Explain Yourself ...

Chewing on the messenger

     Today's Onotes included a sampling of reader reaction that's coming in regarding political coverage.

     Seems to me that only sports fans match political supporters' intensity, range of entrenched views and the passion with which views are delivered.

     Here's the Onotes item that offered a few flavors:

     Political winds: They’re gusty and variable as usual with frequent blasts from Ron Paul supporters who demand more coverage (he’s local in a regional sense and getting more coverage than others who are in polls’ single digits). A number of Paul people pounced on Bud Kennedy at an event the other night. But other advocates and observers in the pre-March 4 tumult are weighing in as well. Examples:

     Del: Does the political pendulum swing in Fort Worth? Are the Reps going to get the same rock star status from the Star-Telegram that you guys gave to the Dems when they arrived in town? Are the Reps going to get front page pictures and stories when McCain and Huckabee bring their message? I doubt it. Welcome to GaGaland, land of "fair and balanced" reporting. Am I wrong in my assessment? We'll see.

     George: Since I voted in the early primary election does that mean that I do not need to vote in the general election for President in the fall?

     Charlie: I’ve had six calls from Hillary people, and I see Hillary on the front page. I’m fed up with Hillary, I’m tellin’ you. But y’all just keep puttin’ her picture bigger and bigger. Gives me a headache. Y’all quit it or I’ll get rid of the source of my headache, and I ain’t talkin’ about Hillary.

     -- David House

Helping the animals

     Bless the beasts: Shirley Jinkins connected with a number of readers in her recent look at WildCare, a rescue group in need of volunteers needed to help care for injured or orphaned wild animals. Coverage paid off for the organization, Bonnie Bradshaw, WildCare education director, told Shirley this week:

     “Thanks to you we have 400 people registered for Call of the Wild. The church graciously is allowing us to use the Family Life Center again on March 29. So we were able to split the registrants between the two dates. ... . You single-handedly recruited more new volunteers than we had trained during the past 10 years combined. Words can't express how grateful we are to you.”

     Comment: Shirley adds, “We ran the story with their art of baby raccoons, squirrels, rabbits and opossums. Cute animals trump almost anything else in the paper, apparently.” Unlike pictures of spiders and snakes, pictures of little animals create some of the most irresistible content.

'Killer' reaction

From today's Onotes:

     Tracking “Killer”: Readers welcomed the return of the S-T’s true-crime serial novel. Tim Madigan says that today a woman called who was “genuinely frustrated that we’re not moving the story along faster, or writing longer chapters each day. I told her that’s not a complaint we often get at the newspaper. She replied, ‘But you’ve never done anything like this before.’ She didn’t want to wait three or four more days until the big break in the case. And she said she definitely didn’t want another three-day hiatus.”

     An anonymous caller complained: “This happened so long ago, it doesn’t make any sense that you would be writing about this now. I don’t understand why you’re wasting so much time and space in the Star-Telegram.” To that question, which some other readers have asked, Tim replies:

     “Essentially, the only way we can write about these crime stories with this depth is long after the fact, after all legal appeals have been exhausted. As a result, on this case, detectives gave us access to all of their investigative files. They also felt free to talk with us without the typical restraint. That provided us with both greater insight into how they work and telling detail for story-telling purposes. As a result, we were able paint a fairly penetrating portrait of the criminal justice system and the people who work in it in ways that could not be done as the case was unfolding.”

     Readers’ prevailing view seems to parallel a local attorney’s who said the serial is “the best thing I’ve read in the Star-Telegram in years. I’ll be sitting on the curb at 4 a.m. tomorrow waiting for my next installment.”

     -- David House

The race for coverage

     This morning's pile of e-mail included one of my favorites -- the weekly report from Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, on what the Campaign Coverage Index found regarding last week's coverage the presidential candidates.

     Obviously, the New York Times' controversial article about McCain and McCain's response shook up the coverage numbers. Here's a look at the fallout, according to Rosenstiel's summary:

     "Barack Obama (57%) won the race for media exposure and cemented his status as frontrunner in the Democratic primary fight, according to the campaign media narrative last week. Hillary Clinton was a close second, registering as a significant or dominant factor in 50% of the coverage. But much of that coverage suggested a campaign in trouble, one that might not be capable of stopping Obama’s momentum, according to a Project for Excellence in Journalism study.

     "With the GOP race effectively over after Super Tuesday, the media paid about twice as much attention to the Democrats (59%) as Republicans (29%) from Feb.18-24. But by the end of the week, the press had shifted focus to GOP frontrunner John McCain, who registered in 38% of the coverage. The catalyst was the highly controversial Feb. 21 New York Times article suggesting an improper relationship eight years ago between McCain and a younger female lobbyist.

     "McCain aggressively disputed the story, which generated considerable criticism in the media world. Once the Times story broke, it became a major part of the campaign narrative and from Feb. 21- Feb. 24, McCain was the leading newsmaker among candidates, registering in 51% of the campaign stories, compared to Clinton’s 43% and Obama’s 41%, in that period.

     "The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s Campaign Coverage Index—which will appear weekly until the party nominees are selected—also finds that:

     "-- McCain (38%) was third in the competition for lead newsmaker for Feb. 18-24, up from 34% the previous week.

     "-- Obama appeared as significant or dominant newsmaker in 57% of stories, his highest level of coverage since the Index launched in January. Clinton earned her second-highest level of coverage at 50%.

     "-- Mike Huckabee was a significant or dominant newsmaker in only 4% of last week’s stories, a 14 point drop from the previous CCI report.

     "-- Fully 44% of the newshole was filled with campaign stories, a 10% increase over the week before. Cable news devoted 69% of airtime to the election; radio 53%."

     -- David House

What's the point?

     Among questions that reporters and editors usually ask at the beginning of the story-development process is, "Why are we doing this story?" It's not unusual to hear that question raised several times during the process, particularly when working with a complicated story, as a means of checking one's bearings. Making sure that the motivation is clear and there's ample justification for a story is only part of a well-worn process.

     The New York Times employs that practice and surely followed it during the development of the highly controversial 3,000-word story that was posted on NYT's Web site last night that lightly explores a relationship that Sen. John McCain had in the late '90s with lobbyist Vicki Iseman of the Washington-based firm Alcalde & Fay. McCain and Iseman say the relationship was strictly a business relationship and not romantic as McCain aides suspected and feared.

     If the answer to "Why are we doing this story?" isn't clear to readers, they will ask with full justification, "Why did you do this story?" And if they don't get an answer (and they're not getting answers from Times staff about the McCain story), they're perfectly justified in declaring either that they smell a huge rat of an "agenda" or they detect incompetence at work.

     Presenting a story that takes readers on a vague ride to nowhere doesn't nurture credibility, and the bigger the story, the bigger the potential damage to credibility. The NYT story takes readers on such a tour of McCain's past connections with lobbyists and the Keating Five/S&L scandal and leaves them with nothing but questions, including that awful one: Why did you do this story? And an awful conclusion: So what? This is just inuendo?

     Of course, the story has resulted in an awesome amount of buzz, and I'm throwing in a couple of thoughts. And if it's true, politically speaking, that no publicity is bad publicity, the Times story and related controversy have served McCain's campaign well. Perhaps the Times is laying groundwork for more to come; perhaps it's true that they only released the piece because The New Republic was about to publish a similar story. Who knows? All we know from Times Executive Editor Bill Keller is the statement he released that's posted here and there:

     "On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. In all the uproar, no one has challenged what we actually reported. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. 'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it."

     To the Times' credit, the McCain camp's response was carried at the end of the story:

     "It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election. Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."

     The question remains: What's the point of the story? Whether we find out and whether the story was worth all the uproar remain to be seen.

     -- David House

What's to become of us?

     Competitive pressures from technology, market fragmentation and other socioeconomic forces are squeezing all sorts of ideas out of newspaper innovators, but a report from the American Press Institute presents a vision with interesting twists.

     The announcement was released through a webcast and e-mail this week from API headquarters in Reston, Va. Here's what it said:

     "The American Press Institute ... released its report Newspaper Next 2.0: Making the Leap Beyond ‘Newspaper Companies’—a follow-up to the project’s 2006 report, Blueprint for Transformation.

     "The report ... details a new vision of what newspapers can and must become.

      "Of this new vision, Newspaper Next (N2) Managing Director Steve Gray, said, 'If newspaper companies stay on their present path, the future is clear –- the core business model will keep shrinking, along with circulation, advertising and profit margins. It’s time to make the leap -– a mental leap, a leap of vision and leadership -– beyond newspaper companies, to a larger, more diverse kind of company.'

     "The report describes this new company as a 'local information and connection utility.'

     "The second section of the report includes case studies of 24 new products launched since the release of the first report, all by companies using the N2 method. It also highlights how seven innovative companies organized, staffed, funded and oversaw their innovation efforts.

     "These examples are intended to answer questions commonly asked in the industry: 'Who’s doing innovative things successfully? How did they do it? How can others emulate them?'

     "The third and last section of the report, developed by Borrell and Associates, provides practical guidance for what may be the most urgent question on the minds of newspaper executives today: How can we monetize the Web?

     "Describing the fantastic digital future can be alluring, finding a way to make a business out of it is another thing altogether. The fuel for this online transformation is ad sales,' said Borrell. Included in this third section is information on the fastest-growing online opportunities, as well as research from Borrell Associates on how best-practices newspapers are maximizing their online revenues.

     "Adopting these best practices, says Borrell Associates’ CEO Gordon Borrell, can lead any newspaper to what he calls 'exponentially more online revenue.' Also included with the report are sample job descriptions for online positions in both the newsroom and the revenue department; a listing of technology solutions vendors for various digital functionalities; and Borrell Associates’ research data intended to enable any newspaper to estimate local online revenue potential in its market.

     "The American Press Institute offers the report at no charge and it can be downloaded at www.NewspaperNext.org (use the "report" link above). The archived webcast -- which includes video footage of two of the case studies -- can also be viewed at this address.

     "The American Press Institute ... is an independent educational center for providing skills-training and leadership development in the news industry, offering seminars and onsite programs for newspaper professionals."

     One may wonder how or whether the situation would change if news products were no longer commercialized and free of Wall Street; if ownership shifted to foundations or if news organizations somehow became local "utilities." But it appears that the commercialized model is here to stay for the foreseeable future. The money's there to be made. And there's a bit of comfort in that. Like war, the profit motive ignites human genius. We're watching to see how that pays off for journalism and a nation that needs a free press.

     -- David House

Tracking coverage of the candidates

     A weekly campaign-coverage report from Tom Rosenstiel, director of Project for Excellence in Journalism, was waiting right on time in this morning's pile of e-mail. Here's PEJ's analysis:

     "In the wake of impressive wins in the so-called “Potomac Primary,” Barack Obama emerged as the clear frontrunner last week in the media narrative for the Democratic primary. After lengthy speculation about a tight and deadlocked race, the story line changed significantly in a week in which Democratic candidates overwhelmingly dominated the coverage, according to a Project for Excellence in Journalism study of campaign coverage.

     "Although Clinton (57%) narrowly edged out Obama (55.5%) as a significant or dominant newsmaker in election stories from Feb. 11-17, Obama was the clear winner in terms of the tone. While the media dissected everything from Clinton’s staff shake-up to her loosening grasp on her core demographic voters, Obama’s momentum was the big story about his campaign. Fully 60% of election stories focused on Democrats—the highest amount of coverage for the party since the Campaign Coverage Index launched in January.

     "Only 24% of stories were centered on the GOP candidates and 16% mentioned both Democrats and Republicans. The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s Campaign Coverage Index—which will appear weekly until the party nominees are selected—also finds that:

     "Clinton (57%) and Obama (55.5%) each received the most amount of individual coverage recorded since the Campaign Index began in early January.

     "Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain received a substantial amount of coverage (34%) last week, but his difficulty winning over conservatives remains a major story line.

     "At 18%, Mike Huckabee was still on the media radar screen. However, he has fallen so far behind in the race for delegates that much of the coverage questioned his motivation for continuing.

     "Campaign stories filled 40% of the newshole for the week. Cable television focused 62% of its airtime on the election and radio devoted 46%. Click here for a direct link to a PDF of the report. The study is for immediate release at our website, http://www.journalism.org/."

     -- David House

How many editors are needed?

     Alan Mutter's "Newsosaur" blog built around "musings and (occasional urgent warnings) of a veteran media executive, who fears our news-gathering companies are stumbling to extinction," has an interesting issue on the burner that's provoked considerable discussion among journalists: How many editors should vet a story?

     Mutter notes: "The question is whether newspapers can afford to continue producing quality content in the traditional fashion at a time when sales, profits and the underlying business model are facing unprecedented and alarming challenges."

     It's maddening that such a question should ever need to be asked, but there it is and for good reason as newspapers struggle to satisfy Wall Street and survive fragmentation. Something's got to give sooner or later, and I hope it isn't the editing process. I'd say that newspapers that "can't afford" a strong editing arm may as well give up the ghost and become a throwaway ad sheet, because sooner or later the bad information they'd publish would snuff out their credibility and/or land them in court on the losing end of legal action.

     Mutter reports that so far, "Of the more than 400 respondents to the survey ... 55.2% favored two editors per story, 21.9% advocated three or more editors per story, 20.4% said a single editor was sufficient and a mere 2.5% said reporters didn’t need anyone looking over their shoulders."

     I'd be among those who favor three or more editors, particularly when preparing a complicated package for publication. Why? Just take a look at the hundreds of corrections that dailies run over the course of a year. Perfection's way out of reach even with all the editors we have. Imagine the mess with fewer editors. And take a look at our test in court: fair, accurate and balanced. It's absurd to believe that attaining that level of content quality can be done on the cheap. As for copy editors, recall an old rule of thumb: No copy editors, no newspaper.

     A newsroom is not an automated sawmill with one wretch at one end, shoving logs into blades, and another wretch at the other end, pulling out boards. Newsgathering and preparation's intellectually tough, high-stakes work that requires a team. What's the alternative? Maybe a bulletin board service written by the public. A sort of newspaper version of reality shows -- real cheap to produce, real profitable, real worthless except as a chuckle machine. What's another alternative? Recognize and recommit to journalism's public service, go private, endow positions, work with the profits at hand.

     Those are some of my thoughts. What's your take?

     -- David House

     

Three red flags

     Monday's editorial page led with an editorial that underscored an essential factor in the development of a civilization -- a free press practicing freely in an effort to give people a means of free expression. Americans like to say that's always been a hallmark of the U.S. (at least on paper ... there are plenty of examples of authorities' abuse of the Founders' intention).

     At issue in the editorial was an Afghanistan court condemning a young journalist to death for circulating an article on the Internet that contained views critical of Islam's view of women -- a development reported recently in the Star-Telegram. The case has been appealed. The editorial also pointed out that neighboring Iraq is the deadliest in the world for journalists. Some 32 journalists were killed there last year, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists.

     Today's Star-Telegram carried three more reports of assaults against free-press pursuits:

     -- Out of Baghdad comes a report that a young Iraqi newspaper journalist, Hisham Michwit Hamdan, 27, was shot to death while on his way to work. Meanwhile, authorities are searching for a Western journalist with CBS and his Iraqi translator who were abducted in Basra.

     -- Out of Cairo comes a McClatchy report that Arab information ministers have endorsed "a plan that would restrict content on regional satellite television broadcasts, signaling a growing unease with increasingly popular news outlets that often criticize Middle Eastern political and religious leaders." To their credit, Arab journalists condemned the action as censorship. If enforced, the plan would affect the quality of news that's beamed to at least 40 million households, the story noted.

     -- From Copenhagen comes a report that authorities broke up a suspected plot to kill the cartoonist who two years ago set off outrage in the Muslim world with publication of a cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban. Two Tunisians and a Danish citizen of Moroccan origin were arrested in the investigation.

     One wonders whether coverage of such barbaric forces will somehow help Americans reflect on one of our greatest blessings -- the First Amendment -- and the profound wisdom of our Founders who hammered a Free Press provision into the Constitution. I'm skeptical. Americans take the media for granted and the privilege of comparatively free-flowing information. Growing incidence of government secrecy doesn't seem to bother the public. That's quite a gamble with quality of life. But, come on, how bad could life be with maybe a little less or a lot less media? I suspect we don't want to know. But there's a glimpse in those stories above.

    -- David House      

    

Secret e-mails, affairs, UFOs and a Sasquatch

A few more tidbits dredged from the "newsroom" bucket (if you haven't read the previous post, "This just in," take a look. It explains "newsroom"):

     -- This Valentine's Day, any broken heart in a troubled marriage might want to begin the divorce process by finding incriminating e-mails. According to the most recent poll of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML), 88% of the nation's top divorce attorneys are noting a dramatic increase in the number of divorce cases using electronic evidence. E-mails prove to be the most common source of evidence with 82% of AAML members singling them out. One of the most interesting results reveal that wives are actually more likely to use this information during the divorce than husbands are. The following press release below contains additional details. James Hennenhoefer, the president of the AAML, is currently available for interviews to discuss these survey results. I would be more than happy to arrange something.

     -- More Affairs by the Watercooler, says Vault. 48% of Employees Aware of Married Colleague Cheating with Co-Worker NEW YORK, February 5, 2008: Many married employees are acting single at work. According to Vault.com’s 2008 Office Romance Survey, 48% of respondents have known a married colleague to have an affair with someone at the office. In addition, 40% know of a married or seriously involved co-worker who had a romantic liaison with someone other than their partner while on a business trip.

     “We all knew her husband, and it made us extremely uncomfortable,” said one respondent. Another stated, “A married manager had an affair with a young trainee.” At one workplace, “It's equal opportunity. I would call it an even mix of male to female cheaters.”

     Vault’s Office Romance Survey was conducted in January, 2008 and consists of responses from 945 employees representing various industries across the United States. Workplace hook-ups among the single set are quite popular, too, as 82% of respondents say they’ve known of an office romance between two co-workers, and 50% know of at least one couple that went on to get married. As far as the respondents themselves, 46% admit to having had an office romance, and 23% have had a romantic tryst at the actual office.

     Places trysts occurred include the boardroom, the janitor’s closet, the break room, a stairwell, the parking lot, the restroom, and the boss’ office. True love ruled at the office for 20% of respondents; they met their spouses or long-term significant others at work; 10% met their partners through co-workers. It’s not always a match, however, as 43% of respondents say that someone at work has made an unwanted advance toward them. For more on office romance, visit www.vault.com/office-romance.

     -- Washington, DC - Recent events have made it clear it is time for the political reporters, editors, moderators and talk show hosts to penetrate the ridicule curtain and ask serious questions of and demand appropriate answers from the presidential candidates regarding the UFO issue and the government's 60-year non-denial, denial (truth embargo) of an extraterrestrial explanation.

     Another major document release by the Ministry of Defence is pending in the United Kingdom, a mass sighting similar to the 1997 Phoenix lights events has taken place in San Diego, Dennis Kucinich has acknowledged a significant sighting which has been confirmed and written up on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Other candidates have been queried, including VP hopeful, NM Governor Bill Richardson, Follow-up and investigative journalism is called for. If you are a political journalist, spend thirty minutes at each of these two websites and you will learn why.

     -- Dear Sirs, During July of 2004 I had an encounter with something at a secluded hunting cabin in the Arbuckle Mtns. of Oklahoma. The things I heard at night around this cabin sparked my curiosity enough to get me to return a month later and place a couple of motion sensor game trail cameras around the cabin in hopes of getting an idea what was going on.

     One camera captured a low resolution image of an adult female Sasquatch and juvenile Sasquatch. The Sasquatch were right in front of the camera and so the photo is a fairly close up shot of both faces. There is a white glare at the photo's left that is probably the right hand fingers of the adult Sasquatch, right in front of the camera lens. The camera's flash washed out all detail of the fingers except for their overall shape. Looking past or around this glare, one can see the eye, ear, lips, nostrils, hair and even breast of the adult. She is not looking directly at the camera, but is looking at about a 45 degree angle. At the bottom edge of the photo is the face of the juvenile.

     I have tried to share this photo with the media before but I never seem to be taken seriously. I hope you will have an interest in the photos. My goal is to let people know that these creatures do exist. I don't know if there would truly be a way to protect them, except make it a serious crime to ever kill or harm one on purpose. Please feel free to contact me anytime. This past May I got another photo of a Bigfoot peeking over some foliage. They know the cameras are there. I am not saying they know what a camera is, but they do try to avoid them.

     So it goes. You never know what awaits in (cue the organ) "newsroom."

     -- David House