Explain Yourself ...

Core value survives

     Last week, I made passing reference to the release of the results of an intriguing must-read -- the fifth annual State of the News Media by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. This is comprehensive work with an ambitious aim: "Its goal is to gather in one place as much data as possible about all the major sectors of journalism, to identify trends, mark key indicators, note areas for further inquiry and provide a resource for citizens, journalists and researchers."

     Work is focused on six genre of media: Newspapers, Online, TV (network, cable and local), Magazines, Radio and Ethnic Media.

     Extremely important findings surface in Newspapers' content analysis. There, we see clear measures of the value that local newspapers such as the Star-Telegram bring to their circulation areas in terms of localizing and personalizing national trends, helping people understand the forces that are acting on their community with news and information that either can't be found anywhere else or can't be found easily, not even online.

     This is the value that's at stake as newspapers search for competitive positions from which to contend with the new media paradigms.

     Here are just a few snippets, with emphasis from me, from the content analysis.    

      "Despite numerous hits to the industry and a rush of resources away from print and toward the Web, newspapers stood out in 2007 for unique coverage. Their particular strength, at least in print, may be less covering breaking news than tracking stories that percolated, ebbed and flowed over the course of the year.

     "The nation’s newspapers gave front-page coverage to issues and events often not found in other news genres.

     "The state of the U.S. economy, the continuing debate over health care policies and foreign news beyond the war in Iraq, among others, stood out on newspaper front-pages.

The Economy

     "In January of 2008, economic concerns rose significantly among Americans to rival the war in Iraq as the top problem facing the country. At the same time, it began driving the presidential primary debates and became a top issue influencing primary votes.

     "In the press, newspapers had already been covering the issue for months, dedicating staff, space and early attention the story when most other genres had yet to treat it as top news. Looking across 2007, newspaper front pages covered the downturn in the U.S. economy more than any of the other six genres studied.

     "Overall, it was No. 4 among the biggest stories of the year in newspapers, accounting for 3% of the front-page newshole. The only other genres to include the economy on their top 10 list were online news sites, where it ranked No. 6 over all (2%) and network morning and evening television news, where it placed No. 5 for each (2%).

     "The emphasis in print is even greater than it first may seem, considering it includes only the front-page articles. The business section fronts may well have had more. This compares to the entirety of network evening news shows, the hard news section of the morning programs (where all the economic news would likely be) and several hours of cable programming each day. (The online news studied is more similar to newspapers — the top five stories of the page.)

     "This difference also was not a case of the big national papers tuned in to debates in Washington and on Wall Street while smaller papers across the country focused on more local matters. If anything, the local papers tuned in to the issue of the flagging economy first.

     "The issue actually accounted for more of the front-page newshole in medium-sized metropolitan papers (3.6%) (like the Star-Telegram) and small papers (3.4%) than the national papers (2.9%)3. Part of this attention at the local level was due to the nature of the story. It did not evolve as a Washington policy event initially but in neighborhoods across the country as people found their houses were not selling or the sale of their neighbors’ houses suggested their home values may have dropped.

     "The sense of security that people had in their homes began to waver, and local newspapers began reporting the shifts, having attachments to the local communities and still with newsrooms structured to cover more than the news of the moment (something local television finds hard to break free of).

Health Care Policy

     "Newspapers also stood out as the one genre to devote significant amount of front-page space to the debate over health care policy. In 2007, it was not one big event or debate in Congress driving the coverage, but a story that ebbed and flowed throughout the course of the year as Congress debated new programs, states adopted new practices or public opinion shifted.

     "Overall, the health care debate was the 10th-biggest story on newspaper front-pages and accounted for 2% of the total front-page newshole.

     "As with the economy, this was not a case of the big papers covering the Washington debate. The issue actually accounted for more coverage in mid-sized papers (2%), followed by the smallest (1.8%) and then the national papers (1.4%).4 In this case, more than half of the reporting was about initiatives or problems in health care policies at the state or local level.

Geographic Range

     "Beyond the issues in our own country, newspapers also were second only to news Web sites in their coverage of foreign affairs that did not involve the U.S. directly.

     "The newspapers examined here devoted 13% of their front-page coverage to non-U.S. news, three times that of cable news (4%), more than double that of radio (7%) and also more than network television news (9%). Only online coverage devoted more — nearly 25% of lead-story coverage.

     "Aside from events in Iraq the biggest foreign stories were about the situation in Pakistan (9%), the conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territories (3% on conflict between Israel and Palestine and 2% on the factions among the Palestinians ) and Iran (2%).

Conclusion

     "As newspapers struggle with the future unknowns — audience base, delivery mechanism, revenue base and even reporting agenda -- one thing is clear: In 2007, the print pages, and the print front-pages in particular, still provided information that was harder to find elsewhere. How, and if, that service translates to the Web or to the distribution of newsroom resources remains to be seen."

     -- David House

Taking journalists' pulse

     Like that Energizer bunny, the news media take a licking. It's more like a daily pounding -- from talk show hosts and other segments of the public. That, plus the stresses of everyday work and worries about jobs and careers, can take a toll on journalists. I'm concerned for them and so is the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

     Last fall, as part of the research for the State of News Media 2008, PEJ and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press teamed up to to survey more than 500 journalists about the state of journalism and how they view their future.

    Results point to a number of changes in outlook. Here are a few examples:

       "A cross section of national and local reporters, editors and executives, this survey builds off a similar survey conducted for the 2004 State of the News Media. It finds clear shifts in the major concerns, areas of strength and broad values voiced by those surveyed.

     "The detailed results of the survey come from the Pew Research Center with a commentary on the findings by Journalists have become markedly more pessimistic about the future of their profession. But their concerns are taking a distinctly new turn. Rather than worrying as much about quality, they are now focused on economic survival. And in that new focus, we see signs of new openness to change.

     "Journalists are ready — even eager — to embrace new technologies. They think a range of new digital activities, from blogs to citizen media, are good for journalism. They even think, by 2 to 1, that splitting their time across multiple platforms is a positive change rather than a problem that is taking time from their reporting or spreading them thin.

     "These are all attitudes hard to imagine a few years ago. It is also striking what is not here in these numbers. The fears of a decade ago in journalism have faded. News people are less concerned about credibility. They are not as worried about cynicism. They do not feel as isolated. It is possible that technology has helped alleviate these concerns, but it is also possible that there are simply bigger problems today, problems that are more concrete and less cultural. The problems are about money.

     "The crisis in journalism in 2008, journalists now more clearly believe, is a crisis of a broken economic model. And cutbacks in the newsroom, covering fewer things is now a concern front and center instead of how they are covered. Those concerns will either be solved or journalism as people traditionally think of it — reporters out in the community bearing witness to facts — will shrink substantially.

     "More than eight in ten journalists surveyed, a greater percentage than in 2004, agree that news organizations have cut back too much on the scope of their reporting and that too little attention is paid to complex issues.

     "In 2007, concerns about the economics of the business ... eclipsed all others, more than double any other issue. These anxieties, moreover, are felt across all the groups of journalists, and those working on the Web or in print report the greatest worry.

     "The concern is not just what changing economics might do. Journalists believe business cutbacks have already hurt their news organization. About three-quarters of print and online journalists say this. The concern is closer to two-thirds in broadcast. As far as journalists are concerned, in other words, the cutting has gone beyond fat into muscle.

     "Nearly nine out of ten print journalists say the economic pressures they feel have increased. And it is not as though the online parts of the operations are growing are immune. Online journalists are nearly as likely as print to feel more economic pressure than a few years ago (79%)."

      -- David House

Obama's speech gets quite a ride

     Nothing draws media attention like substantive, penetrating comment or amazingly silly comment from life's high-profile players.

     Remember Jessica Simpson's epiphany regarding what's in cans of Chicken of the Sea? The media had fun with that issue, giving the public a good belly laugh. But the news industry serves best when contending with compelling developments that stand to rattle every cage in the U.S.

     That's what happened a week ago with coverage of Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia in which he addressed race issues. His exceptionally eloquent comments and delivery resonated with a degree of statesmanship rarely encountered in political campaigns, particularly presidential campaigns. The media recognized those qualities immediately and gave the speech saturation coverage. How much? Here's the weekly report issued today by the Project for Excellence in Journalism study of campaign coverage regarding last week's work:

     "Barack Obama’s 37-minute March 18 address on race relations was the major event in a week in which he easily dominated the battle for media exposure, according to a Project for Excellence in Journalism study of campaign coverage from March 17-23.

     "The speech, delivered after days of a circulating video featuring the inflammatory words of Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, generated extensive media reaction. As a result, Obama received his highest level of coverage this year, appearing as a significant or dominant factor in 72% of the campaign stories. At 30%, Hillary Clinton trailed far behind, despite the National Archives release of the records of her activities as First Lady. Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain (17%) finished a distant third despite a high-profile trip to the Mideast.

     "The findings in PEJ’s Campaign Coverage Index — which will appear weekly until the party nominees are selected — include:

     "-- Continuing a trend that has been clear since McCain wrapped up the nomination, Democrats received much more coverage than Republicans last week—nearly 12 times as much.

     "-- Rev. Wright was a lead newsmaker (he appeared in at least 50% of a story) in 7% of election stories; more telling, the Obama/Wright relationship was the focus of 37% of the week’s campaign stories.

     "-- Election coverage filled 39% of the newshole last week, up 12 points from the previous week.

     "-- Cable dedicated 73% of its airtime to the campaign, and radio 53%."

     -- David House

    

MSNBC: Right thing wrong

     (OK) Coverage of the controversy surrounding Brite Divinity School's plan to present an award to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., is of national interest, which led MSNBC to report on the developments.

      (Not OK) But the anchor needs to learn the difference between Dallas and Fort Worth. The Wright event will be held in Fort Worth. "People in Dallas" must be very concerned about all this, the anchor said to a reporter on the phone. Perhaps. Presumably. But it's a Fort Worth story.

     -- David House    

Typo by association

     Here's a truly interesting complaint.

     A reader called Monday and said she was holding us responsible for incorrect grammar in the text of a sign on a vehicle dealership's window.

     She chastised us. “On Page 3E this Sunday, you said, 'Bad Credit? Your Approved!' Don’t you know how to spell 'you’re'?"

    We do, but someone at that dealership doesn't. The AP photo illustrated an article about the increasing difficulties consumers face in borrowing money.

We admit our typos, but we're powerless over some.

An intriguing thought comes to mind: What if Star-Telegram editors were deputized as sign police?

                                                                                                    -- David House

Exploring a new world

     Time to roll up the sleeves and dig into one of the most fascinating annual reports around: The State of the News Media 2008: An Annual Report on American Journalism.

     This is quality research by the Project for Excellence in Journalism that's eagerly awaited every year by many in the news industry. Funded by Pew Charitable Trusts, this year's report is a 180,000-word document that examines many aspects of all the print and electronic operations that comprise that vast entity known as "the news media."

     The introduction sets up an intriguing and sobering array of realities and possibilities within today's media. Here's a sampling from the introduction:

     "The state of the American news media in 2008 is more troubled than a year ago. And the problems, increasingly, appear to be different than many experts have predicted.

     "Critics have tended to see technology democratizing the media and traditional journalism in decline. Audiences, they say, are fragmenting across new information sources, breaking the grip of media elites. Some people even advocate the notion of “The Long Tail,” the idea that, with the Web’s infinite potential for depth, millions of niche markets could be bigger than the old mass market dominated by large companies and producers.1 The reality, increasingly, appears more complex.

     "Looking closely, a clear case for democratization is harder to make. Even with so many new sources, more people now consume what old media newsrooms produce, particularly from print, than before. Online, for instance, the top 10 news Web sites, drawing mostly from old brands, are more of an oligarchy, commanding a larger share of audience, than in the legacy media.

     "The verdict on citizen media for now suggests limitations. And research shows blogs and public affairs Web sites attract a smaller audience than expected and are produced by people with even more elite backgrounds than journalists.2

     "Certainly consumers have different expectations of the press and want a changed product. But more and more it appears the biggest problem facing traditional media has less to do with where people get information than how to pay for it — the emerging reality that advertising isn’t migrating online with the consumer.

     "The crisis in journalism, in other words, may not strictly be loss of audience. It may, more fundamentally, be the decoupling of news and advertising."

     Powerful stuff, yes? Brings to mind equally powerful questions such as, "Huh?" Maybe consumers of news have more conservative tastes and loyalties to "old" forms than previously thought.

     Let's explore the report in following blog items to find out what's going on.

     I must say, though, that I'm not surprised by one finding mentioned above: "...research shows blogs ... attract a smaller audience than expected...." Blog advocates won't care too much for that view, but it doesn't surprise me. Blogs have never struck me as a powerhouse means of mass communication except for highly specialized niche interests. Surely, I've thought, average people have more of a life going on than spending hours with their face in a computer screen, reading a blog. I know. That's arguable. So argue, OK?

     -- David House    

'It was like life had lost its mind'

     The State of the News Media 2008 report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism paints a dreary outlook for newspapers, bringing to mind thoughts about whether people in the United States have any idea of the consequences that would follow the death of newspapers.

     That's just an incomprehensible scenario for most folks, I'd guess. But I can tell you about one American city that knows exactly what it's like to suddenly be without a newspaper -- Pittsburgh, Pa., where a newspaper strike in 1992 shut down the presses for months.

     Talk to a Pittsburgher who lived through that nightmare, and you'll hear about the unbelievable conditions that were created by not having a daily newspaper. The venerable Pittsburgh Press was shuttered. The Post Gazette was idled. You'll hear, for instance, how no one had access to basics such as obituaries. Eventually, to help ameliorate the situation, TV stations took to scrolling obits on viewers' screens. Better than nothing, but "just terrible," a resident told me. "It was like life had lost its mind."

     Local government coverage turned dark, local sports turned dark, local business coverage vanished, local everything turned dark, including all the media that piggyback on newspapers' coverage. How much darkness would fall upon this country if newspapers failed? No problem, you say? The Internet would pick up the slack? Right. Dream on. What would all the news and "opinion" operators on the Internet do without all of the content and issues with which newspapers supply them so they can huff and puff and traffic in news and information they didn't and couldn't gather?

    Primitive stuff. But Americans face such consequences unless some miracle either stops the decline of newspapers or forges new consumer loyalty to legacy media with multiple platforms or some heroic source of money such as foundations saves the day.

     The PEJ report's introduction includes an applicable paragraph: "Even with so many new sources, more people now consume what old media newsrooms produce, particularly from print, than before. Online, for instance, the top 10 news Web sites, drawing mostly from old brands, are more of an oligarchy, commanding a larger share of audience, than in the legacy media."

     -- David House

Music to blog by

     Trying to blog from home with sinuses going nuts from a stubborn bug that's seemingly undefeatable after seven days, worries about the economy and failing confidence in antihistamines calls for some sort of stimulation beyond caring about readers and the Star-Telegram's efforts to serve them well. Something that drenches the spirit and senses with fiery abandon. Something like the CD that my elegant, exceptional wife and I gave to each other for Christmas and she had blaring on the stereo this evening -- "Gypsy Groove," a.k.a. "Balkan beats and gypsy jams from the dance floors of Eastern Europe!"

     That's the ticket. Gimme that Zsa Manca by DelaDap from the Czech Republic and Hungary; Yor Uzga by Karen Gafurdjanov from Uzbekistan and Viragok a Reten by Kistehen Tanczenekar of Budapest. Not to mention Zh Ne Sui Pa Pur Tua by Magnifico & Turbolentza of Slovenia.

     Ah, kick beats, Roma lyrics, fretted lutes, wild percussion and unrestrained passions. If that combination can't excite the muse, what can? Gives one energy to tackle the issues in blog items below that deal with reader reaction to Arlington water issues and fractured Democratic caucus efforts.

     Please read on and share your thoughts.

     -- David House

Caucus from hell

     Staff Writer Aman Batheja's coverage of bizarre developments when three precincts met at Atherton Elementary School in Arlington for Democratic caucuses on election night last week drew considerable reader reaction -- from those who cheered the Star-Telegram for a candid account of what happened to others who accused the S-T of obsession with negatives.

     Reader reaction is pure gold. It gives us a sense of the extent to which we've addressed (or missed) reader concerns and how the public's thoughts are shifting around. Very important stuff.

     Aman, an unflappable and astute reporter who was on the scene at Atherton, told the story accurately and fairly, drawing on key details to build a credible account of a terribly disorganized post-election caucus that fanned emotions among voters who'd come to cast votes a second time in the fight for delegates for Clinton and Obama.

       Here's a sampling of readers' reaction to Aman's story: 

      Peggy: I was also at Atherton elementary school on Tuesday evening....Thanks for reporting this fiasco, I am so mad knowing that my vote there wouldn't be counted. It isn't right, and the Democratic Party needs to set up an alternate date for us to caucus and have our votes recorded.

     David: I was one of the caucus voters who was present at Atherton Elementary for the March 4 caucus vote. I read your article regarding the subject and I was wondering what exactly you have been told about the people who were supposed to be running or officiating the caucus. An hour or so into the fiasco we were told that the people who were representing the district had left and who were supposed to be running the caucus had left. I'd like to know who these people were and more importantly why they left. I'd also like to know who these Senate Committee people are and how to contact them and whether or not there is a possibility of the 12 precincts whose votes supposedly won't count having a re-caucus since it seems like a process that could easily and rather cheaply be preformed again.

     Quentin: Early this morning, I found out what I have feared since this past Tuesday’s caucus event. The caucus votes from my precinct (2461) will not count along with those from two other precincts (2027, 2235) that were in the Atherton Elementary School cafeteria on that now infamous second Super Tuesday night. The entire event was extremely unorganized. Initially, many people were upset because we were herded around like cattle. My wife and I were moved four different lines. Then, around 8:30 pm, a gentleman stood on a table and told us that three things had happened---the election chair did not show up, the precinct chair was nowhere to be found, and the official sign-in sheets never made it to our location. By this time, the initial crowd of 300-400 people had dwindled down to about half of that amount. Tensions were high and many people were claiming the second coming of Florida (in reference to the possibility that votes will not count). It was getting late, so my wife and I decided that we would be satisfied with simply signing in instead of attending the delegate convention since we had our eight month old daughter with us. Finally a person found our name on sheet that showed we had early voted. This person told us to write “DO” if we are supporting Senator Obama or “DC” if we are supporting Senator Clinton and then to sign our names next to our “vote”. We did so and left praying that the whole night would not be wasted...I am highly disappointed to hear that our votes will not count after the chaos that we endured. As voters, we did our parts in taking part in this Texas two step. Now, it is time for Tarrant County and the Democratic party to do theirs. I do not claim to be a legal guru about situations like this, however, the fact is that the voters did not drop the ball on this one. Therefore, the voters should not suffer.

     Patricia: By now you aware that most of the voting locations at least in Arlington were woefully inadequate and understaffed. Suffice it to say my location was no exception. Many of us who voted wanted to also vote in the caucus but for a myriad of reasons could not. ...My sense for my own safety was compounded by the inadequately unlit area and I stood in the increasingly hostile group of people. I scanned the crowd to observe most made no eye contact and those that did registered anger, annoyance, and uncomfort. I read the Saturday, March 8, 2008 Star-telegram article in the newspaper about a young man's experience to try and help in the caucus process at his location; that prompted me to write this email. I question the validity of the caucus votes at my location. ...no one seemed to be charge of the caucus phase. I managed to find one young woman who appeared to know a little about the caucus process. I briefly spoke to her and asked if I could do anything to help as she clearly was overwhelmed. She said she had called for help from district, but had no success. So... who took the signatures from all the precincts? Can we verify the signatures? Based upon what I've been reading, seeing on the news, and speaking with actual caucus attendees, I have no reason to believe that the caucus results at my location are valid. I understand that I have the right to challenge the votes of my precinct and I do. I also question all the caucus results at my location -- Arlington Annex Library on Brown Blvd. Arlington, Texas. In sum, my experience I am sure is not unique regarding the chaotic caucus process held in Texas last Tuesday. What ever rationale the Democratic Party in Texas had in mind for inventing this convoluted caucus process has once again shown the country that Texas Democrat leadership are more concerned with their own personal agendas and not the overall good of the Texas voters. Another national embarrassment...remember the retreat to Oklahoma? What are you all thinking? Are we not the legacy of LBJ's "Great Society"?

     -- David House

Government on ice: Arlington's water issue

     Interesting reader reaction yesterday to Staff Writer Traci Shurley's report on Arlington's refusal to identify medication that was found in the city's water supply.

     Some readers appreciated learning that their local government sought to hide key details from them regarding what's in their drinking water; at least one reader defended city government's decision not to disclose details in response to an open records request filed by the Star-Telegram. The city's seeking an opinion from the Texas attorney general on whether the information must be released.

     Wouldn't you want to know what's in the tap water that you're paying for and drinking? Is it reasonable to expect your local government to tell you if it knows? For varying opinion, take a look at a couple of examples of the reader reaction that Shurley received:

     David: Regarding your increased effort to publicize which pharmaceuticals the Arlington water filtration system doesn't protect us against (i.e., which ones get through the system into our drinking water). I guess you're a proponent of the (Austin bureau staffer) R.A. Dyer and Star-Telegram principle that "no risk is too high for the person not exposed to it." So here's my suggestion to you and the Star-Telegram. Publish this: Shurley: I leave [identify which] window unlocked while I'm away from home.    S-T: We at the Star-Telegram believe that you the burglar have the right to know this information, and we're delighted to be the ones to give it to you. Ms. Shurley, I and my family have the common sense not to expose to vandals, whackos, and terrorists "which if any of our windows we leave open." I wish you, the Star-Telegram, and your trade as a whole, had half as much sense and responsibility. Please move to Arlington as quick as you can. Because, well, you DO at least have courage and integrity -- right? Huh.

     Anna: Read your article this morning about the open records request the S-T filed w/the City of Arlington. As a concerned citizen, I urge you to do whatever you can do to obtain this information. I'm not buying (Mayor) Cluck's excuse that he won't release the information because in large doses the chemical found could be harmful. Frankly, we don't know the long term effects of *any* chemicals found in our water supply, so that excuse doesn't pass muster. Thank you also for finding out what chemicals were present pre-treatement. Would it be possible for you or the S-T to be more specific and name those chemicals? Many Arlington citizens are very concerned about this. I am considering filing an open records request myself. In fact I looked into it yesterday. If your request gets denied, please write about it and I will follow up with one of my own. Thank you again for your diligence. This is a *public safety issue*.

     The attorney general has 10 days in which to issue an opinion, which the city can defy if it wishes. One thing's for sure -- Star-Telegram coverage put the issue right out there on the public's table, and that's one thing newspapers do well.

     There's a chunk of the public these post-9/11 days that takes "the government's" side in sensitive matters, because they're fearful and find comfort and a sense of safety in the shadow of government that claims, while invoking increasing levels of secrecy, to have the public's security and welfare as its top priority. They attack any coverage that seeks to hold the local, state or federal government accountable, but in doing so they provide an essential bas-relief that gives sharper definition to how important watchdog coverage remains and the extent to which government seeks to avoid transparency.

     One other point regarding Shurley's Tuesday story: Editors wisely played the story on Page 3A (not back in the B section or only in the Arlington edition). Page 3A traditionally is known as "the second front page" because it's the first page readers look at when they open the A section. Usually, 3A is a full-page ad or filled with ads, but Tuesday's 3A had a great newshole. Shurley's story thus was given the strong prominence it deserved and was played adjacent to an Associated Press investigation that examined a disturbing reality in Nevada's Lake Mead and water supplies throughout the U.S. -- medication-contaminated drinking water that's affecting people, aquatic life and wildlife.

     This is the sort of hard, watchdog news on local and national levels that's the Star-Telegram's franchise and journalism's as well. This coverage counts, and it's appreciated by readers across the board. It matters; we matter. We're reminded why we're viewed as a public trust and a court of last resort.

     We and much of the public look forward to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot's opinion regarding whether the people's local government in Arlington owes an explanation to the taxpayers who own it and fund it.

     -- David House