

But the URL for the original, offending story doesn’t include the correction. It’s now just a blank page. Wales Online has attempted to disappear the story, and they’ve done a poor job of it. For example, Gahran noted that the original story still appears in the site’s archives, but the correction doesn’t show up in the same search string. The lesson is that’s it’s nearly impossible to erase erroneous online reporting. Which means you have to do an even better job of correcting it.

Wales Online’s decision to remove its original story complicates the correction process. How are readers supposed to know the article was corrected (or, in fact, retracted)? They have to get lucky and come across the correction, which carries the bland headline “Lynne and Kenneth Shaw.” And what of all the people following links from other websites to the original article? How are they supposed to find the correction? And how will those sites know the article was corrected?

Corrections only work if they are easily accessible and written in a way that clearly communicate both the error and the correct information. In the online world, a correction must also exist within the context of the offending article.

News organizations should also make an effort to spread their corrections to any sites that re-reported the incorrect information. That’s the responsible thing to do. The reporting and publishing process doesn’t end when an article goes online; that’s often the starting point. We’re responsible for following up on, and correcting, what we publish.

Online errors don’t disappear like yesterday’s print edition. News organizations need to recognize what the new permanence means for errors and corrections, and act accordingly.

Correction of the Week

"Bad conduct: Charles Mackerras was not born in Australia (Emma hits heights, Today, page 6, December 1). The eminent orchestra conductor was born to Australian parents in 1925 in musical-sounding Schenectady, New York. Apropos of nothing, Schenectady was where, in 1886, the Machine Works company was set up by Thomas Edison, who also knew a thing or two about conductors." – West Australian

Too Good to Check

This correction was published this week in the Kansas City Star:

A quote in The Buzz on Nov. 28 that was attributed to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin was actually from humorist Andy Borowitz.

Anyone familiar with Borowitz’s work knows that he specializes in writing satirical (meaning fake) news stories for his Web site, the Borowitz Report. Obviously, the person responsible for the Star article was not aware of this. They plucked a made-up quote from one of Borowitz’s reports and presented it as the real McCoy. Here’s the quote in question, which was attributed to author Doris Kearns Goodwin:

"Every time someone says ‘team of rivals,’ I sell another book on Amazon,” she said. “Team of rivals, team of rivals, team of rivals.”

As of this writing, the online version of the article remains uncorrected.

Parting Shot

"The Nov. 29 obituary of Robert M. White II mistakenly referred to him as “Mr. Smith” on two occasions." – Washington Post

Audit Interview: Jesse Eisinger

| 1 Comment

Before joining Conde Nast Portfolio, Jesse Eisinger had already compiled a record of skeptical reporting on and analysis of Wall Street as a reporter and as a columnist for the The Wall Street Journal.

His time at Portfolio has roughly coincided with the financial crisis, which has only increased the need for Eisinger's arms-length approach.

In his first column for Portfolio, in March 2007, Eisinger called derivatives a “$300 trillion time bomb” and said “When it comes to the really big stuff—such as global market collapses—derivatives could turn from vaccine to contagion.”

The summer the storm broke, Eisinger blasted the credit-ratings firms, said we were likely in for a crash two months before investors caught on, and wrote a remarkable piece predicting the end of Wall Street, five months before Bear Stearns went under.

This year, he questioned Lehman Brothers' books in March, has kept the heat on Treasury Secretary Paulson, and went digging into the advent of the credit-default swap, an instrument that has amplified and in large part caused the collapse.

At The Wall Street Journal, where he wrote for seven years, Eisinger started the weekly Long & Short column and the daily Ahead of the Tape column, which still runs daily on the front of the paper's Money & Investing section.

Eisinger recently spoke with The Audit about the crisis and how the media have performed anticipating and covering it.

Salting the Sweets

| No Comments

A front page Washington Post story yesterday gets excited about the fact that Obama’s incoming administration is beginning to implement the hi-tech organizational tools that his election campaign used so successfully. The specific news? Tom Daschle, who is expected to be Obama’s secretary of health and human services, held a conference call Wednesday with 1,000 supporters with an interest in health care, launching an effort to get citizens involved in the administration.

The article, written by political reporter Ceci Connolly, touts the salutary effects that such tools (and their accompanying grass-roots mentality) might have on health care mobilization, calling the effort “the first attempt by the Obama team to harness its vast and sophisticated grass-roots network to shape public policy.” And for the most part, seeing how an Obama administration is going to build its ground-up infrastructure—online and otherwise—is a welcome aspect of transition coverage:

The health-care mobilization taking shape before Obama even takes office will include online videos, blogs and e-mail alerts as well as traditional public forums. Already, several thousand people have posted comments on health on the Obama transition Web site.

It’s good news that Obama’s point people are beginning (or trying) to establish the organizational groundwork that helped create such political momentum during the campaign. Like Obama’s recent and frequent press conferences, these initial efforts, if sometimes more nominal than actionable, help demonstrate how the incoming administration will communicate with the public, and how those modes of communication might help to produce policy initiatives.

But Connolly dwells on this good news without examining its consequences more sharply. (She mentions that Obama may not be able to legally use his extensive list of campaign supporters in the White House, but stops there.) Reading the article, you get the inexorable feeling that this isn’t just good news, but great! news. This is, in part, because of the glowing quotes scattered throughout the story. "This is the beginning of the reinvention of what the presidency in the 21st century could be,” says the head of one think tank. And Sen. Ken Salazar, who will appear with Daschle at a health-care summit today, is quoted as saying:

President-elect Obama believes that change really comes from the ground up, not from Washington…The drumbeat for change is one which goes across every single state -- red, blue and purple. That kind of a drumbeat will be very effective in achieving the change needed on health care.

Salazar’s statement is tinted in shades both joyous and earnest, and, unfortunately, it’s about as informative as most statements of that sort. He may mean every word he says, but such quotes are icing, not cake. And they can’t gauge the most important thing at stake—how effective these grass-roots organizational efforts, proven in politics, may be in shaping policy.

As Connolly rightly states, these efforts “provide hints as to how the new administration might tackle major health-care legislation.” Perhaps Connolly is trying to showcase those hints when she raves about the interactive content on Change.gov, focusing on a “simple 63-second video” in which health advisers Dora Hughes and Lauren Aronson asked: "What worries you most about the health-care system in our country?"

The video trigged 3,700 responses, a number Connolly seems impressed by, and Obama’s techies built a “word cloud” showing the words that were most often used. That people are interested in responding to the question is heartening, but unsurprising news. It’s likewise innocuously interesting, but hardly helpful, to learn that among the most used words are “insurance” and “system” and “need.” While interactive tools like these may prove to be the visual version of getting the president’s ear, we’re far from seeing how this sort of “cyber-catharsis,” as the article terms it, will translate into bigger forms of momentum. The article would have done well to raise that doubt.

Instead, it offered schmaltzy embraces like this:

After the first health comments poured in to the transition Web site, Aronson made a second video, this time with Daschle, seated in shirt sleeves and a tie.

"We want to make sure you understand how important those comments and your contributions are," Daschle says into the camera. "Already we've begun to follow through with some of the ideas."

Connolly’s description—“seated in shirt sleeves” and “says into the camera”—reinforces the charm inherent to initiatives like these, and the feel-good myth that individual airings of opinion can lead to immediate general action (reinforced by Daschle’s comment that “already we’ve begun to follow through with some of the ideas”). Who knows what Daschle means, exactly, by “follow through?” I was too distracted by the shirt sleeves. Lesson: While there’s nothing downright wrong about using a positive aspect of Obama’s transition to engage in some feel-good reporting, it’s often more helpful to salt the wholesale embrace with some good ol’ skepticism.

Freepdom of Expression

| 1 Comment

In a rare and dramatic move, the Detroit Free Press has devoted the entirety of today's front page to a graphic editorial urging Congress to approve the auto makers' bailout:


The editorial, which takes the form of an open letter--copies of the print edition, editor Paul Anger noted, are being sent to lawmakers--begins, "DEAR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, You don't want an economic disaster on your hands. Not when you could have prevented it. And not in times that are already the worst in a generation."

The letter concludes,

The Detroit automakers are hemorrhaging cash to stay in business. Two of them are nearly drained, and the third is getting by on a transfusion. They can get well. They have shown how. But first they have to survive. And their survival is in America's best interests.

You can help them. And if you don't, make no mistake: There will be bleeding throughout the land.

All this is, to be sure, a blurring of the line between the news and opinion sections of the paper--a purposeful reversal of the front-page-is-for-news tradition. And yet the Freep's bold visuals and the ardent message in this case combine to suggest what we all know to be true: that some news items transcend their status as "news," that some stories are so big that they inherently blur the line between what can be reported passionately and dispassionately. For Detroit--the local community the Freep serves--and, in many ways, for the country at large, the life-or-death status of the auto makers is such a story.

In a text box embedded in the letter, Anger explains the logic of the editorial to readers:

Why we're sending this message

The Free Press is sending copies of this edition to members of Congress.

We have chronicled the U.S. auto industry since its birth, as Detroit became the world's Motor City, as cars and trucks changed the American culture and landscape, as assembly line jobs gave rise to the American middle class. Our journalists have reported the automakers' triumphs and exposed their troubles. We know this industry better than anyone.

We also know that while a newspaper needs to inform, there are times when a newspaper needs to speak up for what's right.

We know what automakers and autoworkers mean to this nation. We know what will happen if one of the auto companies is allowed to collapse. We know because this industry has been our story since it started.

And we know that America needs this story to continue.

-- Paul Anger, editor

We already know that, if the Big Three--and the American auto industry overall--are to survive, their continuity will require not only government assistance in the short term, but also creative thinking and audacious ideas in the long. The Freep's bold move today suggests that, no matter what future Congress carves for Detroit, the city's biggest hometown paper is thinking outside the box.


[h/t Joe Strupp]

In the annals of stories The Wall Street Journal would not have done, much less placed on A3, pre-Rupert Murdoch, here's a prime example:

Bushes Buy Dallas Home for Residence

Really? Tell me more! Here's the lede:

President George W. Bush and first lady Laura Bush said Thursday that they have bought a house in a wealthy enclave in Dallas and will return here once the president leaves office.

The paper spills 600 words on this story, which might be justifiably placed on A3 of the Dallas Morning News (or maybe its community-zone edition), but not of The Wall Street Journal.

There's a near-catastrophic financial crisis going on, Rupert, and your paper is very often getting its rear end handed to it by folks like Bloomberg and the dreaded New York Times.

It's a shame that these good reporters are doing stories like this instead of focusing on the financial crisis.

Questions for the WSJ on B of A

| No Comments

The Journal has some amusing tidbits in its story on the Bank of America shareholder vote scheduled for today on its acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

Merrill brokers have teasingly mocked the "spirit points" that Bank of America managers dole out as an employee rewards. The points can be redeemed for golf clubs, televisions and such.

Methinks the Merrill folks these days don't need to be laughing at the way anybody else does business, though that does sound like green stamps or something.

But what I'm wondering, and what the Journal doesn't attempt to address, is why Bank of America shareholders would vote to buy a beat-up investment bank when its own shares have been hammered (down 57 percent) since the deal was announced. That Countrywide acquisition didn't turn out so well, now did it?

And the paper still doesn't tell us why it's an okay idea for banks to get bigger and riskier by buying investment banks. Isn't that one of the big reasons why Citigroup is in trouble?

I know the government is tickled to have somebody else bail out a company. But let's face it: Banks the size of Bank of America and Citigroup are so large that they're a threat to the economy. If companies are too big to fail, they ought to be whittled down until they're not, not allowed to gorge on riskier businesses with black-hole balance sheets.

Anybody want to write a story on that?

UPDATE: Bloomberg has a better story. It notes that outside advisers favor a "yes" vote:

RiskMetrics and another proxy adviser, Glass Lewis & Co., both recommended that shareholders vote in favor of the deal. “The merger will strengthen both companies financially, yield approximately $4 billion in post-tax cost savings and improve growth opportunities for the banks,” Glass Lewis said in a report last month.

But it notes that Merrill has balance sheet problems that could backfire on Bank of America:

“There are some hand grenades on the balance sheet that are going to blow up on Bank of America,” said James Ellman, a former Merrill Lynch money manger who is now president of San Francisco-based SeaCliff Capital LLC. “The cost savings are going to be nowhere near what they’ve already promised.”

And it has more skepticism of the bank's incessant dealmaking, something we at The Audit like to see:

“The companies he’s been acquiring all make sense strategically,” Ellman said. “But the timing and price almost always seems to be off.”

Barbara Walters guested on The Colbert Report yesterday, leading to, as might be expected, much hilarity. Colbert signed her new book "To Babs. You. Are. Hot." He then surrounded himself with the traditional Waltersian-interview environs of potted plants and skin-friendly soft lighting. He then informed Walters, when she asked him why he had yet to guest on The View, "I am terrified of you women. You look like some sort of ancient cult where you tear men to pieces and then feast on his body."



Buck-Breaking and Lawsuit-Shaking

| No Comments

The Times has a worthy story this morning looking at a bizarre move by the Reserve Primary Fund to protect itself from lawsuits.

Reserve is the money-market fund that "broke the buck" in September after its Lehman assets were devalued and investors started withdrawing money. Breaking the buck means that investors don't get all their deposits back, and since money-market funds are supposed to be as safe as cash, that's a no-no (the paper says it's only ever happened once before).

The news is that Reserve has told investors that they might get 98.5 cents on the dollar back as long as they fall in line and don't sue it.

But if they continue to wage legal battles against the fund and its managers, the company will use investors’ own money to defend itself against their accusations of mismanagement and deception.

And there are already lawsuits filed against it, including an insider-trading one filed by Ameriprise, which is hardly some crank:

One of the most potentially damaging claims facing the fund is pending in federal court in Minneapolis, where Ameriprise Financial, hundreds of thousands of whose customers were caught in the fund, is accusing the fund managers of tipping some investors in advance that the fund was in danger of breaking the buck.

“The Reserve’s plan is ingenious,” said Harvey J. Wolkoff, a lawyer with Ropes & Gray in Boston who is handling that case for Ameriprise. “Their plan is that their own investors reimburse them for their wrongdoing.”

I don't know if Reserve is guilty of anything, but they sure could be. So it's good that the NYT is publicizing this scheme, which if it's not illegal, ought to be.

Taser International Inc., the world’s largest stun-gun manufacturer, allegedly made false statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning an agreement with two of the nation’s largest newspapers, according to the newspapers’ representatives and documents obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting.

The statements stem from the 2006 settlement of Taser’s libel suit against Gannett Co., Inc, the parent corporation of the two newspapers—USA Today and the Arizona Republic. In two SEC filings, Taser claimed that the newspapers “would review articles regarding the Taser device with us prior to publication”—an extraordinary breach of journalistic standards. Taser’s general counsel initially stated the claim to Wall Street analysts in an earnings conference call, adding that it was “in order to ensure accuracy.”

The newspapers, which were unaware of Taser's claim until their lawyer was contacted recently by CIR, deny ever making such an agreement, and have demanded that Taser formally correct the record. Initially, Taser was reluctant to amend its statements and the newspapers were considering further action, according to interviews with parties on both sides. Representatives of Taser and Gannett are currently in discussions to settle the dispute. The SEC declined to comment on the allegations.

The Scottsdale, Ariz.-based stun-gun maker and its hometown paper have had a contentious history, resulting from the Republic’s detailed reporting, from 2004-2006, about the company and the safety concerns of its flagship product, which is used by more than 13,000 law enforcement, correctional, and military agencies around the world.

Its sister Gannett paper, USA Today, has also angered Taser, particularly after publishing a June 2005 story and graphic that significantly overstated the electrical output of Taser’s X26-model stun gun. Taser contacted the newspaper and the story was corrected the next day of publication.

But a few weeks later Taser sued, claiming that the Republic and USA Today “engaged in the ongoing publication of misleading articles related to the safety of Taser products, resulting in substantial economic damages to us, our customers and our shareholders.” Taser claimed the newspapers’ stories cost company shareholders more than one billion dollars in lost value.

Maricopa County (Ariz.) Superior Court Judge Paul J. McMurdie rejected Taser’s claims in granting Gannett’s motion for summary judgment. In his Jan. 25, 2006 ruling, he awarded McLean, Va.-based Gannett attorneys’ fees after finding one of the claims “clearly unjustified.” About three weeks later, the two sides asked the court to formally dismiss Taser’s claims—and with it Taser’s right to an appeal—while Gannett withdrew its claim to attorneys’ fees, court records show.

“It was a total victory,” said David Bodney, Gannett’s attorney in the case. But that’s not how Taser reported it to the SEC, or to Wall Street analysts who covered the company.

In a Feb. 22, 2006 conference call with financial analysts, Douglas Klint, Taser’s general counsel and executive vice president, said: “Our lawsuit against Gannett Company Incorporated was dismissed with the understanding that, in the future, the USA Today and the Arizona Republic newspapers would review their Taser stories with the company prior to publishing in order to ensure accuracy,” according to a transcript of the call.

The next month, in its Form 10-K filing, Taser wrote: “[T]he parties entered into a stipulation for dismissal with the understanding that the USA Today and the Arizona Republic would review articles regarding the Taser device with us prior to publication.” That statement was repeated in the company’s May 18, 2006 quarterly report to the SEC.

Only one Wall Street analyst who was a participant in the February conference call, Matthew McKay, formerly of Jefferies & Co., responded to an interview request. McKay said the statement in question influenced his coverage. He concluded that the settlement terms appeared to benefit Taser and represented “a big-time opportunity” for investors.

Current San Francisco Chronicle editor Ward Bushee, the Republic’s editor at the time of the settlement, and Randy Lovely, the Republic’s current editor, said they were unaware of Taser’s statements until asked about them recently by CIR, and denied that any such agreement ever existed.

“Taser's assertion in the SEC filing is completely false,” Lovely said. “The Arizona Republic would never allow a source to review a story prior to publication. To do so would completely violate our journalist principles and standards of independence. The Republic has aggressively reported on Taser during the past few years, and we stand behind the full scope and accuracy of our stories.”

Taser counsel Klint initially defended the statements in an interview with CIR, pointing to a letter about the settlement from Bodney which states that the newspapers and Taser agreed to “endeavor to communicate and interact with one another in a professional manner…In turn, Taser will make its executives or public relations personnel available for comment.”

Klint said the word “comment” implies that the company would review stories prior to publication. “How in the world can we comment on a story without them reviewing the story with us?” he reasons. “We can’t comment on something we can’t review.”

“That’s preposterous,” countered Bodney:

His interpretation of that statement is inaccurate. There’s a vast difference between a reporter calling the subject of an allegation for comment … and giving the subject of the allegation a right to review the story prior to publication. Unfortunately, Taser’s statement to the SEC gives the impression that USA Today and the Arizona Republic gave Taser the right to review stories about them prior to publication. It’s inaccurate and misleading….

What [Taser] promised to investors and the SEC—that’s the last thing we would have promised them, especially since we settled the lawsuit with the expectation that we’d hear nothing further from them about it.

Bodney said he pushed for a quick dismissal of the case in part to stop Taser’s attempt to get access to “all documents referring or relating to Taser” used by Republic reporters during the newspaper’s investigation of the company.

Klint said Taser has not been reviewing the newspapers’ articles prior to publication. But he defended Taser’s interpretation of the settlement, saying the company accurately paraphrased the language spelling out the settlement terms:

[For the newspapers] to characterize it as a total fabrication is really a misstatement… We probably should have said we were going to have the opportunity to review [the stories] and provide comment … Could we have gone into more detail? Absolutely. Did we have to? No, we didn’t.

Taser’s statements to the SEC have been called into question in the past. In January 2005, the SEC began an informal inquiry into Taser’s safety claims; that same week, the Arizona Attorney General’s office said it, too, was looking into those claims. The SEC inquiry expanded into an official investigation, but no action was taken. The attorney general’s inquiry ended after Taser agreed to modify its marketing language.

In January 2005, Taser shareholders, citing numerous news reports from around the country, launched a class-action suit against the company, alleging they had been misled about the safety of Taser’s products. The suit eventually was settled for nearly $22 million, of which Taser’s portion was about $18 million, with the company’s insurance carrier covering the rest.

In August 2007, Bloomberg News reported that the company had settled at least ten product-liability lawsuits alleging personal injury—lawsuits that Taser had claimed, in news releases and in its SEC filings, to have won through a court dismissal or judgment in its favor. The company now acknowledges these settlements clearly in its filings.

False statements to the SEC about material facts which are likely to influence investors could result in sanctions, civil lawsuits by shareholders who suffered losses due to the alleged misrepresentation, or criminal action if regulators determine that the misstatements were intended to mislead investors, according to Jesse M. Fried, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy.

“When you’re dealing with SEC issues, the standard is material misstatement,” Klint notes. “There’s absolutely no way this is a material misstatement.”

Fried says it’s unlikely any formal action by regulators would result in this instance. He said a reasonable investor wouldn’t base his decision to buy or sell Taser stock on the company’s right to review newspaper articles prior to publication, and, in any case, reviewing articles doesn’t necessarily guarantee the right to veto publication.

But former Jeffries & Co. analyst McKay, whose coverage of Taser from 2005 until earlier this year helped investors decide whether to buy or sell Taser International stock, said news of the purported settlement presented an “opportunity” for investors.

McKay, who participated in the 2006 conference call with Klint, acknowledged that the critical news media coverage of Taser and its products had hurt company sales and its stock price, and that with news of the settlement, the critical coverage “…was an issue that was going to come off the table. One less negative thing you'd have to deal with regarding the company.”

“I thought, all right, you’ve got some bad news out there that has impacted the share price in a negative way,” McKay said in a recent interview. “As a stock analyst, here was an opportunity to jump in and make my clients money. [USA Today and the Republic] didn’t have the facts right, and as a result the valuation of the company was off,” he said. “To me, it was a big-time opportunity.”

McKay, who believed “there was good being done by Taser” in saving lives, said Taser felt “that USA Today and the Arizona Republic just wanted to write negative stories about Taser, that they wanted to make it as sensational as they possibly could. It’s why they were so defensive with the media,” he said.

Bob Steele, a journalism values scholar at the Poynter Institute and journalism ethics professor at DePauw University, explained why pre-publication review of stories could violate readers' trust:

If a news organization were to have such a formal legal agreement with a company it’s covering, then that news organization’s past, present and future coverage of that company would be suspect. The readers would have every right to wonder if the newspaper had pulled punches when it came to reporting truthful, meaningful information. There would be questions of whether the newspaper bowed to the wishes or pressures of the subject of the story to back off a certain element or change the tone. One could easily wonder if the story could be tainted.

McKay applied the concept to his work as an analyst covering Taser, noting, “For me, I knew there was no way in hell they'd review anything I wrote prior to it being published. I really don’t want [USA Today and the Republic] reviewing articles with the company because the news gets tainted. It becomes biased. I don’t want that either. I just want the media reviewing with Taser how the device works and making sure they get those facts correct.”

It's been a rough day for the press. Leave it to The Onion to provide some much-needed levity.

Hair Apparent

| No Comments

It puts the "ew," some say, "in the evening news." The new 'do, apparently, is a fashion don't.

Yep, Katie Couric's new haircut. The one she debuted on the CBS Evening News this week. The one that sparked a small controversy, not to mention several slideshows detailing Couric's Hair Through The Years and Similarly Controversial Coifs, not to mention an online poll from US Weekly asking readers "Who has the hotter new 'do?" between Couric and celebutante Kim Kardashian. The one that received, in its review in the New York Daily News, the unkindest cut of all:

The coif, a boyish pixie cut that channeled some of Hillary Clinton's bad 'do days, was a striking departure from the signature bob viewers associate with the 51-year-old anchor.


The dramatic chop did little to flatter and even caused Couric's face to appear different. Sideswiped bangs - that shifted throughout the newscast - first made one eyebrow arch menacingly, then hid it altogether.

Well. Enter the hand-wringing. And the anxiety. And the judgment. Because Lady Anchor plus Hair Talk must equal...sexism! "Would we report this if Brian or Charlie got a haircut?" TVNewser asked itself. "The answer was no and no." "No word, somehow, on the Gibson and Williams coifs," Howard Kurtz noted. "Isn't it sad, that on a day when India is struggling with the aftermath of a despicable terrorist attack and America is reeling through a depressing recession, CBS News anchor Katie Couric's new hairstyle would create such a national stir," the Huffington Post's Joe Peyronnin remarked. "I guess I was wrong. Women are still viewed differently."

Now, sure, it's easy to dismiss the fixation on Couric's hairstyle as sexist. But crying sexism all too easily verges into crying wolf. Before we whip out our scarlet-S decals and fling them at the nearest Y-chromosome, here's a wild thought: the it's-sexist-to-talk-about-a-woman's-hairstyle arguments, valid though they may be in other contexts, are also overly simplistic in this case. Television is a visual medium; to dismiss any comment on an anchor's appearance—yes, even a Lady Anchor's—as out-of-bounds is to be either misguided or naive about the thing. Because, really, the media's fixation on news personalities' hairstyles—and on the superficial in general—is all too often an equal-opportunity affair. Danny Shea suggested as much in his write-up of the Couric Coif in the HuffPo:

"CBS Evening News" anchor Katie Couric debuted a new, shorter haircut Monday night — and before you even start wondering whether it's sexist to report on Couric's hair, read this: our coverage of Chris Matthews' hair from earlier this year.

Cover Matthews's hair the HuffPo most definitely did, noting in May that "the normally bleach blond Matthews, host of "Hardball," now has noticeably darker hair," going on to specify—details! zesty details! —that Matthews's new 'do has "more of a russet/rusty coloration and is a bit shorter." And then there was Politico's write-up of the David Gregory-to-host-Meet the Press intelligence, which breezily noted (emphasis mine): "Enjoying a gravitas boost from his prematurely salt-and-pepper mane and friendships with Tom Brokaw and other of the legendary figures of NBC News, [Gregory]...quickly became one of the hottest personalities in network news." In other words: hair, hair, everywhere. And the male reporter's hair treatment actually goes a step further than mere description; Gregory's mane isn't just there-hair; it's hair that gets things done. You know, career hair.

When it comes to levels of offensiveness, I'd argue that your hair helped you get a promotion is probably more insulting than your new haircut sucks. So it would seem that, actually, the guy is getting treated more unfairly here. You could say that, sure, there's something in the fact that, when it comes to TV personalities, Manly Hair tends to be either a non-issue or an asset, while Lady Hair skews more toward the non-issue-or-liability side of things. But, again, focusing on gender when it comes to Questions of Hair, valid though it may be in other contexts, largely misses the point when it comes to Couric.

The point is that a television anchor's personal appearance isn't, in the end, personal. It's public, and therefore subject to the intense scrutiny our tabloid culture extends to its public figures. Anchors are celebrities, in this sense, in the same way that Angelina and Brad are celebrities. The media's fixation on Katie's hair is a bit like their fixation on Angelina's latest tattoo—they're reporting on a visual change in a commodity that is itself inherently, if not primarily, visual. They're tacitly suggesting what even the most casual of news consumers can sense: the blurring of the line between News Anchor and Celebrity, and, more broadly, the blurring of the line between news and entertainment.

The blurring of those lines hardly needs proof, so self-evident has it become. And it's not merely in the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary features the word "infotainment." It's in the subtler, more figurative portmanteaux: the constant appearances of Brian Williams and the like on the late-night shows, Comedy Central programs, and Saturday Night Live; the fact that the beats of The New York Times "media" reporters Jacques Steinberg and Brian Stelter encompass both Hollywood and the news; the ongoing tabloid obsession with CBS reporter Lara Logan's love life; the fact that the Media page of the Huffington Post—a publication widely considered to be a rough template for future online news operations—features, as of this writing, a story about David Gregory's Meet the Press negotiations with NBC next to a story about Kelly Ripa's divorce next to a story about Eliot Spitzer's new Slate column next to a story about Susan Lucci's salary cut. Blur, blur, blur.

The Couric haircut treatment, though, suggests a lack of equilibrium in the information/entertainment dynamic—the notion that anchors are vehicles for entertainment more than purveyors of information. It suggests that anchors somehow transcend their work, rather than the other way around.

Indeed, celebrifying our anchors suggests (and, perhaps, proves the fact) that all anchors have to sell are their images—in the broader sense of their reputations, to be sure, but also in the more immediate sense of their appearance. Because, if anything, anchors are figureheads for news. (That's nothing new, of course; so, in many ways, was Murrow; so, in many ways, was Cronkite.) Sure, that's unfortunate, particularly so nowadays, when survival for news organizations often demands demonstrating why they are relevant in the new media era. And there are ways to improve, as it were, "the way it is."

But, for now, as long as image is the defining aspect of TV news, we can't really be surprised when other media platforms focus on, you know, the image aspect of TV news. Just as we can't really be surprised when a hairstyle becomes A Thing. Image-based branding, for better or for worse, is part of the game we all play when we passively consume TV news--and when we treat "entertaining us" as a viable expectation for serious news coverage. It's what we can expect, in short, when we don't expect better.

Above the Fold: Sins of Omission

| 10 Comments

Yesterday, FCP focused on a New York Times story about Barack Obama's search for a new CIA director. Top candidate John O. Brennan had removed himself from consideration for the post after being accused of complicity in the policy which allowed the torturing of prisoners by CIA agents.

I attacked the story because I thought I thought it read like a press release written by past and present CIA officials, determined to head off an investigation of torture abuses.

When I interviewed Mark Mazzetti, who wrote the Times piece with Scott Shane, I told him that one reason the piece struck me as deficient was that it barely balanced the views of the CIA officials it quoted. Mazzetti replied by pointing to the middle section of the story: "We quoted two leading Democratic senators who, we were interested to hear, that they professed some—you know—a degree of flexibility on this subject. Not flexibility—they seem to take a different stance, or a slightly more nuanced stance than they had over the past year—so we quoted both of them."

The senators were Ron Wyden of Oregon and Dianne Feinstein of California—but it turns out that Feinstein is not as flexible as the Times indicated. This was what was presented in yesterday's story as evidence of Senator Feinstein's new "flexibility" toward allowing torture in interrogations:

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who will take over as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in January, led the fight this year to force the C.I.A. to follow military interrogation rules. Her bill was passed by Congress but vetoed by President Bush. But in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility. "I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible," she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures. Afterward, however, Mrs. Feinstein issued a statement saying: "The law must reflect a single clear standard across the government, and right now, the best choice appears to be the Army Field Manual. I recognize that there are other views, and I am willing to work with the new administration to consider them.

But that wasn't everything Feinstein told the Times. Spencer Ackerman reported today in The Washington Independent that the Times omitted the final sentence in the statement Feinstein issued—a sentence which alters the thrust of her remarks quite dramatically:

"However," Feinstein said, "my intent is to pass a law that effectively bans torture, complies with all laws and treaties, and provides a single standard across the government."

A spokesman for Feinstein told FCP today that the senator is now demanding a "clarification" from the Times to learn why that sentence was omitted.

Harper's contributing editor Scott Horton, who has blogged extensively on this subject, said this about the Times's omission: "I think this disclosure only serves to underscore the overarching question about this piece. What was the news purpose of this piece? It seems to have been the vehicle for manufactured or false news."

FCP queried executive editor Bill Keller, Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet, standards editor Craig Whitney, and reporters Mazzetti and Shane about who had made the decision to distort the senator's remarks by omitting that sentence. FCP also asked if there would be an editor's note in tomorrow's paper explaining what had happened. So far, only Whitney has responded, saying he would "find out" if there would be an editor's note tomorrow, "but it might take longer than that...."

A former top editor of the Times told FCP today that the error required a corrective story, not just an editor's note. FCP is quite sure about what would happen to the editor or reporter responsible for distorting Feinstein's position if his former boss, the late Abe Rosenthal, were still the executive editor of The New York Times.

That person would be fired.

Postscript: Scott Shane called FCP after this was posted and said he didn’t see how the omission of that sentence changed the meaning of Feinstein’s statement. Which led to this exchange:


FCP: Why did you leave it out?

Shane: Well, we left out tons of things. She talked for a long, long time.

FCP: Well, the trouble with leaving out this sentence is that it makes your whole story look phony. And I’m sorry that you don’t understand that.

Shane: Well, you guys are all dicing and slicing this story in various ways. But a couple of your blogging colleagues read it the other way, and said that the last sentence reinforces...

FCP: They’re entitled to their opinion, and you’re entitled to yours.

The Paleontological Approach

| 3 Comments

I used to want to be an anthropologist, until I realized I wanted to have a job when I graduated. Journalism was the compromise between staying in academia or working in PR (this was about two years ago). But I'll be graduating from the University of Texas in May, and my job hunt at most newspapers and magazines has already started and ended. Most of my tony connections have been laid off, and I suspect that every job application I submit gets lost in the shuffle of people cleaning out their desks and heading to a bar for a double shot of whiskey.

Perhaps I've pumped myself with false hope and excitement about journalism. I currently work in a journalistic never-never land at my college newspaper, The Daily Texan. We were one of the first college newspapers to go online, and though we've adopted scads of new media into our workflow with relative ease, our newsroom still holds its printed product in the highest regard. Our paper is a laboratory in which students learn that being a good journalist isn't about knowing Flash or htmlx—it's about using your mind and the telephone quickly and smartly, and processing information clearly and truthfully.

Still, many of my peers are struggling to find papers and magazines that are looking for good writers with shrewd judgment. Most places, it seems, want computer science majors who minored in business and finance and who have hopefully picked up a newspaper once or twice. So I'm thinking about alternative career paths, about how can I be a journalist and be employed at the same time.

Perhaps a paleontological approach is best. Young journalists should get together and have a giant newspaper dig—travel around to all the folded entities and sift through the bones to figure out exactly when things went wrong, which attributes we can take forward, and which ones we should toss into the trash heap. The first thing that should be disposed of is Twitter, which I can't use legitmately without feeling foolish, followed closely by newspaper blogs. If a newspaper respects the twenty-four-hour news cycle online, it doesn't need blogs—it is a blog.

This past September, I attended the National Conference for Editorial Writers in Little Rock. I was the youngest person there by at least fifteen years. The journalists there were smart, funny, and energetic, but it seemed like they were also paralyzed and humbled by the slow failures of many of their papers. One writer I talked with, a sixty-year-old man who had been working in newspapers since the Vietnam War, said he'd tried to keep up a blog for his newspaper, but he just didn't get it. He already wrote editorials almost every day, and now a blog, too? It seemed like a cheap, knee-jerk solution to a bigger problem.

For too long, the news business closed its eyes as new, essential tools and channels of information—YouTube, Facebook, the blogosphere—ate away at its audience. While Americans began watching television on their computers and reading the newspaper on their cell phones, the newspaper industry continued to rely on a thin paper product to satisfy its base. The new tools were integrated into old newsrooms too slowly and too late. The system is rejecting them and, consequently, itself. New new new journalism will embrace those tools actively, and understand how newspapers should seamlessly incorporate their offerings into one product.

The journalists at the editorial writers' conference believed that maintaining the integrity of the industry by upholding the crucial traits every journalist should have was paramount to the industry's survival. Nosiness is probably the most important personality trait to preserve for the new era and, luckily, it's pervasive. Whether they’re fast-talking men with cigarettes hanging from their lips and notepads in their fedoras, or pantsless sloths with one hand on a keyboard and the other in a bag of Fritos, the best journalists are defined by an insatiable urge to know everything about everything and tell everyone about it. That's what makes a good journalist (albeit a terrible friend), and it's a quality enhanced by the power of new media. After all, it's the consumer's job to be the sloth on the sofa. We just have to make him as comfortable with a laptop as he was with a newspaper.

In the meantime, I'm going to try to enjoy my remaining days as the editor of the Texan, one of the last living old-model newspaper laboratories. The system works, but even in the cradle of a university, we're facing a major upheaval. We're one of three schools in the nation to have our own printing press, but the machine's age, cost and mounting insignificance have convinced some officials that we no longer need it. Selling the press would be a small tragedy for the Texan, but the truth is that, in three semesters' time, no one at the paper would remember we ever had a press in the first place. Common, rational consensus among the twenty-year-old journalist set is that there's no reason to be nostalgic for what we never really knew. We just hope the skills we've developed will remain relevant.

WSJ Wrap Rapped

| 1 Comment

Per Ad Age:

The [Wall Street] Journal is running an advertiser's cover wrap on Thursday for the first time in its history, covering one-third of the front page and all of the back with an ad for Dell. Cover wraps are common among New York City's Post and Daily News tabloids; just Tuesday, the Daily News distributed copies free to commuters wrapped in ads for the new "Tomb Raider" video game. But The Journal has traditionally declined to obscure its front page with overlaid ads.

Here's how one Kicker reader and Journal subscriber reviewed today's "obscured"-front-page Journal:

WSJ sucked today—they took the two column summary that they normally have on the front page and had it on its own page with the Dell ad on the back. The 2 columns only folded 2 columns in so if you wanted to open the paper to an interior page, your fingers had no way of holding the front page—totally lame. I threw it away immediately.

So, while Dell-friendly (and, presumably, Journal ad revenue-friendly), perhaps not so reader-friendly. (Any Journal subscribers have a different experience?)

What if, instead of Dell, a well-funded organization with a particular, controversial agenda wanted to similarly "obscure" the Journal's front page? Would the Journal take those ad dollars? (Why not revisit our recent News Meeting discussion over newspapers and envelope-pushing --in content or placement or both-- ads.)

The Journal has an interesting story on retailers hiring "police" to ferret out discounters selling their products below the "minimum advertised price", which is illegal after a Supreme Court ruling last year.

Basically, retailers don't want others selling their products for lower prices because it hurts the brand's image or makes it harder for it to keep its own prices up. But isn't that what a market is for? If retailers can't even abide by the marketplace then who can?

Klipsch Audio Technologies Inc., an Indianapolis audio-equipment maker, says in the past it prevented discounting by unauthorized dealers by suing them and terminating contracts with authorized dealer that provided the discounters without Klipsch's consent. Over the past three years, Klipsch broke off its relationship with nearly 20 authorized dealers following lawsuits like these.


But Mike Klipsch, the company's president, says he now uses NetEnforcers because it is a less expensive way to go.

Mr. Klipsch says so far this year NetEnforcers succeeded in eliminating 1,420 instances of sellers' listing below MAP online.

"It's one thing to establish a MAP policy," Mr. Klipsch says, "but when you go after the bad guys with a company like NetEnforcers you're showing your retail partners a zero-tolerance policy for any price violations."

"Bad guys" huh? You sell your product to people then they how are they "bad guys" for selling it at whatever price they want to—even if it's at a loss? The lower profits hit them, not you—you've already got your money!

One thing I'm not quite clear on is whether this affects sellers of used goods. I, for one, am unfortunate enough to own a (temperamental) Klipsch speaker system. If I were to sell it on eBay, does this mean the minimum-price cops could yank my listing?

Tod Cohen, eBay's vice-president of global government relations, says "manufacturers and agencies like NetEnforcers are increasingly getting more aggressive policing the prices of our sellers." They routinely use trademark-violation claims when asking eBay to take down sellers' pages, "but it's a bit unfairly enforced," he says. "They take down the Web sites only of the unauthorized resellers that are selling at discounts," but don't bother other unauthorized sellers if they're selling at MAP. This suggests manufacturers are mainly interested in keeping prices up, not preventing trademark violations. Mr. Cohen says.

It's unclear from this. Still, this is an eye-opening story about a world I'm sure most of us didn't know existed. Good job by the Journal.

By a Thousand

| No Comments

Cuts. (Time)

Cuts. (NBC News)

Cuts. (CNN, as Curtis reported)

Cuts. (Gannett, Chicago Tribune, Bakersfield Californian, Santa Barbara News-Press)

Pushback

| No Comments

When her Contra Costa Times colleagues compared her union organizing efforts to those of Norma Rae, Sara Steffens rented the 1979 Martin Ritt film—and was disconcerted to discover that the feisty textile worker immortalized by Sally Field lost her job. “I remember thinking, ‘I hope that doesn’t mean I’m going to lose my job,’ ” Steffens said late last summer.

On June 13, editorial workers at the Bay Area News Group—East Bay, a group of nine MediaNews properties that includes the Contra Costa Times, voted to be represented by The Newspaper Guild—Communication Workers of America. It was the guild’s largest U.S. organizing win since the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel some two decades ago, according to Eric Geist, the union’s administrative director.

But victory came with a twist. Two weeks later, management announced a 13 percent reduction in the unionized workforce—and the thirty-six-year-old Steffens, an award-winning poverty and social-services reporter, was among the twenty-nine laid off.

Gratuitous! (Works For CBS News)

| No Comments

Well, you can't land Barack Obama every week (Steve Kroft's Nov. 17 interview with Obama brought 60 Minutes its best ratings in nine years). Still, putting Anderson Cooper in a pool (though not in a Speedo; Cooper wore board shorts) to race Michael Phelps seems a tad Today Show (Early Show, I guess) for 60 Minutes, no?

(I missed this on Sunday night --I blame the NFL and my DVR-- but an inhouse tipster brought it to my attention. "Like we didn't know how that race was going to turn out?" I believe the tipster said. And then we had some fun imagining assorted other 60 Minutes correspondents doing this segment. Think shingled bathing caps and nose plugs).

And... it was enough to earn 60 Minutes a bronze. The show was the third most-watched network prime time offering last week. Imagine what CBS News producers are cooking up for The Coop next.


Watch CBS Videos Online

Citi Dump

| No Comments

Bloomberg's Jonathan Weil has a great column today on Citigroup not coming clean on its buckled balance sheet.

Let's say a company's board or management concludes mid- quarter that big charges to earnings are needed to write down impaired assets. Under the Securities and Exchange Commission's rules, that must be disclosed within four business days in an SEC filing. If the size can't be determined, disclosure is still required; the company just has to say it's unable to make a good-faith estimate of the amount.

It's been more than a week since Citigroup reached its Nov. 23 welfare deal with the government. Since then, it has made no such disclosure filing, though it did issue a press release on Nov. 19 divulging $1.1 billion of new investment losses.

That leaves a couple of possible explanations. Somehow, the people running Citigroup have imagined a way to avoid concluding that massive writedowns are needed, even after determining the bank might not survive without another bailout. Or -- and here's the odds-on favorite -- Citigroup's bosses operate as if the rules don't apply to them.

This is the best explanation of Citi's government bailout that you're going to see anywhere:

One reason we know Citigroup is anticipating huge losses is that the terms of its latest bailout agreement envision them. Citigroup is responsible for the first $29 billion of losses in the government-guaranteed portfolio, which includes loans and securities backed by residential and commercial real estate. The government will assume 90 percent of any other losses, with Citigroup taking the rest.

In return, Citigroup is handing the feds $7 billion of preferred stock. How sweet is that? Imagine an insurance company offering to charge you a $7,000 premium with a $29,000 deductible to insure your $306,000 house, knowing full well that the master bedroom is on fire.

And Weil, whom we interviewed here a few weeks ago, twists the knife in the next paragraph:

That's more than a helping hand. It's a gift. The spillover benefit for the world at large is that a global financial meltdown is averted again, for now, and Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal's 4 percent stake in Citigroup is saved.

Can't argue with that, can you?

Watching "World Watch"

| 1 Comment

On Tuesday, CBSnews.com launched World Watch, "a blog in which the men and women of CBS News, our eyes and ears around the world, showcase their original reporting" because "as we watch an unprecedented worldwide economic crisis, two unresolved conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the foreign policy of a new American president, our global connections have never been more important." So far, in addition to updates from Mumbai, there's a post from Zimbabwe on the cholera outbreak there ("close to 3,000 people have died of cholera in Zimbabwe so far" since August and, also: "Zimbabwe now has the world's highest rate of inflation, last estimated at 231 million percent in July, and an unemployment rate which stands at more than 90 percent.")

Huffington's How-To

| No Comments

Arianna Huffington appeared on The Daily Show last night to plug HuffPo's new book (The Huffington Post Complete Guide To Blogging) and shared with Jon Stewart the "tricks" to successful blogging:

The first trick, the most important, is to write about your passions. Blog your passions. Blog your obvious passions. Blog your secret passions...

The Times has an interesting idea for a story on Saturn and what might have been for General Motors, but the effort is incomplete: The story needed a lot more fleshing out.

The lede shows promise:

General Motors has promised Congress that it can recreate itself as a different kind of car company — smaller, with a more cooperative relationship with its union, and a lineup of fuel-efficient cars to compete with the best of the foreign brands.


At least G.M. knows how difficult the challenge will be.

A quarter-century ago, G.M. started Project Saturn with the same goals. And it worked, for a time.

But then it skims over some important points:

But Saturn quickly started losing its shine. G.M. executives cut spending, and shoppers flocked to S.U.V.’s. Eventually, many workers resisted the new management style. Now the brand that was once a symbol of G.M.’s future will have a bit part, at most.

What "new management style"? The Times doesn't explain what that was. The thing launched nearly 20 years ago, and I've forgotten, as I'm sure most other readers have.

The paper does better at listing how GM executives, after initially pouring money into the project, eventually stuffed the division.

But it also doesn't explain how the Asian automakers did differently while Saturn was left to rust.

UPDATE: I missed this LAT story this morning, but it has a better explanation of why Saturn didn't make it:

But the decision to consider pulling the plug on Saturn, the agile little start-up that GM developed to reinvent the way it produced and sold cars, is a bitter reminder of just how deep the automaker's troubles run.


Saturn, after all, was created to do almost everything that GM, industry experts and many members of Congress say a modern car company has to do to survive in today's market: Make a limited range of small, fuel-efficient cars, then sell them through a small network of dealers for a profit.

There was just one hitch: GM says Saturn never made a profit.

At its plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., Saturn made simple, unfussy cars designed to appeal to penny-wise drivers. But the price point of the vehicles -- in recent years as low as $12,000 on some models -- was far too low to cover the cost of producing and marketing them, analysts say.

"New management styles" don't matter much if the car never made money, now do they?

The Wall Street Journal and Xinhua

| No Comments

The Journal, which I said yesterday was writing as if it was now inside Hank Paulson's head, at least attributes its scoop today, though it continues to channel him on his plan to reduce mortgage rates to 4.5 percent:

Treasury views this plan as potentially halting the slide in home prices by enabling borrowers to afford bigger loans, thus increasing demand and pushing up home values. The lower interest rates would be available only to borrowers who are buying a home, not those refinancing a mortgage.

Its story asks no questions about whether the plan would work, leaving one token graph way down toward the bottom for "skeptics" that don't really say anything:

The Treasury plan is similar to ideas previously floated by the National Association of Realtors and the lobby group for home builders, but has skeptics. "I don't think it's the answer to the foreclosure problem because that problem is a combination of negative equity with unemployment," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com.

Well, okay. What about the fact that the whole point of the plan is to artificially boost housing prices by throwing out cheap money, which is exactly what caused the boom and bust in the first place? Haven't we learned that lesson?

But the bigger problem here is that The Wall Street Journal has shown little critical distance from the Treasury Department over several months. Its pieces, too often read like something out of one of the primitive Communist government press organs, like TASS or Xinhua, from the Cold War.

"The Supreme Soviet plans to increase left boot production in order to maintain parity with right boot production."

Here's more channeling of Paulson from a separate story on Obama and Treasury:

Treasury officials have grown frustrated with the Obama transition team's unwillingness to engage in specifics. Mr. Paulson has to consult with the Obama team on any big moves, in particular on plans for how the next $350 billion should be used. While Treasury has been in frequent contact with the Obama team, there is uncertainty about what it wants to do with that next batch of money. Many within Treasury believe the next administration is trying to keep its distance in an effort not to be painted as endorsing any of the Bush administration's plans...

Obama transition aides have pushed back on what they see as undue pressure from the Bush administration. "We've had three press conferences on the economy. The president-elect delivered his radio address on it. He met with the governors [Tuesday]. He's talking [Wednesday] too, but the one-president-at-a-time rule applies here," said one Obama aide, after acknowledging that the Bush White House is pressing for help on the TARP.

Notice how the WSJ suddenly starts attributing facts when it talks about Obama. Apparently the paper is not inside the president-elect's head!

The Times is better at raising questions in its story, which is only tangentially about the Treasury-plan news:

Any government efforts to jump-start the housing market have a number of obstacles, the biggest being borrowers’ worries that the economic downturn will affect them. Meanwhile the best interest rates will go only to borrowers in sound financial shape. And even if the efforts go as planned, they may not help the most distressed homeowners.

The Journal is the most important financial publication in the world. The Treasury is the most important government agency in the world (right now). I'll bet you Treasury can put out its own press releases just fine. What readers really need now is some rigorous skepticism of government plans, not stenography of its inner thoughts.

CNN Cuts Entire Science, Tech Team

| 62 Comments

CNN, the Cable News Network, announced yesterday that it will cut its entire science, technology, and environment news staff, including Miles O'Brien, its chief technology and environment correspondent, as well as six executive producers. Mediabistro's TVNewser broke the story.

“We want to integrate environmental, science and technology reporting into the general editorial structure rather than have a stand alone unit,” said CNN spokesperson Barbara Levin. “Now that the bulk of our environmental coverage is being offered through the Planet in Peril franchise, which is produced by the Anderson Cooper 360 program, there is no need for a separate unit.”

A source at the network, who asked not to be named, said the move is a strategic and structural business decision to cut staff, unrelated to the current economic downturn. Financially, “CNN is doing very, very well,” the source said, and none of the health and medical news staff has been cut. Yet the big question, of course, is whether or not the reorganization will decrease the overall amount of CNN’s science, technology, and environment coverage. CNN says no, but it’s hard to imagine that it won’t—Anderson Cooper or not, fewer people is fewer people.

What’s more, the decision to eliminate the positions seems particularly misguided at a time when world events would seem to warrant expanding science and environmental staff.

“It’s disheartening,” said Christy George, who is president of the Society of Environmental Journalists and has worked closely there with Peter Dykstra, CNN’s outgoing executive producer for science and technology. “For the last year or two, television has, in general, been making a commitment to beefing up its environmental coverage.” In particular, clean energy has moved to center stage in our global political and economic discourse, and President-elect Barack Obama recently reaffirmed his commitment to tackling climate change. “There is going to be a lot to cover in science, technology, and environment,” George pointed out, “and it’s not going to be enough to just cover the politics of it to keep people informed.”

Indeed, others who know the CNN science staff agree that the network is making a bad decision. “I’m baffled,” said Keith Cowing, who runs NASAWatch.com and has been a friend of CNN’s Miles O’Brien for years. Cowing has appeared on air with O’Brien a number of times. “Miles is a reporter’s reporter. In terms of the [scientific] research, it’s him. He walks in – and this is why he’s so good – and just knows it. To me, there’s an economy there where you don’t have to have a bunch young researchers running around. You’ve got the guy who can say, ‘Got it,’ and go right on air.” While CNN credited O’Brien as a “terrific reporter,” Cowing added that he is surprised the network doesn’t care to hold on to that expertise.

For his part, O’Brien is putting on a positive face. “In television news, a nearly 17-year stint at one shop is more than just a good run - it is an epoch. I can honestly say I have loved every minute of my time at CNN,” he said in a prepared statement. “It has been my privilege to be surrounded by the most talented, dedicated and creative people in the business. Collaborating with them - sharing many great adventures - is what I will miss the most - but I leave with great memories and great friendships intact. I see a lot of exciting opportunities - and I look forward to exploring what is on the horizon - which, after all, has been my mission at CNN all these years.”

Yet it is exactly “what is on the horizon” at CNN that also makes the decision to eliminate its science staff seem so illogical. On Monday, The New York Times published a long article about the network’s intention to begin competing in the wire service business against outfits like the Associated Press, the world’s largest news organization. But how CNN is going to compete on massive stories like energy and climate with no stand-alone science staff is anybody’s guess. CNN says that its newswire will be cheaper than the A.P.’s, but newspapers should consider such factors when deciding whom to partner with.

CNN is not the only television network that has been slashing science jobs. According to The Washington Post, “NBC Universal made the first of potentially several rounds of staffing cuts at The Weather Channel [last week], axing the entire staff of the "Forecast Earth" environmental program during the middle of NBC's ‘Green Week,’ as well as several on-camera meteorologists.” Gannett has eliminated roughly 1,800 jobs this week at newspapers around the country, though it’s unclear which beats have been most affected. And Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine recently nixed its bureau in Cape Canaveral, Florida, where NASA launches its rockets and shuttles. Cowing, at NASAWatch, says that he is simply shocked “that at a time when science and technology should be on everybody’s lips, this expertise is suddenly not in demand.”

George, at the Society of Environmental Journalists, noted that she has “seen this before” at CNN and that she hopes it will rebuild. Indeed, when the network cancelled a weekly science program in 2001, an article in the Environment Writer newsletter reported that, “It looks like the end of the road for what was left of CNN's once-heralded environment unit.”

So is this the end all over again? Perhaps not. The energy and environment beat, in particular, will likely continue to gain importance and relevance as the 21st century unfolds. Yet one can’t help but feel dismayed by CNN’s decision or that this industry, at least for the time being, is sadly deteriorating.

There is a fierce battle going on over what kind of a CIA director Barack Obama should appoint, when he should close the prison camp at Guantanamo, and whether there should be a full scale investigation (and possible prosecution) of the torture advocates in the Bush administration.

If you’ve only been reading The New York Times, you’re probably aware of these battles—but almost everyone you have seen quoted about them has similar points of view. Most of the Times’s sources don’t think that anyone who formulated or acquiesced in the current administration’s torture policies should be excluded as a candidate for CIA director, or prosecuted for possible violations of criminal law.

The story on the front page of Wednesday morning’s New York Times provides the most recent and the most dramatic example of this syndrome. The story, by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, noted that John O. Brennan had withdrawn his name from consideration for CIA director after liberal critics attacked his role in the agency’s interrogation program, even though Brennan characterized himself as a “strong opponent” within the agency of harsh interrogation techniques. Brennan’s characterization was not disputed by anyone else in the story, even though most experts on this subject agree that Brennan acquiesced in everything that the CIA did in this area while he served there.

Brennan’s self-defense was followed by a quote from another ex-CIA man, Mark Lowenthal, who claimed that Brennan’s downfall “sent a message that ‘if you worked in the C.I.A. during the war on terror, you are now tainted,’ and had created anxiety in the ranks of the agency’s clandestine service.”

“I was aghast reading this,” said Scott Horton, a professor of human rights law at Hofstra and a contributing editor at Harper’s, whose blog was instrumental in framing the opposition to Brennan’s appointment. “The Times doesn’t even do a reasonable job of presenting the conflicts—their principal source today was John O. Brennan. They have not reached out to the other side. It looks like Mark and Scott have decided that it’s payback time for a couple of their sources at the agency.”

Horton also disputed the idea that an investigation of agency abuses would “would demoralize the line officers of intelligence and the military.” The people saying that are “very very skillfully pointing to the interrogators as being the targets—because they know they would not be the targets. The people who would be the targets are policy makers like [Cheney chief of staff David] Addington, who have the same ability to attract sympathy from the public as cockroaches. I’m not sure that the early part of the story is going to be so embarrassing to the company. There was push back at the beginning; you had pretty high level opposition and Cheney decided to cram it down, which is why they went to get that Department of Justice memo” authorizing the torture of prisoners.

Horton added that people in the CIA say Brennan is “absolutely correct he wasn’t responsible for shaping this policy; but when he suggests he was a vigorous opponent, they laugh.”

Asked by Full Court Press about Horton’s suspicions that the piece he had co-authored was payback for his sources at the CIA, Mark Mazzetti replied, “What am I going to say to that? It’s like absurd.”

The Times piece also framed the debate as a contest between CIA veterans and the “left flank of the Democratic Party.” But the only opponent to the Bush administration’s torture policy quoted in the piece was retired general Paul D. Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi forces for the Army in 2003 and 2004.

Eaton, who is one of a group of forty retired admirals and generals opposed to torture, told the Times, “This administration has set a tone problem for the military. We’ve had eight years of undermining good order and discipline.”

I asked Mazzetti if he thought Eaton and his fellow retired generals and admirals regarded themselves part of the “left flank” of the Democratic Party. The Times reporter replied, “I wouldn’t want to comment on that. I think our piece pretty much stands for itself.”

A veteran human rights advocate in Washington explained the press’s dilemma this way:

The people who are doing the transition aren’t talking to anyone. And the people who are talking don’t really know what’s going on. The reporters are under enormous pressure to write stories; so what they inevitably do is go to these people outside of the circle who are either exaggerating their knowledge to make themselves look important, or are advancing an agenda.

(Scott Horton also observed that another piece in the Times Week on Review last Sunday, about how Americans should think about Guantanamo, relied almost exclusively on quotes from supporters of the current administration.)

The piece on the front page of Wednesday’s Times struck me as so unbalanced, I sent this e-mail to four top editors there: “This morning's torture story on the front page is 1174 words long, of which 147 words are devoted to the anti-torture position, which the reporters writing the story obviously disagree with. I would like to know on what basis you believe this equation meets traditional New York Times standards for fairness and balance.”

Executive editor Bill Keller replied:

Your e-mail is 67 words long, of which zero are devoted to the substance of the story. The story is not a roundup of the debate over the use of torture. It is about the dilemma facing the Obama administration as it seeks a new head of the C.I.A. and tries to decide what level of association with the recent past might disqualify a candidate. One potential choice to head the agency has already withdrawn his name after coming under attack. Now, the piece reports, "Mr. Obama's search for someone else and his future relationship with the agency are complicated by the tension between his apparent desire to make a clean break with Bush aministration policies he has condemned and concern about alienating an agency with a central role in the campaign against Al Qaeda." This is a balancing act Obama has not yet resolved, and the article in no way rescribes how he should resolve it...It’s a little unfair to criticize an article for not being some altogether different article you might have written.

Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet told me, “Your take is sort of ridiculous. Your're reading a point of view on the part of the reporters that is not there. You should read their past stories before jumping to conclusions.”

Since torture is the subject that I have written about more frequently than anything else since I started this blog one year ago, I have indeed read previous stories in the Times about torture, including a particularly egregious one last spring by Scott Shane, which suggested a kind of moral equivalency between opponents and proponents of torture: “Certainly the debate is rich in emotion, with each side claiming the moral heights: You approve torture! You're coddling terrorists! But the arguments have been scant on science to back them up.”

Then Shane revealed the crucial science which had been ignored in the debate: “...[T]he [Army Field] manual's inherited wisdom has not been updated to reflect decades of corporate analysis of how to influence consumers. Behavioral economists have dissected decision-making, and academic psychologists have studied political persuasion, but their lessons have not informed the interrogator's art either.” (I told Baquet that this was one of the oddest observations I had ever read in a newspaper.)

In that same piece, Shane also quoted Benjamin Wittes, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a longtime defender of the Bush Administration: “We don’t have any idea — other than anecdote or moral philosophy — what really works.”

That is flatly false.

The one story on this subject that should be required reading for everyone is the piece by a former senior interrogator in Iraq in last Sunday’s Outlook section of The Washington Post, entitled “I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq.”

Like every one of those retired generals and admirals who has fought against the current administration’s torture policies, the author of the Post piece DOES know what works:

I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they're listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of "ruses and trickery"). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi. Over the course of this renaissance in interrogation tactics, our attitudes changed. We no longer saw our prisoners as the stereotypical al-Qaeda evildoers we had been repeatedly briefed to expect; we saw them as Sunni Iraqis, often family men protecting themselves from Shiite militias and trying to ensure that their fellow Sunnis would still have some access to wealth and power in the new Iraq. Most surprisingly, they turned out to despise al-Qaeda in Iraq as much as they despised us, but Zarqawi and his thugs were willing to provide them with arms and money. I pointed this out to Gen. George Casey, the former top U.S. commander in Iraq, when he visited my prison in the summer of 2006. He did not respond.

This piece also includes the best description anywhere of the immorality—and absolute counter-productivity—of the single worst policy in which the United States has engaged since it annihilated most of the Native American population in the 18th and 19th centuries:

Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives. I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me – unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

Those are the words Barack Obama needs to remember—and those are the ideas and the facts that you have not read in The New York Times.

Talking Shop: Gail Collins

| 5 Comments

Over the course of commenting on Campaign 2008 for The New York Times, Gail Collins has, among other things: explained why Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton, found a silver lining to the John Edwards affair, given etiquette lessons to smug Obama supporters, and engaged with David Brooks in a spirited debate about the political proclivities of squirrels. In the process, she's emerged as one of the most trenchant, witty, and insightful observers of a campaign that is often described as "theatrical" and even more often described as "crazy."

A veteran reporter, editor, author, and journalism entrepreneur, Collins joined The New York Times in 1995 as a member of the paper's editorial board, later becoming an op-ed columnist. In 2001 she became the first woman ever appointed editor of the paper's editorial page. Having returned to writing, she has produced twice-weekly columns for the Times since July 2007.

Collins sat down with CJR's Megan Garber to discuss campaign coverage, the future of opinion writing, and why it's hard to say 'no' to columnists.


Megan Garber: What were some of your most memorable moments of the campaign?

Gail Collins: I remember being in New Hampshire and listening to Obama at one of his events--one of ten million events--and standing next to someone from one of the national magazines. And he looked at me and said, "Wouldn't it be wild if he won?" And it was one of those things, like, "Can you imagine?" Even though Obama had won Iowa at the time, talking about him winning overall was like talking about an outer-space person coming to earth or something. It just seemed so wild and remote.

And then there were the Iowa caucuses. The caucuses are so weird, because you see what looks elsewhere like this massive process, and in Iowa, it's just a gym full of people. There will be families that all came together--Mom and Dad and the teenage kids--and almost invariably, the mom would be for Hillary, and the teenage boy would be for Obama, and the dad would be kind of bouncing around in the middle. I had the sense of the men just feeling like they had no way to go on this one, that they'd lose either way.

Another weird one was going to Obama's "hometown"--the one he had never been to before in his life. It was this little weenie town in Kansas--El Dorado, it was called--and we went there in a bus, and we got to the gym, and there are all these people who've been waiting to have a president from Kansas, and would never have imagined this would be how it worked out. But they were all very excited, and very happy, and jumping up and down.

MG: What do you think of the campaign-trail system of coverage, the "Boys on the Bus" tradition? Do you find it useful, or is it becoming obsolete?

GC: I find it very useful to be able to bounce in and out of it. I can't imagine having covered this campaign without having had the chance to go off with the candidates. But to do it every day is just an excruciating job. It's like war. It's really--really, really, really, really, really, really--hard. It's a young person's job, totally.

The McCain trail was particularly weird. He actually wasn't much more not-available than Obama was, during the end. But because he'd been so different before, the feeling was really different. With Obama, you had this remote kind of guy who just doesn't talk to the press much. With McCain, it was like a divorce. It was much more cold, as opposed to cool.

MG: Did you sense a difference between the campaigns overall in terms of the way the press was treated--not just among the candidates, but among the entire press operations?

GC: No, not really. The last time I was with McCain--and it was actually the best time to have been the last time--was the week when the economy blew up. Every day he was doing a new thing, and it was a fascinating experience to watch him being remade for every event. It did seem to me that the campaign staff were being very chilly about seats and everything on the plane. They came back and apologized afterward, though, and were really nice. But then two weeks later they apparently barred Maureen from the plane--so clearly there was not total happiness there. I think Obama did the same thing, in the end--some of the papers that didn't endorse him didn't get onto the last flights.

MG: How did you spend your election night--and the day after?

GC: One of the things you learn when you do newspaper journalism for a really long time is that election day really sucks. There's nothing you can do, so you just sort of wander around. So, this year, for the first time, I organized it: I got my hair cut, I went to the dentist, and then we did a program at the Times. And then after that I just went to a friend's house for a party. My column didn't run until Thursday, so I sort of had the night off, for all practical purposes. And then the next day was my usual column-writing day.

MG: So you normally write your columns in a day?

GC: Yeah. And during the campaign, most of the debates were my writing nights. So you'd listen to the debate, and it would end around 9:30, and then you'd have a 10:00 deadline. So it's really kind of bouncy. But that's fun. My assistant, Amanda, really enjoys that, the sort of "here we are, and it's deadline!" excitement. You don't get much of that in the op-ed section; you don't have that deadline-a-minute thing that everyone else does. So everyone really likes it when there's a debate, or a State of the Union, and we're running around, trying to do it all at the last minute.

MG: That's funny--in my mind, one of the best parts about being a columnist would be being spared the deadline-a-minute pressure.

GC: Well, you like a mixture. When there's really not much going on, like now, you can be planning a column days in advance. But just the fact of deadlines is glorious. I love having deadlines. When I was an editor, I thought, well, of course, I'll write all the time; I'll just write on my own schedule whenever I get inspired. And I barely wrote anything. I was very interested to find that if I wasn't forced to write by somebody saying, "You've got fifteen minutes," then nothing would ever get done.

MG: Do you ever miss editing?

GC: No! No, it was a wonderful experience--it was the best thing to have had a chance to do--but I was always determined that it wasn't the thing I was going to do forever, that there would be an end to it.

MG: What do you see to be the overarching role of a columnist?

GC: What you really have to do is find a new way of looking at something people have already looked at. But also to bring new stuff to the table--so when people come away from your column, they have new thoughts and new insights and new information, really, about what's happening. All of the columnists on the op-ed page of the Times are also reporters. Paul Krugman, sure, has never been a reporter, but Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist, which I guess is even better than being a reporter--emphasis on the "better"! But everybody goes out and reports. Just sort of saying your opinion is not enough. That doesn't move it. It's a much broader challenge than just, "Well, here's my take on the news."

MG: Do you see that role changing, now or in the future, particularly given the proliferation of opinion writing on the Web?

GC: The column as we do it now is something that will probably die off with my generation. Currently, the critical thing you have to have to do a column--besides the general reporting and writing--is the ability to be able to deliver exactly 800 words twice a week, on deadline. On the Web, though, there's no reason for that. The constraints don't exist. So the next generation of columnists will be a totally different breed than we are. I don't know exactly what they'll look like--I mean, you can see hints now of what it will be--but they're going to be a totally different thing.

MG: Do you ever find the print constraints limiting?

GC: Sometimes, in a perfect life, you'd rather have 1,000 words or 1,200 words. But the great thing about the 800-words-twice-a-week is it's really an incredible discipline. It forces you to think in a very restricted way, and to keep your thoughts small and focused. No matter how large your concept is, you've got to get it into the 800-word-thought thing, along with a couple of anecdotes and quotes and a little humor, perhaps. In fact, I find that even when I write books, I write them in little chunks. The chapters aren't 800 words--I'll go on for two or three pages!--but the chapters on all the books I've done have been a little subhead and then a few pages. And if you don't have any of those restraints, you've got to invent some of your own, somehow; otherwise, it's all over the place. That's going to be the trick for the next generation.

MG: What do you most admire in the work of other columnists?

GC: Maureen is a stupendous reporter. She works really, really, really hard, and she mines the territory that she's writing about with great skill and great effort. And, of course, Nick--a lot of people go to Darfur or somewhere as reporters, but he brings this personal perspective, and he brings his voice, and he brings the kind of chatty way that he can write about the most extraordinary things, which just draws people into it. And Tom Friedman is, I think, just a genius at taking very large thoughts--and coming up with large thoughts in the first place--and then running with them for a long time, developing them over several columns. That takes a really special talent, because otherwise it's like you're being hit in the head over and over again.

Tom is also the most positive columnist I've ever seen--in that he just will not write about something without coming to some remedy. Which was particularly admirable when he wrote about the Middle East, where it'd be very easy just to say, "These people are all crazy! Stop it!" He always had something: they can do this, and next they can do that. He never succumbed to the very easy "they're all nuts and I'm just shocked by them all" kind of thing.

And David Brooks--David and Nick I hired when I was editor; that was my major contribution to the editorial page, I think--David just has so many interests. He is just so smart, and he's also, for our purposes, the closest thing you can have to a Republican who liberal Democrats really love--or at least feel that if they had dinner with him, he would understand their point of view. We've been having conversations back and forth on the Web, and that's been a lot of fun because he's also really funny. And we're going to do more of those in the new year.

MG: Do those happen through e-mail exchanges?

GC: Basically. One of us will start and write the first part, and the other will do the response, and then once three are done, we'll post it. Maybe we'll do it differently in the new year, but I thought that system worked well. I think we have enough of the same tone that it's easy enough to go back and forth. Really, you could do them on your BlackBerry--because it was just so much like sitting around and having coffee with David. So that's my contribution to the New Journalism.

MG: What about back-and-forths between other columnists? Is there much communication between the group of you when it comes to topic selection and all that?

GC: Nobody knows what anybody's writing, actually. They used to ask--and I'm not sure why they stopped asking--but nobody knows. The thing the Times does manage is our groupings--so there's an attempt to make sure that you're not going to be on the same day with somebody who's writing on the exact same thing you are. I'm on with Nick Kristof, for instance, so there's a very small chance that we're writing about the same things. And Maureen is on with Tom Friedman. But beyond that, no, they don't check on us.

When I was a columnist at the Daily News and Newsday, I always wanted the editors to ask us what we were writing about, to have the whole thing be more coordinated. But they would never do it, because in the end they don't want to own the columns. They want to make it clear that the columns are just themselves. And then, when I became editor, I realized that the columns are just an incredibly hard thing to manage, and all you want to do is say, "yes, yes, yes" to whatever the columnists are doing. When people complain about columnists--they generally treat the op-ed page with much more intensity than they do other parts of the paper--I now understand why editors just say, "Well, those are the columnists, and they just do whatever they're going to do."

MG: So the columns we read are pretty much verbatim, from columnists' lips to our ears?

GC: Yeah. That's why they talk about voice a lot with columnists, because that's the whole deal. We're checked by a copy editor, who looks for libel and stuff like that--but, in theory, the only power the editor has is to pull the column. The editor doesn't have any power to change anything in the column. In the real world, of course, if you call up a columnist and say, "I really think that third paragraph is going to get you into huge trouble--it should really change," the columnist isn't going to say, "No, that's a really important paragraph, and I'll never change it." Columnists are all perfectly rational people.

But the weird part of column writing is that there's no net. You're just tossing about out there. There are no rules. It's a really good job.

Will The Revolution Be Linked?

| No Comments

Snaps (Tweets?) for everyone stopping by our (ongoing) News Meeting to weigh in on this week's question of, "How should journalists use Twitter?" Meanwhile, many major newspaper columnists still haven't confronted the question of, "How should journalists use links?" (h/t, Michael Calderone).

Something Daniel Luzer explored (suffered for?) for CJR.

Dowd's Fey Profile

| 2 Comments

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd profiles Tina Fey for Vanity Fair, an assignment that included a reporting trip to Fey's "comfy, vintage-y Upper West Side apartment" during which Dowd drank "vodka martinis" with Fey's husband (Fey had white wine) and thought to ask Fey:

Did she ever use the Sarah Palin voice to entice her own First Dude?


No, she said...

Overall, I got the sense from the piece that Maureen Dowd feels a certain warmth toward Tina Fey. And not just the standard girl-crush that all the ladies have. But a kindred spirits-type fondness. And how could Dowd not see herself in Fey?

In high school Dowd translated Latin while "nibbling cheese crackers;" Fey speaks a little German and her 30 Rock character Liz Lemon eats "'off-brand' Mexican cheese curls." Dowd has a Pulitzer; Fey's got Emmys. Both Dowd and Fey have written screen plays. And, Dowd reports, "In high school, Fey...was involved in...the newspaper, for which she wrote a tart, anonymous column under the byline 'The Colonel.'” Sound like someone you know?

At County Fair, Eric Boehlert asks:

If we take up a (large) collection, do you think we can convince Graydon Carter to bring MoDo on staff at VF, which would open up a slot on the NYT Op-Ed page for somebody who, y'know, is actually interested in politics and American governance?

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? "The Colonel!"

Here's a sample of "The Colonel"s work circa 1987, from a 2006 Philadelphia Weekly Fey profile:

One 1987 Fey column that ran just after the crowning of the homecoming king and queen read: “And so out came the Homecoming Court. The Colonel was outraged … There they stood on the platform, gloating over the prize that was rightfully the Colonel’s. He saw the voting tabs. Frank Rizzo, you’re not alone … ”

What do you think? Potential? Without being too radical a departure from Dowd?

But for the washingtonpost.com's hard-to-miss "most viewed articles" box, I would have missed this pseudonymous column from November 28, "An Interrogator Speaks: I'm Still Tortured By What I Saw In Iraq" (still among the "most viewed" today for a reason).

The Local Climate

| 4 Comments

Last week, the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media posted an interesting column by Tom Henry, environment reporter for the Toledo Blade in Ohio, about being sent to Greenland to write a four-part series on global warming.

Henry’s is one of a few recent climate series by local papers that merit attention, but which I have not previously had the time to mention. These include packages from The Des Moines Register in Iowa, the Daily News-Miner in Alaska, and the Alpena News in Michigan. I’ve covered several of these kinds of series, most of which attempt to show the local ramifications of global warming, and it is always very heartening to see new ones. Critics often complain that such ambitious (and expensive) reporting is only doable at major publications like The New York Times, and perhaps that’s largely true—but these climate series are a reminder that all is not lost in our troubled industry.

If you visit the Blade’s Web site, you’ll see that Henry’s work is billed as a “four-part” series, but, in fact, it was a four-day series that included, by my count, nine articles, two columns, two photo packages, an audio slideshow, and a number of video interviews with leading climatologists at Ohio State University. In his column for the Yale Forum yesterday, Henry wrote that, “My purpose in doing this series was to show people that climate change is not about polar bears. It’s about people.” Henry’s first piece (which includes links to the rest) created an impressive, nearly 3000-word arc that begins in Ilulissat and eventually returns to Toledo; overall, the series follows a similar path, starting in Greenland in one piece, moving on the Great Lakes region in the next, and stopping by Capitol Hill before finishing off back in the Arctic.

This interconnected approach is so effective because it makes distant global phenomena begin to seem relevant to people’s lives. It’s also harder than it looks. As Henry pointed out at the Yale Forum, segueing from Greenland to Ohio is very tricky: “[What] connections exist between the Great Lakes region and the world’s largest island - a mountainous one that’s 80 percent covered in ice and as long as the distance from Maine to Cuba and as wide as the distance between Chicago and New York?” The answer, he found, was not physical, but human. As Henry wrote in his opening column, “Changes occurring to Greenland should be a wake-up call for the rest of the world. Or, to put it simply… It's about you and me and our ethics. That's right. Our ethics.”

Such bold statements are not easy to get past editors, but then again, neither is it easy to land an assignment to visit the Arctic in the first place. “It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that sending a reporter to Greenland is one heck of a financial commitment, let alone in today’s economy and for a mid-sized newspaper in one of the nation’s most depressed Rust Belt cities,” Henry wrote at the Yale Forum. “All of which underscored the importance of this story and my publisher’s commitment to it.” It was the Blade's top brass who, in fact, broached the idea to Henry, and he particularly credited co-publisher and editor-in-chief John Robinson Block for taking the initiative.

Not all series can be so ambitiously far-flung, of course, but that doesn’t make them any less worthwhile or effective. The Des Moines Register, for example, didn’t send any reporters to Greenland for its ongoing series on “How climate change could affect Iowa.” The paper created a landing page on its Web site that lists all its related articles, but the real focus and beauty of this package is an absolutely stunning set of interactive graphics that cover everything from the basics of climate science to Iowa’s climate and weather to energy efficiency measures being implemented across the United States. One of the greatest impediments to better public understanding of global warming is poor information retention. Our fast-paced news cycle doesn’t help that, so, ultimately, the great advantage of the Register’s encyclopedic database is not only that it’s locally-oriented, but that readers can refer to it again and again.

Another noteworthy series is “Alaska’s Changing Climate,” published by the Daily News Miner in Fairbanks. Located just south of the Arctic Circle, the News Miner didn’t have to send reporters very far to see warming’s effect on sea ice, permafrost, boreal forests, coastal erosion, fish, wildlife, and local communities. The package included at least seven articles by Stefan Milkowski and four photo galleries published last July. Though it hasn’t been updated since, Alaska is the United States’ bellwether state for climate, and one hopes that the News Miner will make this an ongoing project.

Finally, a local climate series by the Alpena News, at the northern tip of Michigan, is worth mentioning. The paper is the smallest of those mentioned here, so the package is not as grand as the others—not much traveling, and no fancy photos or graphics. With seven solid articles it is no less impressive, however, and stands out all the more because no other paper in Michigan (of which there are many larger than the Alpena News) seems to have put forward such a dedicated effort. Five of the articles cover the state’s efforts to be a clean energy leader and address lingering concerns about fossil fuels and tourism; the other two are good, “news-you-can-use” articles about improving energy conservation. The series’ only real shortcoming is that, unlike most others, its constituent parts are not grouped together on a single landing page or even linked to one another. But it’s worth reading, so here are parts one, two, three, four, five, six, and seven.

Henry, who assembled the Toledo Blade’s package, has been impressed by the large number of climate series coming from small and medium-sized papers. But many, he worries, are a “carryover” from 2007 and readers may see fewer of them in coming years. “I was one of three judges for the projects category of the Society of Environmental Journalist’s award contest this year,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Of sixty-some entries we judged, probably two-thirds were either directly about climate or a major climate issue, like the nation's reliance on coal and/or China's emerging use of coal. A bunch of papers, magazines, et al, pegged their projects to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 reports, which was no surprise. At least it didn't fizzle out after Gore and the IPCC took home their awards.”

Hopefully, they won’t fizzle out all. And I’m sure there are more local climate series out there that I’ve missed. I would love to hear about all of them (preferably with links) in the comments section, so please chime in.

From Howard Kurtz's Washington Post column today comes this anonymously-sourced criticism of NBC News's David Gregory, (thisclose to) moderator of Meet The Press:

Skeptics say that Gregory has a less than commanding screen presence as a host, leading them to question whether he could sustain viewer interest in the hour-long Sunday program. As the son of a Broadway producer, he might need a bit more showmanship.

Who are these "skeptics" who doubt Gregory's "screen presence?" And, is it also these "skeptics" who think "he might need a bit more showmanship" or is that Kurtz speaking for himself? Either way, I can't see how Gregory's "showmanship" could be in question.

Linked Out

| 11 Comments

Like most people my age, I get most of my news online. I begin the day by checking The New York Times, The Washington Post, and several local papers and blogs. There's only so much news I can read before I have to work, and so the process of "checking" various news sources means scanning the headlines. I don't generally click on hyperlinks; that's a recipe for low productivity.

The Internet makes knowledge more accessible, and the hyperlink is the building block of ths democratization of information. The hyperlink can connect an article to its sources or to other relevant articles pretty easily, helping to change the way we experience the news from an act determined by the newsroom (reading the New York Post from cover to cover every morning) to an act that I can basically control on my own (sitting at my computer and learning everything I can about Madonna's divorce). Remember Choose Your Own Adventure? Hyperlinks are like that, only on my computer and not exclusively for third-graders.

Let’s say I write a 1,000-word story about a subject and then link to eight other 1,000-word articles. These articles, in turn, link to other articles and Web sites, expanding my original article to a staging point for informational content of infinite length and ambiguous validity. Since the Internet allows users not only to read but also produce information, consumers can create content almost as quickly as they can read it. This is information overload—too much information and too little verification.

In mid-October, I decided to spend a day following the news through hyperlinks only. I followed every link I could find. I stuffed myself full of news to understand the potential and problems of the hyperlink. How much does the hyperlink matter? Is it an incidental addition to news, or does it actually change the way people consume information?



I began my experiment on October 15, 2008, the day after the final presidential debate. Upon waking, my initial Google searches produced millions of hits on the topic so I decided to make this easier and start by visiting the murky organization known as the Commission on Presidential Debates.

This site invited me to check out Visit My Debates, the MySpace page that served as the "official online companion" to the 2008 presidential debates. Visit My Debates claimed to let me look at the election "my way." Sort of. It actually summarized various issues in a line or two and made me choose between the positions offered between the major candidates in order to advance to the next policy issue. The Web site also decided what the issues were. The war in Iraq was an issue, but the war in Afghanistan was not. And while homeland security was an issue, protecting civil liberties was not.

There was also a forum at the bottom of the Web site with such topics as "He is Racist and a Muslim" and "How Can "REAL" Christians vote for Obama." In "Racist & Muslim," the reader was treated to posts like:

So what? He has a Doctrate [sic] from Harvard Law. Does that say anything? He worked his ass off, and quite frankely [sic] he’s smarter than you and me. He even said he’s willing to pay a little more in taxes for the middle class so that they have a chance to get to where he is today. What degree does McCain have? I don’t even know. He went to graduate school but never received a degree, that [sic] says A LOT of him already.

It seems the distance between a legitimate news source and totally amateurish user-generated content is often pretty short. While the fact that the source is questionable does not necessarily mean it's wrong (remember John Edwards and the National Enquirer?), with the discussion of McCain's truncated graduate school career I had clearly reached a dead end on this search.

But when I got to work that morning there were thirty-seven emails in my inbox; twenty-two of them were about Joe Wurzelbacher, the misinformed assistant plumber from Ohio who gurgled up into the American news cycle and became the star of the third presidential debates. I decided to follow "Joe the Plumber" for a day.

The first thing I read, which I got from a link in the first e-mail I checked, was MSNBC's "Palin's shout-out to Joe (and Jane) the plumber." The governor of Alaska apparently made some reference to "Jane the Plumber," attempting either to discuss the glass ceiling (women can be plumbers and, um, vice presidents) or pick up some of the female plumber vote.

The only links in that article returned to the original MSNBC Joe the Plumber article, so I went to the tabs on the side, including one to Daily Kos called "Is 'Joe the plumber' related to Charles Keating?" I investigated that question for awhile, but it was sort of distracting and I ended up reading about Olympic swimmer Gary Hall Jr. (who actually is Charles Keating's grandson). There wasn’t much to be learned here about Joe the Plumber.

About an hour in, I realized that all of these links make it sort of hard to actually finish an article. By noon, after following innumerable links to analyses and subsidiary points, I had still not completed a single "Joe the Plumber" article. I was on top of every new development, but whether or not I understood what was going on was harder to answer. I didn't feel any smarter. I just felt sort of… tired. It was stressful following everything in an article, in part because I couldn't devote much time to reading anything. This was the journalistic equivalent of running the 200-meter race, all day long. This was maddening.

Something odd about the Wurzelbacher story was that the hyperlinks didn't go in new directions. No one linked to articles about the way the plumbing profession works, or the struggles small businessmen face. Indeed, with surprising regularity, the hyperlinks were circuitous, returning again to the big articles in the Washington Post, CNN, etc.

That's just because these articles were the most easily accessible. Everyone knows how to navigate the New York Times Web site; why mess around trying to find out what the Cincinnati Enquirer has to say? The problem was that the articles by major news sources still weren't that great. Joe the Plumber and the corporate media hyperlink strategy demonstrated that if journalists don't really know anything, they can't link their way around the problem. If a writer doesn't understand an issue he's writing about, linking to other articles about that issue won't fix the article.



After lunch, I visited The New York Times, where the headline in the middle of that day (at the same time that oil had fallen below seventy dollars a barrel for the first time in sixteen months) was "Joe the plumber is under scrutiny." (The news priority here was kind of embarrassing. But whatever, when in Rome.) I decided to follow every link in the article.

The article linked to another Times piece about the specific exchange between Wurzelbacher and Obama (basically the transcript of the YouTube video). Another link sent me to the Toledo Blade and the original story of Joe the Plumber, called "Obama supports U.S. aid for banks; he says relief plan needs regulations." Another hyperlink led to a story from October 12 about Obama’s Ohio campaign; another led to a Fox News article, which wondered if "maybe the plumbers union will reconsider their [sic] endorsement of Obama." This article linked to the Web site of United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, one of the few sites I saw that day with no reference to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher of Holland, Ohio.

I had evolved my strategy so to just follow the link chain in a single article, rather than use links to actually become informed. Admittedly, these hyperlinks were sort of interesting (the name of the plumbers' union is almost twenty words long. Who knew?). But they still weren't terribly informative. My original goal was to learn all I could about Joe the Plumber but, despite copious linking, there really wasn't anything to learn here—or anywhere.

The Times had a page with information about everything with regard to the McCain campaign. There was a similar link to Barack Obama's campaign, but I followed McCain for a minute. There was basic biographical information, links to all NYT articles about him, a link to his Almanac of American Politics entry (requiring login: dead-end). The TimesMcCain page also had a link to John McCain's Facebook page, in which McCain reported that his favorite TV shows are 24 (duh) and Seinfeld (really?). Obama lists his favorite show as SportsCenter, which seems like sort of a cop-out. Back to McCain news, I saw a link to 2006 Time magazine article about the McCain family, "The McCains and War: Like father, like son." This linked to another Time article about "grading the final presidential debate."

Sigh. I now understood how Huffington Post works. I’d always wondered why the site features three-inch headlines and lots of links to celebrity gossip. Now I know; reading nothing but news—alot of news—is boring.



By the end of the day, I realized that different news organizations follow different hyperlink strategies. There’s the HuffPo “mullet strategy” of news presentation (business up front, party in the back). HuffPo looks clean but then links to other places with user-generated content and unverifiable assertions. It lets the reader do the heavy lifting and determine accuracy, sorting the valid from the invalid. This strategy keeps readers entertained—but it also distracts readers, and can lead them to unreliable information.

Corporate media hyperlinks—found at places like the Times, Fox News, Time, CNN, and MSNBC—mostly direct the reader to other pages within the site. This keeps readers with the same news source, but has the disadvantage of potentially boring the reader. MSNBC was a major violator here, with hyperlinks to its dreary "fact-check" page.

While I haven't heard much discussion about news organizations’ "hyperlink policies," it's clear that hyperlinking is a strategic decision. The circuitous link strategy makes sense if your publication is really worried about people getting distracted or if your publication really has the best content (it does happen). But with links you do want to distract people a little, because it somehow makes the publication seem current and interesting. You want to let the reader explore a little.

As Jenny Lyn Bader explained in a Times article back in 2000:

In the old-media world, the question was how to get the audience to stay with you. In the new-media world, it is how to get the audience to leave and come back again. After all, it is not readability that makes for greatness on the Web: it is clickability.

Call it the Miracle on 34th Street strategy: the goal of sending visitors away from your site is, ultimately, to keep them coming back.

The problem with this strategy is that all of this linking around—the new work of reading the news—mainly just introduces the reader to a bunch of things he has to ignore in order to digest the content of a story. The thing that kept plaguing me in the course of this project was: What am I missing now? I'd discovered the Toledo Blade; I’d discovered Daily Kos and taken an updated tour through MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN. There were millions of potentially untapped sources. The process of attempting to connect this, to note every hyperlink, where it came from and where it led, proved impossible. The stories kept changing, the hyperlinks kept dying, and I could never figure out the best way to address and synthesize the media. Trying to figure out what I did that day was like building with dry sand; the history of my day kept slipping though my fingers.

I felt the way I think a gerbil would feel, running around that wheel. You're never done. Because if your only goal is to follow the news, you quickly discover that the news never ends. It just refreshes itself.

This article is part of our online supplement to the November/December print issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. To read that issue's cover story, entitled "Overload!: Journalism's battle for relevance in an age of too much information", click here. Part two of Daniel Luzer's journey through linkspace is coming soon.

Baucus Watch, Part III

| No Comments

As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus holds the keys to health-care reform; any health-care legislation must pass through his committee. So what he says or doesn’t say is important to those following the twists and turns of the congressional effort to fix our health-care system. This is the third of an occasional series of posts on the senator’s pronouncements and how the media has covered them. The first two are archived here.


A laurel to Mike Dennison, a Montana statehouse reporter for Lee Newspapers, who for months has kept an eye on Sen. Max Baucus as he has tried to position himself as Mr. Health Care II, stealing turf from Mr. Health Care I, Sen. Edward Kennedy, whose name has been linked with the issue for decades. Two stories written as columns, which ran in the Billings Gazette, the Missoulian, the Helena Independent Record, and the Montana Standard a few days ago, are examples of the kind of careful, everyday, explanatory journalism that has been absent from health care reportage this year.

When Baucus released his 89-page white paper in mid-November, offering a potpourri of suggestions and a long recitation of the system’s ills, the news media clapped their hands and promoted this message: Here was an important senator demonstrating his commitment to change. Bravo! Way to go! Good work!

The hype soon moved to the blogosphere, where commentators made the same points while not really bothering to kick Baucus’s tires. Dennison decided to do just that, and set out to find sources who would talk on the record about both the positive and negative parts of the Baucus white paper. “People in Montana are reluctant to criticize Baucus publicly,” Dennison told me. “People like him. He is popular and has a lot of stature. After looking at what people were saying here and nationally, I decided to use my own voice and critique it myself.”

In his first column, Dennison tells readers that “we should be clear about what it’s not and what it does not do.” Baucus’s white paper doesn’t support “universal coverage” or “universal health care,” he says, which means it doesn’t call for basic health coverage for everyone, regardless of ability to pay. He summarizes arguments made by Baucus staffers who say that, in several years, the senator’s blueprint might bring us closer to universal coverage. Then he makes an observation that few in the media have made—that the Baucus approach, as well as those of all the Democratic presidential candidates, “relies on the private, for-profit insurance market to fill some big gaps, something it hasn’t done after decades of being in business.”

Dennison notes that the Baucus paper offers few ideas for controlling rising health care costs and “plops another mishmash of new rules, regulations and bureaucracy” on top of our “fragmented, expensive system,” “all in the name of maintaining the private, for-profit insurance market.” In sum, Dennison writes, Baucus’s white paper “seems to bend over backwards to preserve much of the status quo—a status quo that just about everyone agrees is badly broken.”

In his second column, Dennison dares to talk about single-payer coverage, an option that has been omitted from this year’s health care discourse. He tells readers how such a system would work, and debunks major criticisms of a national health insurance approach:

Higher taxes? Not if single-payer all but eliminates the health insurance premiums that you and your employer currently pay. Big government? In America, the government is the people, and you tell it what to do. It has to be more responsive than big insurance. Less choice? With single-payer, no doctors or hospitals are out of the network, because there is no network. It’s one system. Everyone gets the same basic care.

Dennison says that Baucus has declared the single-payer option “off the table;” it is “not politically feasible” because the public won’t go for it. What that means, Dennison explains, is that Baucus and his colleagues don’t want to fight with some of the country’s most powerful financial interests, which have the money and motivation to turn public opinion against what Dennison calls “meaningful reforms.”

What do his readers think? Dennison told me that the dominant response has been positive. People want to know more about single-payer. They want the (information) void filled. “Several said they were glad I wrote about this. Please tell us more,” he added. Some readers, however, called him a socialist or a communist. Look for his follow-up this weekend, talking about reader response.

News outlets once routinely published these kinds of reporter notebook stories, news analyses, and explainers. Think of the late R.W. Apple of The New York Times, who distilled complicated political issues into pieces that made sense for the average reader. I looked forward to his pieces. Dennison’s columns remind me of Johnny Apple, and why we need more of his kind of journalism.

Chris Matthews: Choose Or Lose?

| No Comments

What's it gonna be? Your money or your life, Chris Matthews? The question raised by the slowly mounting calls (suggestions?) for MSNBC's Chris Matthews to pursue political office or punditry but not both (Matthews is reportedly looking into running in Pennsylvania, as a Democrat, for the U.S. Senate) is: What would be lost if Matthews took off his Hardball hat and threw it into Pennsylvania's political ring? Is there someone else at MSNBC who could provide the rubbernecking-like anticipation of Foot-in-mouth-prone pundit reacting to breaking news involving persons other than white males; What might slip out this time? (Not to mention the rubbernecking-like anticipation of Two-left-footed pundit dancing with Ellen DeGeneres; What might slip up this time?)

Managing McCaffreyGate

| 4 Comments

"Is there any limit to the shamelessness of NBC News?" Charles Kaiser asked here on Monday, in expressing, er, dissatisfaction with NBC News's seeming non-reaction to ("stunning wall of silence") David Barstow's reporting for the New York Times (both Sunday's piece and the one from April) on the conflicted military analysts of network news (like NBC's Gen. Barry McCaffrey).

But, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald reported, Barstow's articles have set off a flurry of activity behind the scenes at NBC News. Greenwald "obtained, from a very trustworthy source, emails sent last week between NBC News executives and [its military analyst, retired Gen. Barry] McCaffrey (which cc:d Brian Williams), reflecting the extensive collaboration between NBC and McCaffrey to formulate a coordinated response to David Barstow's story."

Nothing shocking about a giant corporation going into crisis management coordination mode in reaction to some, um, bad press. What is perhaps shocking (or, "disturbing," "disheartening")?

Take it away, Cocktailhag (a commenter on Greenwald's posts at Salon, flagged by Greenwald):

The disturbing tactics NBC has chosen here are tactics NBC e are probably the most disheartening aspect of the NYT's disclosures about McCaffrey. Taking a page from the crooked playbook of both Nixon and Rove, we have a supposed NEWS organization attacking its critics' patriotism, covering itself in faux "Americanism," dragging out irrelevant and stale honors of the culprit, avoiding the real issue, and utterly stonewalling any inquiry into the matter.

This is the exact behavior a nominally free press ought to deplore as a matter of principle, but obviously the network sees itself as an infallible, untouchable, and superior entity, just as far above reproach by the rabble as the political, military, and economic elites it "covers."

The Journal has a nice story today shining a light on the Conseco insurance company offloading some unprofitable long-term-care policies into a trust that may not be able to cover them.

The trust will pay claims from a pool of funds transferred to it from Conseco, including $175 million in capital. But A.M. Best Co., the insurance-rating firm, warns that the trust may need to raise rates and reduce benefits and has no access to additional capital. If the trust were to become insolvent, some policyholders might ultimately have to rely on the Pennsylvania state guaranty association to pay any claims, up to limits set by state laws, other experts said.

I don't understand this, though. If a company writes an insurance policy and it turns out it actually has to lose money on it, why is it okay for it to just unload it? Isn't it obligated to make sure all benefits are paid? Here, the company seems to have decided it's just not going to lose any more money—so take that, old people in nursing homes!

Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario defended the transfer, saying in a written statement, "There were no good choices here, only bad ones and worse ones." Mr. Ario said Conseco already had plowed more than $900 million into Conseco Senior Health Insurance, and its corporate board had made it clear no more money was coming. "The likely result would have been either substantial rate increases or insolvency," he said.

This story comes a year and a half after a great Times story on Conseco denying claims on the long-term-care policies.

I hope the Journal and the rest of the press looks deeper into this story.

UPDATETrudy Lieberman has much more on this over at the Campaign Desk. Make sure to check it out.

Ebony on the Fall of Detroit

| No Comments

A Credit to Ebony for a piece describing how the tribulations of the U.S. auto industry are hitting African American communities particularly hard.

We read a lot of articles on Detroit these days, but this one stands out for being both broad and narrow in the right ways: broad in that it takes a look not just at the business of auto manufacturing but at how that business has played an important role in shaping black communities; narrow in that it focuses on those particular communities, rather than trading in generic utterances of woe, and gives us specific details we didn’t know.

Analyze This!

| No Comments

Bloomberg posts a short news story on some UBS analyst trying to make a name for himself by coming up with an outlandish positive number at a time when nobody else is optimistic.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, which tumbled 42 percent to 848.81 this year, may rally 53 percent to 1,300 by the end of 2009, David Bianco wrote in a note dated yesterday.

I love that Bloomberg juxtaposes that sentence with the following:

The New York-based strategist, who a year ago predicted a 2008 advance of 16 percent for the S&P 500, is now forecasting a gain that would exceed the index’s best annual performance on record.

Ow.

I guess you might as well triple down if you've been that wrong.

I only wish Bloomberg had written that predicting which way the market will go is a fool's game; putting a number on it—and a crazy one at that—is a charlatan's. And it could have pointed out that analysts are, as a herd, way too bullish.

Fortunately, the Berg does let the analyst hang himself with his own rope, at least in a writerly way.

“The consensus outlook for 2009 is a full year of gloom,” Bianco, 33, wrote in his 2009 market outlook. “We believe 2009 will bring signs of a dawn in confidence with the first faint light appearing earlier than most investors expect.”

It was a dark and stormy night...

WSJ Now Inside Paulson's Brain

| No Comments

The Journal has seemingly been channeling Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson for months now. Today's story is so confident you know it knows what he's thinking that it just goes ahead and dispenses with sourcing.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is debating whether to ask Congress for the second installment of the $700 billion bailout package, concerned about competing demands for the funds and a potentially hostile reaction from lawmakers...

Besides lawmakers threatening to deny a request for the additional money, Mr. Paulson is also grappling with confusion stemming from the transition to a new administration.

If Mr. Paulson decides to request the next $350 billion, he is expected to do so next week. His hand may ultimately be forced if market conditions continue to deteriorate.

Political and practical concerns also color the debate. While Mr. Paulson wants to steer more funds to financial institutions, Congress has its own ideas, including aid for the auto industry and troubled homeowners -- two ideas Mr. Paulson has resisted.

The paper is taking the Voice of God thing a bit too far. A little "person familiar with his thinking" never did anyone any harm.

And this kind of thing seems to show that the paper is a bit too cozy with Paulson. Certainly, others have written more skeptically about him, though the Journal is hardly alone in its solicitude.

It might be a good time for a story on Paulson's tenure at Goldman and how what he's saying now conflicts with what he did then. That would put some needed distance between the paper and the government and make it a little less Herman's Head.

What's going on with the sourcing over there?

Big Three CEOs Hit the Road

| No Comments

The Times writes that the Big Three CEO's have learned their lesson from the private-jet debacle of two weeks ago. But it looks like they learned their lesson a little too well.

So the chairman of General Motors, Rick Wagoner, will be driving to Washington this week, to present its bailout and survival plan to lawmakers, in one of the company’s hybrids, a Chevrolet Malibu.

His counterparts at Ford and Chrysler are expected to do the Kerouac thing as well.

“You have to be sensitive to the symbolism,” said Tom Wilkinson, a G.M. spokesman. “This is a hot-button issue.”

Let me get this straight. GM needs billions of dollars in the next couple of weeks or it will go bankrupt, but its CEO has time to drive nine hours to and from DC? Let's hope he's got cell phone coverage. That time would be better spent trying to save his company.

The Times, of course, calls it out for the PR stunt that it is, and the story is notable for that tongue-in-cheek Timesian mockery that it sometimes pulls off in straight-news pieces.

A Journal scoop this morning—or at least its sourcing—may have confused some readers.

The paper reported that Goldman Sachs's loss this quarter would be much worse than expected, news it attributed to "industry insiders."

That's funny attribution, but okay. But scan the rest of the story and you'll find that it appears nobody from Goldman was ever given an opportunity to comment.

Now, it's highly unlikely that these experienced reporters got a story on A1 in the WSJ without calling the company for comment.

What the lack of a Goldman attribution signals to us is that Goldman Sachs itself leaked this to the Journal as a way to feed hungry beat reporters and get bad news into its stock price before it reports earnings.

The Journal has a nearly iron-clad internal rule that says a story can't say a source declined to comment if that source is quoted elsewhere in the story. That can make for awkward negotiations if a reporter is trying to protect the identity of a source who doesn't want to be named.

I don't know why Goldman was so finicky that it wouldn't let the Journal use its standard "people familiar with the matter" phrasing, but I've dealt with similarly skittish/irrational sources.

But for what it's worth as an insiderism, that's your likely explanation.

No More Questions

| 2 Comments

Here’s the thing about questions. They can be mere requests for information, or they can serve to cast doubt. In today’s column, Bob Herbert uses the question’s second function to express anxiety about the president-elect’s slowly forming administration.

Will this new Obama team, as brilliant as it appears to be, begin addressing on day one the interests of those who are not rich and who have not had the ear of those in power?


I think about the cops and firefighters and factory workers and schoolteachers and hospital aides and bank tellers and truck drivers who are having trouble making ends meet, hanging onto their homes, sending their children to college.



Will this new administration really be looking out for them?

And:

I want to know who in the Obama administration will be listening to the young girl on the South Side of Chicago whose future is constrained by a lousy public school, and the factory worker in Toledo whose family’s future has been trampled by unrestrained corporate greed and unfair trade policies.

The thing is, I know Bob Herbert. Okay, well, I don’t know him, but based on reading his columns for the past year, I feel pretty comfortable saying that Herbert supported Obama and that Herbert actually believes that Obama will address the needs of poor Americans.

The crux of Herbert’s argument is that Obama’s administration is composed of Washington insiders who “are encased in a bubble that makes it extremely hard to hear the voices of those who aren’t already powerful themselves.” He praises them for being “competent and smart as hell” but wonders if they’ll work for the little guy.

The idea unsaid, but felt in Herbert’s column is that Obama didn’t choose unexpected, everyday, Joe Six-Pack type folks to help him run his government. Why else cast cautious, but insubstantial doubt upon smart, competent people? Again, I’m pretty sure that Herbert doesn’t actually believe that Obama’s administration would neglect poor Americans just because not one of them fits the mythic “common sense trumps experience” approach to government. And, lastly, it seems odd to worry that Obama, who worked as a community organizer and who campaigned on a transformative message, will suddenly forget the country's needy. Come on, Bob!

This is a tangled web. Presumably, Herbert wouldn’t have supported Obama in the first place if he didn’t believe that his administration would help the neediest Americans. What’s more, Herbert doesn’t suggest that Obama’s team isn’t qualified, and he’s not writing to ridicule their expertise as elitism. He just wants to highlight the fact that those in the lowest income brackets will be hit hardest in this recession, and that the next administration needs to give them the same time and consideration given to automakers.

But, Herbert should have articulated this point as a missive, thereby handing a task-list to Obama and his team. “You should look out for the cops and the firefighters” and “you should listen to the young girl on the South Side of Chicago.”

By shifting to the assertive “should...,” Herbert would avoid the uncertainly of speculation inherent in the doubting “will...?” There’s no question that the new administration must consider those hurting the most as it handles this financial crisis. Instead of posing weak questions, Herbert would do better demanding solutions.

Gregory's Gravitas Hands

| No Comments

If you're going to engage in MeetThePressStakes, please make it funny.

"The Business Is Broken"

| 6 Comments

I'm a business reporter, and if I had to fashion four words about the business of newspapers, I'd have to say: "The business is broken."

This is heartbreaking considering that I just got here. I left Northwestern with a graduate degree in journalism in March 2005, and immediately landed a daily newspaper job at the Mobile Press-Register in Alabama. Score. A few months later, my loan repayment paperwork arrived—I would be paying off that Medill school loan until age fifty. No matter, I had a bright journalism future, right?

Just two years earlier, I'd turned down a lucrative tech career in pursuit of journalism, leaving behind a bachelor's of science in computer information systems.

I didn't know then that, just five years later, I would see the worst summer for journalists ever. I work for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer now. I've watched my paper shrink its page width, not replace workers, suspend reporter travel, freeze wages, and cancel the official holiday party. At a recent staff meeting, I learned that more news hole cuts were coming. I've wondered if I will ever again get to fly home to New Jersey for Christmas.

But do I regret choosing this path? No.

I'm going to keep doing this until it's no longer fun, or there's no one left to hire me, and then I'll find something else.

And right now, journalism is just too much fun to give up. Even now. I've seen job openings in other fields, but I don't want another type of job. I love learning new things. I like questioning authority and calling b.s. when I see it. I'm nosy as hell, and paid to be.

Amid all the gloom about the future of news, nobody seems to mention this: Reporting is a lot of freakin' fun.

Even when I hit a daily low—getting scooped, anonymous Web commenters telling me I'm stupid, being lied to by a source—at least I'm not bored. I still get to add to the community conversation. I get to work alongside bright-minded colleagues with a passion for news. I get to somehow try to make sense of this crazy world for our loyal readers.

About those readers. Yes, print has fewer. But online, there are more.

The Web gives me hope. Our Web site traffic is seeing double-digit growth. People want information from brands they trust. There will always be a demand for reliable news, whether it be via blogs, or social networking sites, or magazines. Human beings are relational; we need to feel connected to one another, and one way we do that is by consuming news.

The MBAs need to figure out a way to make money off of this demand. I'm not sure what the answer will be, but, then, I hold a masters in journalism, not business. Internet service providers could perhaps pay news brands a fee for content, similar to how cable works. Someone will figure something out, hopefully before the last journalist is laid off.

In the meantime, I'm grateful to have a journalism job. And I'm still having fun.

How Should Journalists Use Twitter?

In an article headlined, "Citizen Journalists Provided Glimpses of Mumbai Attacks," The New York Times extolled the virtues of micro-blogging platform Twitter in a breaking-news situation like the one that played out in Mumbai:

The attacks in India served as another case study in how technology is transforming people into potential reporters, adding a new dimension to the news media.


At the peak of the violence, more than one message per second with the word “Mumbai” in it was being posted onto Twitter, a short-message service that has evolved from an oddity to a full-fledged news platform in just two years.


Those descriptions and others on Web sites and photo-sharing sites served as a chaotic but critically important link among people across the world — whether they be Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn tracking the fate of a rabbi held hostage at the Nariman House or students in Britain with loved ones back in India or people hanging on every twist and turn in the standoff while visiting relatives for Thanksgiving dinner.

Twitter, to be sure, has the advantage of mobility, and therefore immediacy. And yet the 140-character (or approximately twenty-word) limit on each Tweet, some say, is only the most obvious of the platform's limitations—particularly when it comes to covering big, breaking news stories like the Mumbai attacks.

Our question for the week, then: What does Twitter add to the coverage of such stories? What does it subtract? David Letterman used to feature a segment called "Is This Anything?" in which a weird act would offer a quick performance, and the talk show host would then decide whether the act was "anything" or "nothing." Is Twitter anything more than just a stupid human trick? Where does it—where should it—fit into the larger universe of Web-based journalism?

Every Tuesday, CJR outlines a news-related question and opens the floor for debate. For previous News Meeting topics, click here.

Air Apparent, Part Two

| 2 Comments

Dan Rather is calm. Dan Rather is collected. Dan Rather is cautious. And he is not—repeat, not—ready to call Ohio for Barack Obama.

Sure, Obama currently holds a 55 percent lead in the state to John McCain's 43 percent. And, sure, the TV screen whose images Rather is narrating may feature a blue-and-red graphic reporting that gap. And, sure, other networks have already placed Ohio in the Democrat's column. But this is Dan Rather. And this is his "dance of democracy." And. He. Will. Not. Call. It. (Until. He. Is. Sure.)

"Two of the networks are calling Ohio for Obama," Rather informs his audience—those home viewers watching the special live broadcast of Dan Rather Reports on HDNet, and the small audience watching his broadcast in person at the small sound stage in DC's Newseum—in response to which several members of the live viewers draw their breaths (Ohio! That would be huge!). "But we," Rather continues—by which he means himself and his producers, using projections from the AP—"aren't there yet."

In response to which: deflated breaths. And a few muffled groans.

"We're saying to you," Rather continues, either not hearing the groans or electing to ignore them, "that it may indeed go that way. But we're not yet prepared to say which way Ohio is going to go."

Which is greeted with more groans. Because it's 9:30, and we've been sitting in studio-audience silence for two and a half hours, and History May Be Made Any Minute Now—if, indeed, History Hasn't Already Been Made—and Rather has been engaging in this manner of math-be-damned teasing all evening. (New Hampshire, 54 percent Obama to 45 percent McCain: we're playing it safe and cautious here, folks; Pennsylvania, 55 percent Obama to 44 McCain: If—and I'm going to italicize, all-caps, underscore that word—Pennsylvania goes to Obama...; New Mexico, 57 percent Obama to 42 McCain: There's one of the networks that's jumped out to say that New Mexico has gone for Obama, but we're not prepared to say that yet. Et cetera.) There's a thin line, after all, between caution and delusion.

And yet Rather manages—even from the center of his anchor's desk, even flanked on both sides by four feisty politicos—to radiate calmness. The same preternatural calmness he has radiated on air for, oh, about fifty years. Indeed, Rather moves with a slowness that you sense comes not from his age, nor from his experience, but from some kind of communion between himself and the camera trained on him.

Rather, in other words, presides. And that's true not only on election night, but also during broadcasts of Dan Rather Reports, the two-year-old newsmagazine he anchors and reports on the cable channel HDNet. Rather seems to see television not just for what it is, but also for what it could be—the Texas-twanged Superego to other anchors' Ids. While other networks, on election night, are featuring cacaphonic commentary and whizzing, glowing graphics, Rather perches behind a desk, with a neat sheaf of papers arranged before him. He keeps a pen in his hand. His cohost of sorts is Nate Silver, the numbers guru who emerged as one of the principal polling experts of the campaign. And his guests, who cycle in and out of the four chairs surrounding him, like planets circling in and out of his orbit, are political strategists (Donald Fowler, Jr., Todd Harris, and Terry Nelson), journalists (Dahlia Lithwick, George LeMieux), and political psychologist Drew Westin. None is a "big name," per se, along the lines of CNN's crew of "partisans" and "commentators"—but each is excessively knowledgeable, unfailingly thoughtful, and, importantly, open to debate. Their composite commodity is smarts. In that sense, come to think of it, they all seem to preside.

Partly that's because Rather's calmness seems to be infectious. Even though the HDNet broadcast is live--it's election night, what else could it be?--it has the calm demeanor of a regular episode of Dan Rather Reports. It lacks the tension-building urgency so often seen on other cable channels--BREAKING NEWS! STAY TUNED!--and instead focuses on accurate reporting and smart analysis.

It's an approach other TV news channels might learn from, particularly when it comes to live broadcasts. In its 2008 State of the News Media report, the Project for Excellence in Journalism broke down hours of cable news coverage on offer, emphasis mine:

Overall, of the 885 hours studied, 496 (56% of the time) were unedited and unrehearsed, with in interviews (usually by anchors) or live stand-ups by correspondents. That is even higher than we identified in past years. The medium, as we have noted in earlier years, “has all but abandoned what was once the primary element of television news, the written and edited story.”

About half as much time, 30%, on the cable programs studied was made up of correspondent packages. Compare that to network nightly newscasts, in which 82% of time is taken up by such packages, or even morning news, where half of the time studied made up of edited packages.

But the notion that cable takes you live to watch events for yourself is in many ways overstated. In all, only 3% of the time covered live events such as press conferences. (About 1% was spent on banter between anchors, weather and other chat.) This compares with 6% in live events the last time we examined the structure of cable news, in 2004.

The emphasis on live thus cannot be explained by the desire to go continually for substantial periods of time to show viewers live events. Rather, the nature of time on cable news appears to be more on creating the impression that things are being reported as they happen. Producing programs in a live, unedited and essentially extemporaneous model is also cheaper.

In other words, much of the tension-making urgency that has become a standing feature—not to mention a cliche—of cable news coverage is inaccurate at best, fabricated at worst. As Rather and his team prove, when it comes to TV, live need not equal adrenaline fueled. Even live reporting, when TV takes it on—and, as I've argued, I think live, breaking-news reporting is much better suited to the Web—can be done in a way that is calm and, in that, authoritative.

And, in that, deferential to the occasion—in this case, an historic election night. Because caution may not be what we crave in the moment—indeed, the words "crave" and "caution" rarely mesh well—but, in the end, the restraining factor (or: the editorial oversight) serves audiences. It pays deference paid to the occasion—and to the facts that will make it. "You want to be cautious," Rather told me, "because you want to be right."

It's a simple maxim, to be sure, but one we miss all too often in the whizz-bang, wham-bam world of TV news. (There was nothing restrained about Jessica Yell-o-gram.) Caution—slowness, restraint, judgment—matter. And live television in particular, Rather says, combined with its large audiences, mean that anchors and other on-air commentators have a particular duty toward restraint. Rather used the world "responsibility" repeatedly during our conversation, along with "respectful" and, yes, "cautious." On election night, anyway, restraint—especially under the try-men's-souls impulse that is the desire to blurt out "It's gonna be Obama!"—is a kind of badge of honor. Caution equals authority. One of the non-folsky aphorisms Rather enjoys quoting is Teddy White's: "Journalists should concentrate on what has happened and what is happening and not delve into what may happen."

So, when it comes to Ohio, "we're cautious with no apology," Rather tells his audience. He'll later emphasize—and reiterate the sentiment several times—that "this isn't just a case of trying to keep you in front of the television." And he'll wait until eleven o'clock on the dot—the moment the polls close in California, the moment the AP makes its call—to announce that Obama has won the presidency.

"Quite frankly, the call—that is, 'Okay, we put everything together'—could have been made even earlier," Rather told me. But: Caution.

Blogs, in comparison, generally exhibit no such discipline—nor are they, really, under any pressure to exhibit it. Again: speed versus restraint. Nate Silver called the election for Obama—via a posting on FiveThirtyEight, which he typed on his computer in one of the Newseum studio's small anterooms—at 9:38 p.m. "I actually think it would have been a bit earlier," Silver told me of the Obama call, "except that our Web site was having problems from getting so much traffic."

Caution factors into Silver's equation, too—"after 2000, we had every reason to be very, very careful," he says—"but it was clear to me pretty early on that McCain's path was very narrow. And certainly once Ohio got called, you could do the math and figure out that the only way McCain would win was if he won a state like Oregon or something—a state he'd basically not campaigned in. And that seemed very unlikely: States don't usually reward candidates who ignore them. So, even before I called it, it looked safe to me for Obama."

That call looked safe to a lot of people. Many other bloggers, trusting in numbers and California's blueness, had called the election before ten o'clock that night. In other words, they broke news. And they scooped the televised broadcasts.

But, then, bloggers don't make A Moment—TV does. And A Moment, in the end, was what audiences were looking for that night. It's what they're looking for, in fact, most nights. As Brooke Gladstone, assessing election night on On the Media, put it,

When the ball drops in Times Square on New Year's Eve, people watch it everywhere. It is the definitive marker, the moment the New Year begins. So even though the death of network news is often proclaimed, it’s still got its mojo because Tuesday’s moment wasn't really about who had access to polling data. All of us had the answer before 11.

What TV had, and what only TV has, is the power to create the moment everyone could share.

There it is. For all the ink spilled in analyzing the social power of the Internet—and the Web certainly has that power—television is still a striking platform for community. It’s a platform for iconic moments, be they of historic import or simple, human serendipity.

The moment everyone could share.

If only TV could see its own strength.

For part one, click here.

No Hair!

| No Comments

From Politico today (in an "according to executives" report that David Gregory will be named moderator of Meet the Press):

Enjoying a gravitas boost from his prematurely salt-and-pepper mane and friendships with Tom Brokaw and other of the legendary figures of NBC News, [Gregory]...quickly became one of the hottest personalities in network news.

From today's (New York) Daily News:

Just when Katie Couric was hitting her stride, she tripped up last night - with a hair-raising new look that put the "ew" in the evening news.


The coif, a boyish pixie cut that channeled some of Hillary Clinton's bad 'do days, was a striking departure from the signature bob viewers associate with the 51-year-old anchor.

Meanwhile, from TVNewser's Chris:

We got a few emails about Katie Couric's new haircut, and the fact that we neglected to write about it. This comment from an emailer sums it up: "Surprised to not see anything about Katie Couric's new, short hairdo, not that it really matters of course!"


Um, right. Exactly.

We waffled about it, tried to think of an angle, and asked ourselves "Would we report this if Brian or Charlie got a haircut?" The answer was no and no. So we put it to you.

And, on the question of "Should we have done a story on Katie Couric's haircut?" 81 percent of TVNewser's readers have voted "no."

Meanwhile, 65 percent of US readers polled on the question of "Who Has The Hotter New 'Do, Kim [Kardashian] or Katie [Couric]?" favor Kardashian's "'do" (Kardashian's a reality TV person...ality? who apparently "decided to cut her bangs").

"Plenty of Viewers"= Me, Some Say

| No Comments

When Alessandra Stanley writes of Hillary Clinton's acceptance yesterday of the nomination for Secretary of State, "[F]or plenty of viewers, it was the moment when Mrs. Clinton finally conceded the election for real," some say that Stanley actually just means "for me and some of my peers in the media elite, it was the moment when Mrs. Clinton finally conceded the election for real."

Also: "The occasion was solemn, but like a wedding where the parents are divorced, the ceremony was carefully choreographed to avert awkward moments and camouflage past unpleasantness."

"Carefully choreographed?"

Phoning In Mumbai Coverage?

| No Comments

I've written before about MSNBC being "The Place For," among other things, "Disturbing Video." If there's "video," and it's "disturbing," it will be served to MSNBC viewers as a news story (such as, "Baby Launched Into Air").

Last week emerged a news story of global significance complete with, yes, "disturbing video." TV Barn's Aaron Barhart did a spot check of the cable news channels at 6pm on November 28th ("Day 3 of the Mumbai Attacks," Barnhart notes) and found CNN reporting live from the scene outside the Taj Mahal hotel (by phone), Fox News reporting on the Brooklyn couple killed in the attacks, and MSNBC.... airing a pre-taped episode of Caught on Camera ("Caught on camera, on the edge of death. Have you ever wondered what it's like to stare death in the face? Well, we are going to show you. The situations are dire, the people are real, the stakes couldn't be higher, and they're all Caught on Camera. It's some of the most dramatic video you'll ever see.")

The video was "disturbing" -- or at least, "dramatic" -- but it was also old and irrelevant. Cable viewers casually clicking around would have been excused for assuming the fire and chaos they saw on MSNBC at 6pm Friday night was, you know, live and from Mumbai. (It was Hong Kong. Circa 1996. "Worst high-rise fire in the country's history." )

MSNBC flunked Barnhart's surprise bunk inspection.

UPDATE: I see that Barnhart's spot check was inspired by David Zurawick, the Baltimore Sun's TV critic, who, last Wednesday night (that would have been "Day 1 of Mumbai Attacks") blasted MSNBC's treatment of the unfolding story in India, lamenting what he called the lack of "resources or will" at MSNBC to cover that unfolding story (and by "cover" Zurawick means on-the-ground reporting and sticking with the story, rather than a brief update and then back to regularly scheduled punditry). Zurawick later expanded on those thoughts, writing that he is "surprised at how many readers want to defend MSNBC for leaving Mumbai for fun and games with Keith [Olbermann] and Rachel [Maddow] after 10 minutes at the top of each prime-time hour that they control. To me, that's a loss." He calls MSNBC the "used-to-be-news channel."

For continuous breaking news coverage of an event like the Mumbai attacks (and, there are pitfalls in non-stop, flood-the-zone coverage of a still-unfolding situation, like, say, the temptation to speculate once you tire of re-airing the same snatches of disturbing video and repeating the same few bits of solid information), I'm not sure MSNBC was ever where I thought to turn -- even before it began to put many of its eggs in the Olbermann and Maddow baskets.

Preemptive Bubble Bursting

| No Comments

The Journal's Bob Hagerty, who did lots of great work warning of problems in housing before the bubble burst, is now trying to pop a bubble that hasn't even started inflating yet. And he's right to do so.

Those hoping for a quick rebound are likely to be disappointed. Economists and other pros generally say home prices won't bottom out before the second half of 2009, and some don't see a bottom until 2011 or 2012. Even when they stop falling, prices may scrape along the bottom of the rut for years.

Hagerty looks at several recent surveys that, incredibly, found that Americans are expecting home prices to take off again. He throws lots of cold water on that idea, though he points out that some areas will see significantly rising prices sooner or later.

And the graying Baby Boomers will put a brake on whatever price acceleration there may be:

Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography at the University of Southern California, warns that the retirement of boomers over the next two decades is likely to depress house prices in many areas. As boomers relocate to retirement homes and cemeteries, there will be a lot more sellers than buyers in parts of the country, he says.

I propose this way of looking at things: If you insist on thinking of your house as investment, imagine it as a bond, not a stock.

Over the long run, he says, home prices tend to increase on average at an inflation-adjusted rate of 2.5% to 3% a year, about the same as per capita income. He thinks that long-run pattern is likely to continue, despite the recent choppiness

Trimming the Hedges

| 1 Comment

It may seem like people have been gawking at the proliferation of online news sources for ages now, but it was not so long ago that readers had a much narrower field of options. The Democratic and Republican national conventions threw that fact into high relief at the end of last summer. The New York Times media critic David Carr catalogued the presence of online news outlets during the Democratic gathering: “Politico, which also puts out a newspaper, had 40 people in Denver. The Huffington Post had 20 people, Talking Points Memo had 9, Daily Kos had 10, Slate had 7 and Salon had 9. That list is far from comprehensive and does not begin to describe how thoroughly mediated this convention was.” And save for the latter two (which sent the fewest reporters) and TPM, all of those outlets just wrapped up either their first or second presidential campaign.

Add to this mix the seemingly endless variety of blogs, and it’s no wonder that many readers—even professional journalists—feel lost. What most misunderstand, though, is that the problem is not information overload, but rather access-to-information overload. Since well before the creation of the printing press, there has been more news available on a given day than any one person could follow, and more information than any one reporter could process. It’s just that today both reporter and reader have much greater access to the news and information, and as such, there is a greater need to employ filters and other tools to help us organize and manage the deluge.

Plenty of these devices already exist, but it takes some time to set them up and maintain them. Most are right under readers’ and journalists’ lcd-strained eyes, embedded in the program that provides all that access to the news in the first place: the Web browser. Bookmarks (or Favorites, for PC users) are one of software engineers’ simplest but greatest gifts to news hogs. The problem is that it’s so easy to bookmark pages that most people forget to organize them, much like photos in an album.

The Associated Press put out a story yesterday reporting that the Bush Administration ignored in-house warnings of an impending mortgage collapse in 2005, delayed enacting proposed rules for a year, and bowed to lobbyists in stripping out the harshest of the proposals. This story needs to be read widely and followed up by the rest of the press.

Here's what happened, according to an AP investigation of regulatory documents:

In 2005, faced with ominous signs the housing market was in jeopardy, bank regulators proposed new guidelines for banks writing risky loans. Today, in the midst of the worst housing recession in a generation, the proposal reads like a list of what-ifs:


—Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.

—Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.

—Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn't be crippling.

—Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.

—Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.

Those proposals all were stripped from the final rules. None required congressional approval or the president's signature.

"In hindsight, it was spot on," said Jeffrey Brown, a former top official at the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, one of the first agencies to raise concerns about risky lending.

Just when you thought this administration's legacy could get any worse:

The administration's blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of its governing philosophy, which trusted market forces and discounted the value of government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s.

"Blind eye" is strong for a news story, but there's no doubt this paragraph is dead right.

The AP reports that regulators were concerned about option ARMs, the adjustable-rate mortgages that started off with a period of interest-only payments, and which have since blown up. But industry lobbying, as usual, got its way with the administration.

As Barry Ritholtz over at The Big Picture says:

The banks that lobbied most aggressively against the rules reads like a who’s who of bankruptcy and FDIC conservatorship: IndyMac, Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers, and Downey Savings.

This is a devastating story. Let's hope the press keeps turning over these rocks.

On Reporting In Iraq

| No Comments

NPR's Ivan Watson recounts his (and three colleagues') narrow escape from a "sticky bomb" placed under their car on Sunday "during a brief NPR reporting trip to western Baghdad's battle-scarred Rabiye Street."

And at the New York Times's Baghdad Bureau blog Abeer Mohammed, an Iraqi Times reporter, writes up the grim scene of a double bombing at the Iraqi Police training academy in Baghdad on Monday.

There was a combat boot drowned in blood.


While I was making interviews and trying to get more details about the explosion the other part of my brain was very busy thinking about the other boot. Was it in a hospital or in a grave?

UPDATE: And yet. With "car bombings...down to one or two a day," the Washington Post's Mary Beth Sheridan reports on Iraqi women slowing returning to the road or, in some cases, learning to drive for the first time which, in Baghdad, requires some specific skills:

The cousins' driving lesson offered a glimpse of the obstacle course that Baghdad's motorists encounter. Ahmed slid behind the wheel of a red Daewoo subcompact, next to al-Riyadh's ace driving instructor, 71-year-old Ismail Kareem Ismail. She pulled out onto Palestine Street, a bustling six-lane commercial strip. Within a few blocks, the traffic was funneled through one of the many checkpoints maintained by the growing Iraqi police force.

"When you approach a checkpoint, put it in first gear," the driving instructor advised....

"With the blast walls, you have to gauge the space," the instructor explained. Ahmed slowly guided the tiny car between the giant walls -- and stalled.

The Great Recession of 2008

| 2 Comments

Bloomberg, via a source, makes its bid for what to call the crisis.

The Great Recession has a nice ring to it, plus it contains an innate hopefulness—that it won't turn out to be something much worse.

The Motley Fool has been calling it that for a while, and China's Xinhua news agency got lost in translation using it to refer to the Great Depression.

We can officially use the "R" word now, by the way. The panel that makes that call made it official yesterday, saying it began a year ago.

And it's a long way from over, folks.

GM USA?

| 2 Comments

The LAT's Pulitzer-winning car critic Dan Neil makes an interesting case for the government nationalizing the auto industry, especially General Motors.

For one, he says their cars aren't half bad:

From my perch, as someone who drives all of the Big Three's North American product offerings, I think a lot of the anger is reflexive and misplaced. Detroit makes some amazing cars, and anyone who thinks otherwise should hold a Corvette ZR1 to his head and pull the trigger. The Ford F-150 pickup I drove last week flat-out humbles rivals from Toyota or Nissan. Considering that the domestic carmakers are shouldering titanic "legacy" costs -- it's estimated that $2,000 in healthcare, pension and employee post-retirement benefits are baked into the price of every UAW-built vehicle -- just being competitive in any segment is a signal achievement.

I'll take his word for it since he drives more cars than I ever will, but I'm never impressed with Detroit-made cars when I rent.

This makes sense, though:

To be clear, I mean that the federal government should buy GM; forget rathole loans or nonvoting equity shares. The company's stockholder value has been essentially wiped out. The company's enterprise value -- the lock, stock and forklift price -- is about $32 billion; its total debt is $45 billion. Let's make GM an offer.

If you feel the gall of free-market ideology rising, consider that the measures being bruited about as preconditions for a bailout -- firing GM's top management; forcing a bankruptcy-like renegotiation of contracts with the UAW, suppliers and dealers (it has too many); and creating a czar of product development to force the building of green cars -- are nationalization in all but name. I say embrace it. GM-USA...

GM is competing with companies that are quasi-national now. If you consider the advantages the government of Japan has bestowed on Toyota, Nissan and Honda -- in terms of healthcare and retirement benefits for its employees -- the unevenness of the field is clear. The same goes for most European companies, and the rising rivals in China will enjoy similar state-subsidized advantages.

Good points, but one thing I'd like to have seen Neil address is how would politicians (especially ones elected with labor's help) make the hard decisions—like layoffs and wage cuts—that seem to be necessary to turn the industry around? Maybe something like the base-closing commissions?

Nevertheless, it's a column worth chewing on.

Learn About Lashkar

| No Comments

Lashkar-e-Taiba? That name that keeps popping up in the reporting on the Mumbai attacks? At newyorker.com, Steve Coll blogs about Lashkar, "the Pakistan-based Islamist organization" (as well as the group's "charity, called Jamat-ud-Dawa, which is today tolerated openly by the government of Pakistan but banned as a terrorist organization by the United States on the grounds that it is merely an alias for Lashkar.") Coll, who has reported in Pakistan on both groups, writes:

It has long been an open secret, and a source of some hilarity among foreign correspondents, that under the guise of “humanitarian relief operations,” Lashkar practiced amphibious operations on a lake at its vast headquarters campus, outside Lahore. The events in Mumbai have taken the humor of these “humanitarian” rehearsals away.

UPDATE: But of course, keep in mind the "keeps popping up in reporting" aspect of this. In other words, as Joshua Foust reminds us, nothing is certain at this point.

LeT’s Not Jump the Gun

| 10 Comments

Last week’s attacks in Mumbai were, in a word, horrific. As happens after every crisis, the pundits and analysts swarm the nearest media outlets to share their views on what happened, why, and who did it. This is perfectly understandable—a manifestation of what Nassim Taleb calls our desire to assign a narrative to every action so that it might have a beginning, middle, end, and meaning.

Rushing to judgment about the Mumbai attacks, however, is little but a fool’s errand. One of the earliest, and funniest, examples of this was a contest The New York Times recorded, between C. Christine Fair, the RAND Corporation’s resident expert on South Asian insurgencies (and one of the few Americans at all to have studied the topic), and Sajjan Gohel, the Director of International Security for the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a think tank that specializes in security and counterterrorism. Gohel pointed to the coordinated nature of the attacks as “fingerprints” that “point to an Islamic Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group.” Fair, meanwhile, noted the ways this attack was different than other al-Qaeda attacks: “Did you see any suicide bombers? And there are no fingerprints of Lashkar. They don't do hostage-taking and they don't do grenades."

The “Lashkar” Fair spoke of is Lashkar-e-Toiba, a radical Islamist group normally associated with the violent guerilla struggle over Jamu and Kashmir, two disputed regions that have been disputed by India and Pakistan since partition in 1947. Lashkar, which is sometimes abbreviated LeT, has become the primary suspect behind the attack, according to anonymous U.S. officials.

The reason so many seem to be searching for familiar groups on which to pin blame is that, as far as officials are concerned, the supposed responsible party—a group calling itself “Deccan Mujahideen”—has never before existed. Considering LeT has attacked Mumbai before—they were partially responsible for the train bombings that killed 209 people in Mumbai in 2006—it wouldn’t be out of the ordinary for them to attack that city again.

Ms. Fair, however, is right to urge skepticism. On September 14 of this year, for example, the Indian Mujahideen, which has carried out terrorist attacks in Delhi, Ahmedabad, and Jaipur, threatened it would “carry out attacks” in Mumbai. The Ahmedabad attacks—twenty-one bombs in total, spaced out over July 26 of this year— killed over fifty people. Over two weeks, IM set off a series of bombs in Delhi that killed at least fifty-three people. The Jaipur attacks killed sixty-three.

Indeed, while horrific and carried out in a novel fashion, the scale and even coordination of these attacks was not unprecedented inside India. It remains too early to pin the blame for a bunch of commando-style militants wielding assault rifles on a terror group known mainly for planting bombs. There is no reason why the attacks can't have come from a new group, or a splint faction of an old group, or something we haven’t thought of yet. People are not zombies, and, in particular, successful insurgents tend to be very creative in how they kill innocent people.

There is a curious double standard in the commentary about India, as well. Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S., entire countries would be threatened with isolation or consumer boycotts for daring to suggest that the U.S.’s Middle East policy was even partially responsible for the attacks. During the Republican presidential primaries, Ron Paul was routinely mocked for saying the same thing, and derided as “supporting the terrorists.”

Yet that is exactly the kind of thinking that crops up when you hear, for example, Ms. Fair remarking that India has a lot of “very, very angry Muslims.” You can detect a similar tone in Newsweek’s coverage, which seemed to blame the attacks on India’s possession of Kashmir and the “serious economic, religious, political and social causes of Muslim discontent.”

Talk about blaming the victim. India is not a nation of Mother Theresas, but neither is it a seething wastepit of anti-Islamic fanaticism—the best anyone can say of that in recent memory is the 2002 riots in Gujarat. A rare spot of sobriety about the Mumbai attacks comes from Bruce Riedel at the Brookings Institution, who warns:

India has been a target for al Qaeda and the global jihadist movement for over a decade. India has often been listed by bin Laden and his accomplice Ayman Zawahiri as a part of the ‘Crusader-Zionist-Hindu’ conspiracy against the Islamic world. The targets of the killers in Mumbai—Americans, Brits, Israelis and Indians--fit exactly into the profile al Qaeda and its partners vilify and plot against. Both bin Laden and Zawahiri have spoken about the “U.S-Jewish-Indian alliance against Muslims.” …

But we should be careful not to draw conclusions too early from an incomplete investigation. There is considerable confusion and contradiction in the press accounts of what transpired.

His advice should be heeded by all the flapping jaws on TV, blithely declaring this or that terror group “clearly” bears responsibility for the attacks. India has had too many enemies for us to narrow it down so soon. And seeing as to how sophisticated and truly unprecedented these attacks were, we might be making things worse by jumping to conclusions based on little more than our own assumptions.

Tale of Two Porches

| 1 Comment

Yes, the words were written "by Alex Kuczynski" (it says so in black just beside the title of the New York Times Magazine cover story, "Her Body, My Baby") but judging by many of the hundreds of comments on the story posted on the Times web site, it's the accompanying photos that really tell (frame? overtake?) the story.

Take the cover shot (by Olaf Blecker). Pregnant woman in wrinkled khakis with sensible shoes and hair, and exhausted eyes: gestational surrogate mother. Svelte woman in sleeveless black shift dress, heels, with flawless up-do and no under-eye circles whatsoever: New York Times writer and "I.P." or "intended parent" and biological mother of the aforementioned (or, at least aforesuggested) fetus.

And then there are the two pictures inside (by Gillian Laub). Photo one, captioned: "Every Day Is Mother's Day. The author, her son, Max Dudley Stevenson, and her baby nurse, Margo Clements, at home in Southampton, N.Y. in July." And, photo two, captioned: "Almost Baked: Cathy Hilling at home in Harleysville, Pa., about a week before giving birth to the author's baby." Here is how one Times reader described the images:

The surrogate mother is shown on a downscale porch, slouching, barefoot and pregnant. The author is shown, standing erect, well-dressed, with her new surrogate baby in front of an upscale porch, with a female attendant of color standing obediently by.

So, do the photos and the piece tell the same story? Or, are the photos somehow leading in a way that distorts or overwhelms something of (a humanity in?) the accompanying article. As one commenter put it:

I was prepared to roll my eyes at this story because of the photos, particularly the one of the author with her baby's nurse.


To the contrary, I found the article to be an extremely open, gutsy exploration of the author's experience and her conflicting - and sometimes unflattering - thoughts and feelings...It takes a brave person to tell a story like this and open herself up to commentary and criticism.


The photos, however, are unfortunate. Regardless of their quality, the pictures set up an immediate and unpleasant contrast of race, class and privilege between the author and her surrogate.

And yet the photos don't "set up" these contrasts, which exist with or without the images, as much as "capture" them. And make them The Story. (What if the Times had placed on the cover, or even alongside the article's text rather than tucked away on the Table of Contents page, the photo-- sorry, can't find it online to link to it -- of Kuczynski holding her infant son on her knee, gazing down at the completely bald baby boy with the pudgy arms and bright blue eyes? More sympathetic. More widely relatable.)

Another vote for the photos being "unfortunate," but in another way (from another web commenter):

The pictures were really unfortunate. As soon as I saw them I lost all sympathy for this manipulative writer.


The only positive thing I can say for this article is that the gestational woman looks alive and full of life, the other looks like a dried up professional.

Also "unfortunate," of course, is the timing of this cover, with this first-person story by this New York Times style reporter, arriving as it did on a weekend when the news on everyone's minds was coming from a place well beyond the New York Times's own newsroom.

UPDATE: Cathy, the gestational mother, has a comment on the Times web site (how can we be sure it's the real Cathy? I suppose we can't. But the Times has highlighted the comment as an "editor's selection," which lends it authenticity points). Anyway, "Cathy," too, calls the photos "unfortunate" and sheds some light on what readers are and are not shown:

The pictures chosen for the story are unfortunate. However, it is the working of the NYT Mag to stimulate comments, and it has worked. As one person wrote: If the surrogate had known the photographer was coming, wouldn't she have cleaned up the porch and put on shoes? The answer is "yes." But I didn't know she was coming to my house that day. And the photographer had me take off my shoes. There were lots of photos taken in my beautiful yard, along the creek, in the hammock. But those photos would not have gotten a rise out of readers. And the subjects of the story did not have a say in which photos were used. It was an editor's choice.

Healthy Usage

| 1 Comment

Here’s hoping everyone ate only “healthy” foods at Thanksgiving. Many people, including those watching calories or wanting to be “healthy,” probably ate only “healthful” foods.

Anyone who did not eat “healthy” foods probably spent the next day or so feeling very unhealthy, many users of proper English might say, because “healthy” means “not sick;” it does not mean “good for you.” The foods that are good for you, they will say, are “healthful.”

Not so fast.

“People who hold this view are swimming against the tide of history, for healthy has been used to mean ‘healthful’ since the 16th century,” says the American Heritage Book of English Usage.

Many dictionaries define “healthy” as “healthful,” or “conducive to good health,” and “healthful” as “healthy.” But there are those who still insist that “healthy” is properly used only to describe the health of an object itself, not its effects.

That’s perfectly healthy usage for those who want to maintain the distinction—definitely a vanishing breed. Garner’s Modern American Usage is rooting to keep the two separate, saying the change “would lead to a less healthy state of the language.” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage*, however, says that “if you observe the distinction between healthful and healthy you are absolutely correct, and in the minority. If you ignore the distinction you are absolutely correct, and in the majority.”

“Healthy,” meanwhile, is also used to mean "large” or “vigorous,” as in "she had a healthy helping of stuffing,” or “that certainly was a healthy tackle”—usage that has moved from nonstandard to colloquial to informal and, finally, to good health.

Note, though, that it would be sick to use “healthful” to describe something that has good health, rather than something that promotes good health. English isn’t always a two-way street.

Correction: This article's sixth paragraph originally referred to a book entitled Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, which does not actually exist. The correct title is Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage. CJR regrets the error.

The Unbearable Lightness of Kabul

| No Comments

Late last week, a car bomb exploded near the American embassy in Kabul, killing at least four civilians. The bombing is part of the larger story in which terror attacks in Afghanistan’s capital have increased over the last year, and people have begun to feel less safe in the once-secure city. Expatriates are hiding in their walled compounds, and official convoys of armored SUVs speed through town—sometimes striking and killing civilians and sparking riots.

Things certainly look bad. But they are both worse and better than a casual observer might think. There are many stories happening in Afghanistan, but most members of the international media—who so often seem confined to their offices in Kabul—just aren’t getting the most important ones.

Soldiers often complain that “the liberal media” doesn’t report on what’s good. The axiom “if it bleeds, it leads” is largely true, and a lot of soldiers on the ground resent their good deeds going unrecognized. This complaint is somewhat misplaced: the war media doesn’t always catch what bleeds—and, in some cases, can create a misleading impression of calm. When looking at some of the unreported acts of violence in Kabul and even Kandahar, a rather different picture of the country emerges.

In Kabul, for example, the recent bombing at the embassy is only the latest in a weeks-long series of bombings and rocket attacks across Kabul that have targeted the international economy—the Intercontinental Hotel, Kabul Polytechnic University, and so on. Without reporting of these incidents, we are left with the impression that Kabul is relatively stable, interrupted by increasing violence against only foreigners.

It gets worse: Xinhua writes a full story on the murder of the district chief of Andar in Ghazni—the same district to which Nir Rosen traveled in his report on the Neo-Taliban; The New York Times, however, throws it out as an aside in a story about another suicide bombing.

Which would matter more for an audience trying to make sense of the conflict? Yet another suicide bombing in a town that has been violently pulled between American and Taliban control since 2006? Or the murder of a district chief in a province that is only now being seriously contested for control?

Further south, in Kandahar—home of Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban—Alex Strick van Linschoten, who is one of only two unembedded reporters in Kandahar, recently lamented:

It seems the dead need to line up in the dozens for international media to take note. Today an attack on a USPI convoy killed several, but it will undoubtedly not be deemed newsworthy enough for anything more than a sentence or two, if that. I remember a few months ago 30 USPI guards died in a massive Taliban ambush on the Helmand/Kandahar border, but that story was never covered. Another attack further up the road in Sanzari blocked the main highway for hours this afternoon, and friends of mine saw a car still on fire, with leaking petrol leaving a trail behind it, being taken back to the airport where international forces are based.Yesterday, the head of the ministry of disabled and martyrs was gunned down in the morning as he went to work. His bodyguard was also killed and his driver injured in the attack.

None of these stories made it into the wires, but they all combine to form a rather different picture of what things are like in Afghanistan than you’d get reading a big newspaper (or, heaven forbid, watching TV news). Some of these coverage gaps can be chalked up to staffing issues—there are precious few journalists in the country. But even those who are around aren’t able to cover the things that happen in their own backyard. Doing so wouldn’t require flooding the capital with new reporters—even a few, maybe with the resources to hire more stringers that are able to get out into communities to report in dangerous areas, could make a tremendous difference. Meanwhile, we are left with a badly incomplete picture of what Afghanistan is really like.

Elsewhere in Afghanistan, things are not as bad as they are in the Kabul—Kandahar corridor. Bloggers in other parts of the country, for example, become tremendously optimistic when they see young girls lining up to go to school and learn how to use computers and the Internet, which was almost unthinkable in 2001. That isn’t an isolated story, either: truly amazing advances in health care, telecommunications, education, and even security have gone completely unnoticed or unreported.

Afghanistan is a particularly complex place. There are enormous challenges that go unreported, and there are enormous successes that also go unreported. An event only seems to be worth reporting, judging by Western coverage, if it directly affects the expats working there. The actual Afghans—the people most affected by everything there—don’t seem to matter too terribly.

Some post-unveiling-of-national-security-team-press-conference commentary on MSNBC:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Clearly [the team] has the picture we're looking for. The many faces of Benetton or whatever you want to call it. But clearly representative of America more than previous administrations...

And: "We were talking on the set here and we decided they had to split up the white guys up there to make it look more like America," said Joe Scarborough as, as my colleague pointed out, MSNBC demonstrated its own adherence to the "Split Up The White Guys" (So As To "Look More Like America") Strategy:




The rest of Scarborough's thought:

...Because there were two white males up on that stage. Describe the difference. 1992 Bill Clinton was accused of tokenism, of trying to go out and find a diverse group for the sake of diversity. Here you have so many strong forces that perhaps it just so happened they were diverse. Nobody is looking at this group and suggesting anybody got it through anything other than great qualifications....

On the subject of Hillary Clinton being chosen as/agreeing to be Obama's Secretary of State, Kevin Drum, of Mother Jones, promised a couple of weeks ago that he would "eat my hat if it turns out to be true." And here, via some cake-and-icing-and-M&M transubstantiating, he does just that. For keeping promises to readers of your blog, I doff my hat to you, sir.

Here's a timely personal-finance story with information I actually haven't read a million times.

The LA Times's Kathy M. Kristof writes about how to deal with debt collectors—something more Americans are certain to have to learn about in the near future.

Don't pay dormant debt: If you're being contacted about an old debt, the first thing to do is consider whether you actually owe the money, Detweiler said.

Every state has a statute of limitations that specifies how long you can be hounded about an unpaid debt.
Typically, once that limit -- typically three to 10 years -- has been reached, you no longer need to pay...

Dispute inflated debts: In many cases, an old debt will be inflated by late fees and debt collection costs. You may be liable for those charges, Detweiler said, but sometimes the amounts can exceed limits imposed by state law...

Stop abusive calls: Federal law bars debt collectors from calling repeatedly "with the intent to annoy, harass or intimidate" you, McClary said.

Negotiate: If you have more debt than you can afford to pay, the creditor may be willing to take less than what's owed to keep you out of Bankruptcy Court. That's what ultimately happened with Ruiz.

Once she dumped the settlement company and signed up for credit counseling, her creditors became convinced that she was doing all she could. At that point, she said, they began to work with her. One $1,900 debt was settled for $654, she said. A $900 debt was cut to $450.

We'll be seeing more of this type of coverage now that the financial difficulties are really hitting the upper middle class.

And I bet LAT owner Sam Zell is wishing he could use some of this advice. After all, he knows a little something about crushing debt.

Bloomberg Rakes Muck

| 3 Comments

Bloomberg continues to turn in business journalism at its muckraking best, now with this superb/nauseating story of the hosing of the policyholders of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. for the benefit of chief executive, William “Jerry” Jurgensen.

The piece, by Zachary Mider, documents how Nationwide Mutual, seeking to deploy its “excess capital” (we’ll get to that in a minute), decided to buy the part of a financial services subsidiary it didn’t already own for $2.5 billion.

A JP Morgan Chase analyst is quoted as calling the price “excessive,” and Bloomberg makes the case.

One could reasonably ask, why would anyone buy, let alone overpay, for a financial services company, of all things, and do it now, of all times?

The Banks and the Big Three

| No Comments

The Journal's excellent Heard on the Street writer David Reilly hits at the banks today, pointing out that they need restructuring as bad or worse than Detroit, but Washington so far is giving them a virtual pass, unlike their industrial counterparts-in-collapse.

The crisis has shown that banks' basic business model has come undone, that their cost structures no longer reflect reality and that they are still in need of capital.

The string of bailout packages hasn't explicitly recognized this...

For their part, banks have found lots of causes for their predicament aside from their own failings. The crisis, they have argued, is down to an impossible-to-predict perfect storm, predatory hedge funds, panicked investors, unrealistic accounting rules and economic changes that emerged so quickly there was no way to be prepared for them.

If only. The reality is the crisis is due to bad lending and investment decisions. And those, after all, form the core of the banking business. In auto terms, it's as if banks designed cars that suffer from catastrophic mechanical failures, or can't be driven during snow storms.

Reilly has numbers to back that up. While the banks beef about mark-to-market rules causing them to capsize, actual loan losses have been bigger than the "fake" accounting losses:

Even including Citi, though, total credit costs of $101.40 billion outpaced mark-to-market losses of $90.35 billion at the banks surveyed, according to Merrill.

He's right to point out there's more urgency with fixing the banking system, and right to point out that doesn't mean they should come out looking the same.

"Team" Coverage

| No Comments

Who made The Team? You know, The "Team of Rivals?" We'll finally find out, at a press conference in a few minutes carried live by your preferred news source, who will play on President-Elect Obama's much-speculated about national security team (a subset -- varsity, for sure -- of the larger Team Obama). After which, I suppose, CNN will retire (re-purpose?) its "National Security Team Announcement" logo. Although with all the competing team talk on CNN-- "Senator Hillary Clinton expected to join Team Obama, a Team of Rivals, we'll ask The Best Political Team whether the picks could blow up in his face" -- perhaps such a logo is actually necessary.

UPDATE: Awaiting the announcement. Narrating the empty podium/blue curtain/row of flags shot on MSNBC: It will be "a team of heavyweights, a team of diverse views, and a very pragmatic team," reports NBC News's John Yang. Go, Team!

UPDATE: Ding! Ding! Ding! The third question into the Q&A part of the "Team of Rivals" press conference (from a reporter named "Karen"): How will Obama ensure this is a "team of rivals and not clash of rivals?" Fourth question, from ABC News's Jake Tapper, also Team of Rivals-ish (How will you ensure they will carry out your vision when they have different visions...). Followed by another, Hillary-Clinton-specific rivalry question (What about the stuff you said about Hillary Clinton during the primary...) to which Obama replied that he "understand[s] that it's fun for the press" to dig up quotes from the campaign...

Above the Fold: Complex Analysis

| 6 Comments

Is there any limit to the shamelessness of NBC News?

That is one of several questions sparked by David Barstow's 5,000-word assault against the military-industrial complex in general and "One Man's Military-Industrial-Media Complex" in particular—the one owned and operated by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey.

Barstow's piece, on the front page of yesterday's New York Times, appeared exactly six months after the same reporter's previous spectacular effort on this subject, five and a half years after The Nation’s Daniel Benaim, Priyanka Motaparthy, & Vishesh Kumar first disclosed McCaffrey's very extensive ties to military contractors—and thirty-seven years after CBS News first identified military manipulation of the media in a documentary called The Selling of the Pentagon.

Barstow's earlier story revealed that the Pentagon had recruited an army of seventy-five retired military officer talking heads to appear as objective experts on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC—men who actually work with "more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants." The companies are "all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration's war on terror."

The networks reacted to that Times story with a stunning wall of silence. Neither CBS nor NBC nor ABC has ever mentioned it on any of their evening news broadcasts. (Glenn Greenwald noted yesterday that clocks had been created "to count the number of days the networks blackballed Barstow's story"; they now stand at "223 days, and counting.")

In fact, the only time NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams ever dealt with the subject publicly came in a brief mention in his blog, nine days after Barstow's original piece. In that posting, McCaffrey was one of just two generals who Williams specifically defended, explaining that he had become a close friend of McCaffrey. "I can only account for the men I know best," wrote Williams, but he was sure that at "no time did our analysts, on my watch or to my knowledge, attempt to push a rosy Pentagon agenda before our viewers."

Williams’s defense was mostly based on the fact that McCaffrey had made some sharp attacks on the utterly incompetent way Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had managed the war in Iraq. Since McCaffrey was a Rumsfeld critic, the theory went, he obviously couldn't be accused of flacking for the Pentagon. (For more about all this, see what I wrote last spring here and here.

But as Barstow explained in yesterday's piece, even when Rumsfeld was furious at him, McCaffrey remained close to countless other Pentagon officials, including generals who continued to send McCaffrey on numerous trips to Iraq and Afghanistan, "solely for his benefit." Barstow also documents several times when McCaffrey did present a rosy view of our progress in Iraq—particularly at moments when such statements could directly benefit the numerous military contractors for whom he was working.

And yet, to this day, NBC News has never once disclosed any of McCaffrey's multiple conflicts of interest on the air—and as recently as last Thursday Williams was still using the retired general on Nightly News to opine about Afghanistan. In one of the lamest in a series of exceptionally lame explanations from the network, NBC News people told Barstow "that the general's relationships with military contractors are indirectly disclosed through NBC's Web site, where General McCaffrey's biography now features a link to his consulting firm's Web site. That site, they said, lists General McCaffrey's clients."

But even that turns out to be false: "While the general's Web site lists his board memberships, it does not name his clients, nor does it mention Veritas Capital, by one measure the second-largest military contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan, after KBR." According to Barstow, Veritas has paid McCaffrey at least $500,000. But NBC has never disclosed his connection to Veritas, either.

It turns out that McCaffrey is the living embodiment of all the worst aspects of entrenched Washington corruption—a man who shares with scores of other retired officers a huge financial interest in having America conduct its wars for as long as possible.

House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank recently announced that he wants to cut the Pentagon's budget by twenty-five percent—or approximately $150 billion a year. Sadly, because of the entrenched position of McCaffrey and hundreds of others like him, there is almost no chance at all that president-elect Obama will do anything to curb the military-industrial threat about which President Dwight Eisenhower first warned us in his farewell address forty-eight years ago. With the willing complicity of NBC News, that threat just keeps on getting stronger and stronger, every year.

David Carr is right to expose the media's hypocrisy in its hand-wringing over the Black Friday mania that ended up with a Wal-Mart employee trampled to death on Long Island. The media coverage, including an above-the-fold NYT story on Saturday, has been overdone, and Carr's column is part of that, but he raises some points worth pondering about the press assisting its funders in spreading crazed consumerism.

Media and retail outfits are economic peas in a pod. Part of the reason that the Thanksgiving newspaper and local morning television show are stuffed with soft features about shopping frenzies is that they are stuffed in return with ads from retailers. Yes, Black Friday is a big day for retailers — stores did as much as 13 percent of their holiday business this last weekend — but it is also a huge day for newspapers and television.

In partnership with retail advertising clients, the news media have worked steadily and systematically to turn Black Friday into a broad cultural event. A decade ago, it was barely in the top 10 shopping days of the year. But once retailers hit on the formula of offering one or two very-low-priced items as loss leaders, media groups began to cover the post-Thanksgiving outing as a kind of consumer sporting event.

Carr runs down a list of newspapers that overheated in their "Black Friday" hype, including this from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

“Strollers and crowds just don’t mix, though we know a few shoppers willing to use four wheels and a child as a weapon. Younger children may also be seduced by the shopping mania and pitch a tantrum that slows your progress. That said, teens and young adults can be an asset to a divide-and-conquer shopping strategy. And you’ll have someone to help carry the bags.”

And he quotes Adbusters (Adbusters!) railing against the consumer culture. That's a sign that the apocalypse may really be impending.

TV News Vets

| No Comments

"In Hard Times for TV Anchors, Trusted Older Faces Fade Out," reports the New York Times' Brian Stelter today, pointing to a number of longtime local TV news anchors in cities like Denver, Boston, Chicago and Houston who have been laid off (or otherwise departed) in the past year. Demonstrating that it is perhaps impossible to write an article about television news without somewhere employing the word "gravitas," I direct you to the 18th of 26 paragraphs:

Many stations-- and viewers-- still place a premium on the gravitas that older anchors provide. But confronted by the era of always-available news and information on the Internet, local stations are being forced to rethink their mission.

Also rethinking? One TV news veteran who will be let go next month, Ernie Bjorkman of KWGN in Denver, has been studying to become a vet of another sort. Writes Stelter: "Presciently, Mr. Bjorkman... started taking veterinary technician classes two years ago, acting on a decades-old dream of working with animals."

The Washington Post and 60 Minutes put their investigative heads together for a nice two-day collaboration on Internet gambling that ends today.

While today's story is worthy, it's pretty pedestrian. But yesterday's long story—about the cheating at two big Internet poker sites—was fascinating.

AbsolutePoker and UltimateBet operate out of a shopping mall in Costa Rica, run their games on computer servers housed on an Indian reservation near Montreal, and are licensed by a Mohawk tribe that has no background in casino gambling and does not answer to federal or provincial regulators.


Joseph Tokwiro Norton, who owns both Web sites, is the former grand chief of the Mohawk tribe. He was instrumental in setting up the licensing agency and a highly profitable companion business that owns the server farm...

In addition to hand histories, the poker detectives said, Johnson's spreadsheet contained e-mail and Internet addresses that appeared to connect one of the suspicious accounts to Costa Rica, to a home owned by Scott Tom, the founder of AbsolutePoker who sold the business to Joe Norton in October 2006. When the poker detectives posted their findings on a popular poker forum called Two Plus Two, bloggers pounced on the information as proof that Tom must have known about the cheating, if not have cheated himself.

Talk about a multi-layered investigation: The cheating was brought to light by citizen detectives, then expanded upon by a newspaper and a TV show.

One interesting thing from today's story:

The government's efforts haven't been limited to sports books. The Sporting News agreed to a $7.2 million settlement to resolve claims that it had promoted illegal gambling by accepting advertising from Web sites. And last year, the Justice Department reached a $31.5 million settlement with Microsoft, Google and Yahoo for accepting online advertising for sports books and casino-style games. None of the companies admitted liability.

That raises some pretty serious First Amendment issues that would have been nice to have seen explored a bit more.

WSJ: What Crisis?

| 1 Comment

This Journal story about Morgan Stanley is off key—and it's a bad time to be out of tune.

Hey, did you hear Morgan Stanley is "revving up its push into retail banking"? Sure is. Did you hear Morgan Stanley is getting at least a $10 billion bailout from the federal government? Not from this WSJ story.

It's hard to imagine how you could leave that information out. And the larger tone is just all off. This is a company that borrowed itself into the ground, but you wouldn't know that from this story.

The Journal could use some of the exasperation and urgency of its bloggers, at least as seen in this post by Evan Newmark on the paper's own Morgan Stanley story last week.

Things have changed in a bad way. The paper's coverage needs to reflect that—not cover up for these guys.

Air Apparent

| No Comments

There are two general assumptions about the media that have become so common it's stopped occurring to us to question them: first, that newspapers, and those who remain in their employ, are to be pitied; and, second, that TV news is, on the whole, to be derided. TV news is vapid, we say. Its programs are "prisoners of demography and cultural shifts that are as irreversible as the physical laws of the universe." Hell, we say, it's not even real news anymore. "It’s official," The New York Times's Alessandra Stanley declared back in March, "the networks no longer cover news, they slap it onto the bottom edge of their regular programming like Post-it notes."

Stanley was describing some networks' decisions, on the evening of the March 4 Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont primaries, to offer scrolling "crawls" rather than live coverage of the states' returns—but, then, the details here hardly matter. Stanley might as well have been talking about the cable news' channels decision to air hours and hours of punditry each night; she might as well have been talking about the countless hours the cable channels devoted to Sarah Palin's wardrobe or SNL's latest skit or Hillary Clinton's hairstyle or the disappearance, nearly six months ago, of Caylee Anthony; she might as well have been talking about the relatively few hours those same channels devoted to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or the crisis in the Congo. TV news, both on the nets and on cable, is certainly ripe for accusations of Post-Itism.

Nevertheless, during the 2008 election season, the Big Three cable news networks set records for viewership; their ratings success, you have to think, signals that the news programs have been doing something right. In some ways, they have. To the extent that TV news succeeded in covering 2008's campaign, it did so in doing what it's always done: very broadly, putting the news in a human context. Live TV depicts public figures in a manner much more essential—and, occasionally, authentic—than print or even blogs, at this point, can do; the filter of text is at once much higher and much wider than the filter of the screen.

Compare Sarah Palin's televised interviews—with Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, Sean Hannity—to the many profiles published in newspapers, blogs, and magazines in the days since her nomination. Those interviews might not have contained as much information—or, more specifically, facts—as the profiles; their advantage, rather, is in the conveyance of those little habits, of movement and of mind, that don't always make it to the page: Palin’s defensive discomfort with Gibson, her tension with Couric, her ease with Hannity. These are, as journalism instructors like to term them, "telling details": useful information that helps voters comprehend the candidate as not merely an amalgamation of policies and a spewer of sound bites, but also as a human being. It's not make-or-break information, but it’s valuable nonetheless.

And then there's the corollary to the "telling detail" benefit: capturing unscripted moments that are, often unintentionally, revelatory. (See "Bachmann, Michele"—and, for that matter, "Jackson, Jesse.") Live TV is, obviously, best at this—but even when prerecorded, televised news has a quality of personal serendipity that other platforms still lack. Sure, YouTube and other Web-based platforms may certainly be moving in this direction; but, for now, the best mechanism we have to elicit and record those elusive Moments of Humanity from our public figures is the lens of a TV camera.

And yet. As we've seen over and over again, during this election cycle and beyond it, TV is also quite good at seizing those moments of humanity and flogging them to death, day after day after day—not only lulling us with the sense-dulling and complacency-inducing repetition of loop coverage, but also tacitly endorsing the notion that "authenticity" is not merely illustrative, but also revelatory. (On Bachmann: Did you hear what she said?! Will it cost her her seat? How is she McCarthyesque? How isn't she? What does it mean to be patriotic? Because did you hear what she said?! Will it cost her her seat? Et cetera.)

Thus, TV news's oft-discussed (and oft-disgusting) tropism toward both repetition and its corollary: sensationalism. This is most often attributed to the size of the news hole—Well, we have twenty-four hours of air to fill, after all. Of course we're going to need to be repetitive, and to be interesting—but I'd argue that the problem isn't merely one of size. It's also—and maybe more so—one of speed.

Because loop coverage, for all that it's derided, is the least of TV news's problems. Repetition, generally, is only an issue when what's being repeated isn't, you know, any good. And though low-quality coverage can have myriad sources, one of the most common is news outlets—which are, by and large, populated by smart, committed journalists—simply falling victim to time pressures. One reason problems—misinformation, to be sure, but more generally the shallowly sensationalized coverage for which cable news, in particular, is infamous—arise is that outlets often fail to take (or, to be fair, simply lack) the time to step back and consider what they're throwing out on the air.

Or, for that matter, to fact-check it. To wit: David Shuster, two weeks ago, repeating the false claim that one "Martin Eisenstadt" (actually, the serial hoaxer Eitan Gorlin) was the source of Carl Cameron's "Sarah Palin doesn't know Africa is a continent" reporting. And Rick Sanchez gleefully—and, as turned out, incorrectly—reporting that, during last week's G20 summit, world leaders had refused to shake President Bush's hand. Time considerations don't excuse the reporters' errors (in Shuster's case, a mere-seconds-long Google search would have been enough for a fact-check: The fact that he that he was a hoaxer was on the first page of the engine's search results on the day Shuster made his ill-advised "Eisenstadt" report). But while journalism may be deadline-oriented as a general rule, TV, in particular—even more than blogs—often demands that journalists who use its platform make split-second judgments about what information to distill, how to distill it, etc. A "twenty-four-minute" news cycle, as Time's James Poniewozik had it, tends to rob TV reporters of the breathing room required to think before talking—to the air, if you're an anchor, or, if you're a producer, to the ear of your anchor. The speed of the current news cycle turns televised journalism's chief asset—its immediacy—into a liability. A big one.

When TV anchors and reporters "break" news, what they're really doing, 99 percent of the time, is regurgitating information that is already (and readily) available on the Web. Which is not only redundant—it turns news reporters into little more than script-readers—but also, in today's split-second world of news consumption, inefficient. Why spend fifteen seconds listening to Kyra Phillips announce Obama's latest cabinet appointment when you could ingest the same news, as an online headline, in two? The thirteen-second difference may not mean a huge discrepancy on its own, but multiply it out over several days or weeks or months...and the result is a lot of wasted time, on the part of audiences and journalists alike.

TV's current method of news-breaking filters two-dimensional information into a three-dimensional platform, which manages to undercut both the information and the platform in question. The whole system is approximately as sensible as Michael Phelps chucking the whole swimming thing for a career in astrophysics—or Barack Obama deciding to give up politics to play pro basketball. Indeed, to watch many news shows is often to feel that one is watching a radio broadcast whose participants happen to be wearing a lot of makeup.

So, then. Looking ahead—past these years of adolescently awkward transition in our journalism, past this period that finds us growing into the Web, past the period when "a digital world" is a prospect rather than an established fact—here's one thought for TV news to serve its audiences and itself: Stop thinking in terms of immediacy. Put another way: Stop trying to be a platform for breaking news.

Now, granted, that may seem impractical at first, even foolish—the whole live-air thing, after all, would seem to make TV a painfully obvious platform for of-the-moment news-breaking. And occasionally it is. But not overall. Because (sorry, Luddites of the world, but) the Internet's expansion in use and relevance is not an opinion, but a fact. Journalism, going forward, will have the Web to contend with. And the Web is simply superior as a platform for breaking news. It's superior to newspapers. It's superior to radio. And, yes, it's superior to TV.

While a TV reporter simply reads a breaking-news headline—and perhaps, when audiences are lucky, offers a few sentences of context (and, when they're really lucky, an accompanying graphic or photo...and, when they're really, really lucky, accompanying video footage)—the Web can offer the same headline (again, in efficiently readable text) accompanied by: links to related stories, maps and other graphics, any video that may be available, etc. And as the news item follows the normal trajectory from headline to report to foundation-for-analysis, a Web page can archive that evolution, providing context at every step.

Watch a TV news broadcast while a story is breaking, and you'll likely have to wait—in some cases, quite a while—for the cycle to loop back to the story you're interested in. And, even if you happen to hit it just right, timing-wise, you'll still miss out on the depth and context that only the Web can provide. While news on the Internet reaches, nearly infinitely, both horizontally and vertically, news on TV is is constrained by the limitations of its own segmentation. It offers finite points to the Web's ever-expanding lines.

So, then, when it comes to efficiency, it's Web: 1, TV: 0; and when it comes to context, it's Web: 1, TV: 0. And, importantly, it's also Web: 1, TV: 0 when it comes to accuracy. Because when errors, of fact or judgment, are introduced in Web stories, their corrections, once noted, become part of the story's textual record. An "update" notation, when done correctly, displays at once the original error and the correction. In this way, the evolution of fact-finding and narrative-building is made transparent. When errors are made in TV news reporting, on the other hand, their corrections often get lost in the ether. If you were to hear an erroneous fact in a morning TV report, it would take nothing short of a stroke of luck for you hear a correction to that same bit of misinformation later in the day.

In other words: the Web celebrates and fosters the organic, context-driven nature of news. Television, confined as it is by the dual constraints of time and technology, fights it.

But that's not bad news for TV news—or, at any rate, it doesn't have to be. Back to what TV does well: providing context, humanizing the news, expanding news stories past their text and into the realm of the communal. So, TV news executives, producers, reporters: Take advantage of all that. Play to your strengths. In your case, be to the Web what magazines have been to newspapers. Take ’Net-based reporting to the next level. Do even more of what you do now: Serve as a platform for people in the news—politicians, businesspeople, anyone—to have their say. Interview them. Dig deep. Provide context to their stories. Invite experts—with an emphasis on academics and intellectuals, and a decided de-emphasis on partisan spokespeople (and—dare I dream?—a ban on "body language experts" of any kind)—to provide context and criticism. Run segments of explanatory journalism pegged to the news of the day. Curate that news. Analyze. Provide context. Think. Stop thinking of TV news as a kind of visual version of a reported blog, and consider it instead more as a visual version of a magazine of ideas. (Or, at least, of a newsmagazine.) Treat here's-what's-happening-right-now news summaries not as the end point of a broadcast, but as the foundation.

In liberating themselves from the caprices of the breaking news cycle, a new generation of newcasts can capitalize on the opportunity TV offers for community-building. Their resources and their air time freed from the constraints of breaking news, broadcasts will have the opportunity instead to focus, for example, on assembling panels of expert guests and on preparing questions for those guests that will lead to lively conversation—and they can enjoy the luxury of having those panel discussions last longer than five minutes. They can invest in the newsmagazine-style segments of reporting and criticism—mini-documentaries, even—that audiences both like and need. (For evidence of both, see the surge in ratings that 60 Minutes has enjoyed for the past two weeks.) They can, overall, serve as a kind of national town hall, in which leaders—political and intellectual and cultural—come together to talk to their constituents. What these newscasts would lack in terms of the Web's democratic give-and-take, they'd be well positioned to compensate for in providing smart curation, and analysis of, the major stories of the day.

But wait, you may say. When it comes down to it, aren't you really arguing for more punditry on TV news? And, well, yes. But advocating more punditry need not, on its own, be journalistic heresy. Because what I'd like to see, specifically, is a kind of PBS-ified punditry: smart, thoughtful, valuable analysis that contextualizes the news. That even--hey, let's go crazy here--has fun with the news. More news analysis need not, after all, mean less news; more punditry need not mean less reporting. I'm simply arguing for an efficient and intelligent allocation of resources. I have confidence that newspapers and their descendants will continue to develop the mechanisms and the models that will produce, in the aggregate, more reporting—and quality reporting, at that. The citizenry of our digitized future, largely via the Web, will be more informed about our world, not less. But TV shouldn't cede all reporting to other outlets—again, I'd hope that freedom from the vagaries of the split-second news cycle would leave more reportorial resources for enterprise work—rather, simply the snippet-style reporting required to regurgitate breaking-news stories from the Web.

Nor am I arguing for the blanket PBS-ification of all TV news. Because, first, well, snooze. (Blanket-anything is rarely a good idea, not only because uniformity is unproductive, but also because it's boring.) And also: networks, obviously, are and should be free to develop their own individual voices. If that inches some closer to the NewsHour and others closer to Inside Edition, well, so be it. But I am saying that much of TV news right now, in its mix of breaking alerts and half-hearted analysis, is somewhat akin to daily helpings of broccoli with Cheez-Whiz, the healthy stuff made more palatable to audiences by virtue of its blanket of neon-tastic ooze. And since the Web already serves up broccoli (rendered, to belabor the metaphor, both tastier and more nutritious to consumers because of the Web's freshness-assuring packaging), TV news might as well focus on the tasty stuff. And given a choice between Cheez-Whiz and, say—sorry, last metaphor-belaborment—a nice, aged, melted Gouda...wouldn't most of us prefer the latter?

In other, non-metaphorical, words: Punditry need not be a bad thing. Smart need not equal boring. There’s a way to marry reflective, thoughtful journalism with the personality-driven setup that the modern TV Zeitgeist seems to require. Take, for example, shows like Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. They're partisan, sure—nakedly so—but ideology, I'd say, is subsidiary to their success. Because in them, overall, you have two informative, entertaining, and smart shows that offer a deliberative and often quite delightful mix of reporting, analysis, criticism, and commentary. Their guests are almost always true experts about a given topic—no "body language experts" in sight—and the hosts are smart enough both to ask good questions and to know how to follow up on them. (Maddow's October interview with Obama, for example—which focused on wonky details like infrastructure improvement—was perhaps one of the best I've seen with the then-candidate.) Watch each show—or even part of each show—and a viewer will come away not only with knowledge of the biggest news stories of the day, but also with a relatively sophisticated sense of why those stories matter. And of how they fit into the greater context of the world.

These hour-long, thoughtful shows are a model that works from a quality-journalism standpoint—and one that, again, from a business perspective, has proven immensely popular with audiences. There are other models, too, of course, for this mix of televised reporting and commentary (The Situation Room, The NewsHour, the generally fantastic Bill Moyers Journal, the soon-to-be-erstwhile Hannity and Colmes, and on and on and on)—and, on the radio, NPR's overall mix of deep-diving reporting and smart analysis and fun features offers is a fantastic example of how an entire network can use the day's news as a jumping-off point for more expansive programming. Few of these shows and outlets, however, are as purely entertaining as the MSNBC pundits' products.

Yet it shouldn't be commentary uber alles. There are some stories audiences deserve to learn as soon as news producers do. If there's been a terror attack, for example—or a disaster of any kind, or any bit of important news—by all means, TV news organizations should dust off their BREAKING NEWS chyrons. But break news judiciously; don't cry wolf with that glaring BN tag. Think of this year's campaign coverage: Very little of what passed (laughably) as BREAKING NEWS leading up to the election—Breaking: Palin in Pittsburgh! Breaking: McCain to Give a Town Hall in Toledo!—was actually, you know, breaking. (Nor, for that matter, was it really news.) So use anchors and correspondents for a higher purpose. Let the Web handle the dynamic stories, the stories that require constant updates and changes and shifts and corrections. Let television be the home of journalism that is rigorous and well-researched and thoughtful and deeply reported, of journalism that benefits from the editorial restraint that comes from thinking through ideas before they're aired. Let the Web be about process; let TV be about product.

Tomorrow: part two

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from December 2008 listed from newest to oldest.

November 2008 is the previous archive.

January 2009 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.