Explain Yourself ...

Looking back

2008-04-23T00:02:00-05:00

Friday's my last day as part of a wonderful news team at the Star-Telegram. I'll miss working with a great bunch of journalists.

I have to accept that this could be the end of my newspaper career. Started around 1966 at my hometown paper, the Texarkana Gazette.

I wish I could say that I got into this business because of lofty and noble aims. That would be a lie, but those aims eventually kept me in the business.

Truth is, I believe, that divine intervention put me on the ink-slathered tracks that I've traveled for a long time, and it happened because I couldn't have done anythng else that would have given me the heights and depths of personal satisfaction that I've experienced as a journalist.

In high school, I'd suffered a sports injury that wrecked every dream I had. I played baseball -- loved the game -- and was a pretty good pitcher. But one day, I threw a high, breaking curve to a tall, skinny batter who got every bit of that ball with a whip of a swing. Powdered it. Sent it like a bullet straight into my forehead before I could get out of the way.

The blow left a scar on my brain that resulted in epilepsy. Eventually, I outgrew that cursed injury but not before it kept me out of cockpits (I wanted to fly), the U.S. Marines and law enforcement. And everything I applied for. No one wanted me except a steakhouse owner who hired me as a busboy while I was going to college.

I was drawn to adventurous things, but the injury seemed to block every avenue. One day, my mom, who was a highly successful songwriter and promoter and who wrote a column for the Gazette, suggested that I apply to the Gazette. A cub reporter job was open, she said, and she knew the editor, the legendary J.Q. Mahaffey. I listened to her, applied and got the job. I don't know why. Didn't ask. But I suspect mom had something to do with it.

So that's where I started and why. It's a decision I've never regretted, not even while working 20-hour days, enduring vicious pressures and sweating blood over a news decision.

And there's been one other bonus. Thinking about those other career paths I'd planned that would've led to the sky, Viet Nam or squad cars, journalism probably kept me alive.

-- David House

Obama dominates coverage

2008-04-23T00:01:00-05:00

Presidential election coverage last week was mostly about Barack Obama, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism Campaign Coverage Index results released today.

"Given his central involvement in both major story lines, Obama was the top newsmaker ... from April 14-20," PEJ reported.

"He was a significant or dominant factor in 76% of the campaign stories, a large leap from the previous week when he registered at 46%. Clinton, at 59%, trailed Obama, but even that was up a bit from her 56% total a week earlier.

"After watching his media coverage climb recently, GOP candidate John McCain fell back to 24% last week, a drop of 11 points from the week before. (All told, the Democrats generated almost six times as many stories as the Republicans last week.)

"For McCain, that coverage was mixed. He received substantial attention for the economic plan he unveiled on April 15. But as the week went on, McCain found himself dealing not with fiscal policy, but with two lingering personal issues—his age and his temper."

-- David House

An update, Texas connection

2008-04-16T12:35:11-05:00

Barry Bearak, the New York Times reporter held in Zimbabwe, has been freed and charges have been dropped.

We noted his capture earlier, and the Texas connection: His wife, Celia, is the daughter of Ronnie Dugger, a founder of the Texas Observer.

As Times editor Bill Keller said, Bearak was arrested for just doing his job. He's headed home now.

Perhaps it's also worth noting that an AP photographer has also been freed from captivity. The case is a little different, though. He was held for two years by the United States ...

--Rex Seline

Why not FDR?

2008-04-16T00:02:00-05:00

He didn't leave his name, but he said the Star-Telegram contained a terrible oversight on Saturday, April 12: "You didn't say in that 'Notable Death' listing that on this day in 1945, President Roosevelt died. He was one of the most important men in history, and you ignored him. Those of us who remember him want to know why you ignored him."

As designed, the item can list only one death. The editor who selects the notable decedant makes a purely subjective call, tries to select someone who'll draw the most interest here in 2008 and decided to list Sugar Ray Robinson.

Right call? Wrong call? It would've been an excellent call, given FDR's stature among many of our senior readers. And that's why it was a terrible call as far as the reader was concerned. "I remember FDR," he said, "and the day he died. It was horrible. Hearts were broken everywhere." His was the only complaint, which indicates a good call on the editor's part.

There were a few other famous people who died on April 12: Clara Barton, Joe Louis and Abbie Hoffman, for instance. All worthy of note along with FDR. Which would you have noted?

-- David House

Rev. Haynes overplayed?

2008-04-16T00:01:00-05:00

The dominant package on Tuesday's Page One gave readers an informative look at the Rev. Frederick Haynes, pastor of Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas and a local minister who's a finalist in the NAACP's search for a leader who can help revive the troubled organization. The package also listed the other finalists: Benjamin Jealous and Alvin Brown.

At 5 columns wide and nearly 12 inches deep with a striking photo of an elegant Rev. Haynes preaching, the package was impressive, but "Barney," a reader in one of the counties adjacent to Tarrant, felt that S-T editors had blown the story out of proportion. He e-mailed:

"I can't believe it! Right on the front page of today's S-T is the article (with picture) of a black preacher, a friend of Jeremiah Wright, who may resurrect the NAACP! And, if this isn't enough, the article continues on half of the second page. I can't believe that the editors of the S-T believes this article is of such news-worthiness that it should occupy this much printers ink or that they would think that the majority of S-T readers would consider it a top news story."

I agreed that the package may have been overplayed, given the heartrending news out of San Angelo about FLDS mothers being forced to leave their children and Rev. Wright's Dallas ties. Still, on the face of things, I speculated that editors added up several factors that led them to play the story so powerfully:

Relatively "local" minister + pastor of one of the biggest black churches in the U.S. + powerful enough to + make the finalist cut + as contender for one of the most powerful political positions in the nation's private sector + capable perhaps of bringing about major change in that institutional powerhouse + and bringing fresh change to the nation's political landscape in the process. Plus, the package brought diversity into the Page One mix. And the development overall reeked of power and prestige, which draws a journalist's attention like the sound of a squeaky gate draws the attention of any watchdog. I could list additional reasons, but those alone add up to plenty of reason to play the package at the size of its news value.

Never heard back from Barney, so I don't know whether he agrees. What do you think?

-- David House

In the spotlight

2008-04-14T13:16:20-05:00

My boss, Jim Witt, often tells reporters that it would be valuable for them to be interviewed for publication. It's different when you're fielding questions, rather than asking them, and the experience provides useful perspective on the process. (As editors, we sometimes have that pleasure.)

Dennis Ryerson, the editor of the Indianapolis Star, wrote this weekend about that very topic. He had fielded complaints from sources about how some of his reporters handled interviews. His response is interesting and worth reading. It may give sources and potential sources a better perspective on the role of the reporter.

--Rex Seline

Fame, of a sort ...

2008-04-10T17:18:14-05:00

The Freedom Forum is opening a new museum in Washington dedicated to journalism. The aptly named Newseum features exhibits about newsgathering from the frivolous to the poignant.

One prominent display is a news helicopter, built by Bell Helicopter in Fort Worth and painted in the colors of NBC5, the local affiliate. The Washington Post has a photo of the copter, hanging in the exhibit space. It accompanies an article about the space being used -- for a price -- for fancy DC parties.

--Rex Seline

The Absolut truth ...

2008-04-09T11:31:07-05:00

Speaking of spelling, one reader called about a story she'd read in Sunday's Star-Telegram regarding a liquor controversy.

"Doesn't anyone there know how to spell absolute?" she asked in an apparent huff. "It's misspelled in the headline and throughout the story. That's just disgusting. Don't you have fulltime people to check spelling? I want an explanation."

We explained the story focused on controversy surrounding an Absolut vodka ad that ran in Mexico. The ad incorporated an 1830s map that showed most of today's western U.S. as what it was back then -- Mexico. And, of course, anti-immigration forces denounced the ad as a conspiracy by Absolut to inspire a takeover of America.

Absolut apologized profusely for what it said was an inadvertent message, but the anti-illegal immigrant camps have called for a massive boycott of Absolut.

As for the reader who thought we don't know how to spell absolute, she was embarrassed upon learning what was going on. "Oh, my gosh," she said. "And I drink Absolut."

-- David House

Some (linguistic) economies don't work

2008-04-09T11:07:49-05:00

With English ravaged by so many text-message shortcuts these days (there are even dictionaries for that branch of writing), perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that readers haven't complained about the hed bust in the Page 4B story about the attorney general's ruling in the pension benefit issue.

Our headline says part of the city's plan to address its retirement fund woes is "unconstitional."

So many t's, so many i's, so little time to write a hed on deadline ... But, hey, if we're trying to write with fewer words, why not use fewer letters if the meaning isn't lost?

AWHFY?

-- David House

A Texas connection ...

2008-04-04T11:45:45-05:00

You may have missed it in coverage of the unfolding drama in Zimbabwe, but authorities have arrested several reporters there.

One of them, Barry Bearak of The New York Times, has a slight Texas connection. He is married to Celia Dugger, daughter of Ronnie Dugger, the founding editor of the muckraking Texas Observer.

It is worth noting that when dictators or rulers want to exercise their power, one of the first things they do is try to muzzle journalists. That's why we take the First Amendment seriously here.

Let's hope for the best for Barry.

-- Rex Seline

A Monday Update:

Bearak has been released. But he suffered injuries from "falls" while in jail.

And more, from the Times Monday:

Bearak was bailed out and is in a clinic, awaiting a court date.

Breaking news ...

2008-04-04T09:43:01-05:00

I have a theory about journalists. There are three primary motivations for getting into this profession:

--You want to make the world a better place, chiefly by identifying the problems and solutions.

--You like to tell stories. You're a raconteur.

--You like to be the first to tell people news. You're a news junkie.

We all mix strains of those, but I would guess I fall primarily in the third category. Alas, for most of my time in this business, newspapers have ceded immediate coverage of breaking news to broadcast or cable TV. We have owned context and depth, explaining the events you might see as they happen on TV. And we cover the important and interesting stuff that isn't always visual. In addition, we often break news with enterprising journalism. (In these cases, we often see our TV colleagues catch up the next day, standing in front of some official building echoing the news we put in print earlier.)

Of course, that's not the same as going live with a spot news event.

But the world is changing. And as we head into spring storm season, it's a good time to take note. With our Web site and digital storytelling, we can be as live and local as anyone. And with our much larger staff -- and our larger base of readers -- we can actually cover more territory with greater detail than our broadcast colleagues.

Yes, they've invested millions in radar and meteorological staff. They're good at that, and we applaud them. But if you want to know about your neighborhood or city, we're more likely to be there. And if you want to tell us or show us your neighborhood or city, drop us an e-mail or add a comment to our blogs.

Don't worry, we're still going to paint the bigger picture -- with depth and context -- in print. That's where we'll sort through the many feeds to provide the best, most relevant information you need to know. And we're still going to be the best watchdog, looking out for your interests while providing enterprising news.

But yep, it's fun to be the first to actually tell you breaking news, as it happens. Watch our Web site.

--Rex Seline

Sniper tale draws a crowd -- of media

2008-04-02T00:12:00-05:00

Last week was quite a shoot-em-up in the Demos' presidential race. And the press responded accordingly, according to figures released by the Project for Excellence in Journalism's study of last week's campaign coverage.

As Tom Rosenstiel, PEJ director, put it in a Tuesday e-mail:

"Democrats dominated election coverage by about a six-to-one margin over Republicans in a week when making headlines was not necessarily a good thing ... .

"Hillary Clinton won the race for exposure last week (at 63%), in part because of the controversy over her statements — later acknowledged to be wrong — about encountering sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia. Her coverage level more than doubled over the previous week when she had lagged far behind Barack Obama who was forced to respond to Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary comments.

"Last week, as the Wright furor subsided somewhat, Obama was a significant or dominant factor in 54% of election stories. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, registered at 24% of the campaign coverage last week, trailing well behind his Democratic rivals. That level was up from 17% the previous week but McCain’s overall coverage amounted to less than half of the attention generated by Clinton or Obama.

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

"The controversy over Clinton’s Bosnia sniper recollection was the largest component of campaign coverage last week, accounting for 14% of all the campaign stories.

"Election coverage filled 34% of the newshole last week, marking the second lowest weekly coverage level since the Campaign Coverage Index started in January.

"New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson figured in 4% of last week’s stories after James Carville compared him to Judas for endorsing Barack Obama."

-- David House

Picking at narrative

2008-04-02T00:01:00-05:00

Today's column examines straight-news narrative -- a summarizing technique that newspaper readers have seen since the dawn of newspapering. But it's a technique that's problematic for politicized readers these days, particularly when reading political coverage and expecting to encounter the "liberal bias" they've heard so much about from radio talk-show entertainers. They see a story that's obviously filled with a writer's thoughts and words and associate it with editorializing, which has an entirely different motive (to advocate, not to examine and explain).

The writer's aim is to inform, using summarized details according to personal knowledge of the topic and information that has been gathered. Yes, it's subjective in that respect, but in a perfect world the motive is 180 degrees from editorializing.

Also, we have to write shorter these days because of space limitations resulting from tighter newsholes and readers' shorter attention spans, and to do so requires plenty of such summarizing that involves straight-news narrative.

In today's column, for instance, I had around 600 words to work with instead of the 700-750 in the past. That meant that I had to trim much information shared with me via e-mail by Margaret Talev of McClatchy's Washington bureau.

The column was built around reader objections to one of Talev's recent stories that examined black liberation theology as embraced by Trinity United Church of Christ and its former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., in the aftermath of torrential coverage regarding their relationships with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

The reader criticism accused Talev of bias and editorializing. Because I frequently hear similar complaints about political coverage, I thought a look at straight-news narrative would be helpful for some readers. Thus the column. I lamented not being able to include some of Talev's comments, but I thought "Explain Yourself" would come in handy as a means of getting those trimmed-out comments to readers.

Here's my question and Talev's full response regarding one aspect of bias:

Do you make a conscious decision to keep your personal opinion out of a story or is it just second nature?

"Interesting question - I guess the answer is a little of both: it is a mantra of newspaper reporting that the coverage be objective, so while that becomes second nature it's also something constantly thought about and talked about in our profession. But it's also true that many times reporters really don't have much of an opinion one way or another on a subject. On some stories there is a "truth" that can be pinned down but on others it is a more elusive task of exploring points of view. The training really is to try to see a subject from many points of view, so as to understand where various sides are coming from. Although I was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church, I was not raised in any church and I am not active with any congregation. I prefer for my spirituality to be an individual pursuit and a private matter, but I am always interested to learn about the nuances of all organized religions and denominations."

One of the blessings of working as a journalist is to have the freedom to work every day with such such openness and unfettered curiosity. These are privileges not granted to everyone in the private and public sectors, but they are essential to getting at the truth of a matter. Working clean means to work like Talev -- open to hearing, examining and reporting all points of view.

-- David House

Core value survives

2008-03-26T01:10:00-05:00

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

2008-03-26T01:08:00-05:00

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

2008-03-25T11:06:26-05:00

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

2008-03-20T14:01:30-05:00

(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

2008-03-19T13:02:24-05:00

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

2008-03-19T06:15:00-05:00

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'

2008-03-19T06:13:00-05:00

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

2008-03-12T07:06:00-05:00

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

2008-03-12T07:00:00-05:00

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 Tuesdayâs 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 âDOâ if we are supporting Senator Obama or âDCâ if we are supporting Senator Clinton and then to sign our names next to our âvoteâ. 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

2008-03-12T06:55:00-05:00

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

Coming March 17: 'Must' reading

2008-03-07T10:41:55-06:00

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has announced that its fifth annual State of the News Media report will be released on St. Patrick's Day, and those of us who are eager to read it may want to toss back some of that green headache medicine beforehand.

There's no preview available, but the report always provides excellent analyses and data on the eight parts that comprise "the media" -- print, magazines, ethnic press, online, local TV, cable TV, network TV and radio -- and the trends that are influencing them.

One feature this year that will be of particular note aims to provide a comprehensive content analysis of 70,000 stories from 48 news outlets in five media. Should be interesting to study a gauge of content that'll give us measures on whether we're as much of a watchdog as we'd like to be and whether we're going as much into soft news as readers claim.

The report also will include results of a survey of journalists in which they were asked how they feel about journalism's future.

In the face of mounting performance pressures, PEJ's report will serve as a welcome navigation tool. Watch for the report, check it out and let us know what you think.

-- David House

Snow daze

2008-03-07T10:07:40-06:00

There's something about snow in Texas. It starts to fall, and the energy picks up in the newsroom.

Perhaps it has something to do with the rarity of snow. Perhaps it has to do with scale and severity. A weather event encompasses the region, so everyone is involved and interested. But while snow and ice do pose a threat, with bad roads and the like, the risk is relatively manageable. The danger is less urgent than it can be with thunderstorms, floods, hail, tornadoes and hurricanes. So it's a good news story to cover, all things considered.

Our crew did a great job yesterday and overnight, online and in print. For a quick taste, check out the photos from all over. And what a great headline on 1A: "Snow angels, devilish traffic."

--Rex Seline

Exposing the rumor mill

2008-03-05T12:06:44-06:00

I received the most heartening phone call this morning from "Alice," a retired Army colonel who called for clarification on rumors she'd heard about Sen. Barack Obama. She wanted to know where she could find the truth about what she suspects to be wild claims about the Democratic presidential candidate's past.

"I can't believe what I'm hearing," she said, "and I'm sick of it, but I don't know what the truth is for sure, so I can't dispute what I'm hearing. You all need to do stories about this and expose these rumors." She said she had challenged the rumor mongers so often, she feels "like it's me against the world."

I explained that the Star-Telegram has published a number of stories and commentaries that debunk the Obama myths out there, but the rumors persist as rumors do. What's she hearing? All of the leading unfounded accusations -- Barack's a Muslim, Barack took the oath on a copy of the Quran, etc., etc. All the stuff one encounters when Googling "truth about Obama" and seeing 990,000 hits. Some sites are credible, many others are not.

Alice said she doesn't have access to the Internet, so I suggested that she jot down and offer a Web site address -- www.snopes.com/ -- to those who are perpetuating the false claims and who have access to the Internet and that they check out the "Hottest 25 Legends." There they'll find truth tests of some of the leading Obama rumors.

Those who have access to such an awesome resource as the Web but do not fact-check what they hear are like gunslingers and drunk drivers. By ignoring their moral responsbilities, they can do a lot of damage. Maybe Alice can at least help to contain a bit of the situation.

-- David House

Mistaken content

2008-03-04T15:33:09-06:00

The Obama campaign bought a huge drop-down ad on S-T.com that's been running today. It's so powerful that it overwhelms all content momentarily, but the ad carries a prominently displayed line explaining that it's advertising paid for by the Obama campaign. Nevertheless, several readers have mistaken the ad for biased news content and they've hurled some pretty heated reaction our way. Here's an example from "Tate" as written:

"My wife and I have been subscribers to your newspaper for 5 straight yearsand off and on for 4 years before that. I use your website for randominformation that I need, especially local news and any major nationalstories. I logged onto the site today for the first time in a while to findout where I can go to vote, and I saw the very large ad for a specificPresidential candidate. I must not have been educated enough to realize thatyour newspaper has a slanted view. I was under an assumption that becauseyou run a very large newspaper, there would be a neutral reporting of thenews so that the community could get all of the info on a topic and generatetheir own views. As of today, I am cancelling my family's subscription to your newspaper andam very upset that I will now have to find a new way to access news stories.I will now be more aware of how I collect my information on topics affectingus locally and nationally. I will no longer access your website, and simplycannot begin to explain how upset that I am. I hope my letter will be taken into account when considering making theseone sided decisions in the future. You are affecting so many people and itnot only infuriates me, but saddens me to see a trusted news source sidingon one side of an extremely important issue."

I replied, explaining that the ad's an ad, not a news story or editorial comment, and I shared the e-mail with Web management. Usually that helps to cool a reader's fire. People can be just as reasonable and admit error as they can be emotional. We hope Tate's confidence in us will be restored.

-- David House

Coverage obeys Hillary

2008-03-04T10:40:16-06:00

That's what the Project for Excellence in Journalism's Campaign Coverage Index found during the past week's coverage. Thanks, Hillary. We needed that.

The media aren't immune to Obama's charisma and the edge-softening that can follow. The media also aren't immune to the chilling effect that Clinton's aggression can create. The results have made great satire on "Saturday Night Live" with spoofs of the media's fawning treatment of Obama and sharp whacks to Hillary. Watch the clips here.

But back to PEJ's index. Here's Director Tom Rosenstiel's report that came in this morning:

"Hillary Clinton’s complaints about a pro-Barack Obama media tilt helped prompt examinations of Obama’s record and catapulted him to a first-place finish in the competition for media exposure the week of Feb. 25-March 2, according to a Project for Excellence study of campaign coverage.

"Obama, a significant or dominant factor in 69% of the campaign stories last week, generated the highest amount of coverage for any candidate this year. The media scrutinized everything from his legislative record to his connections to Louis Farrakhan, and frequently addressed the question of whether journalists have been too soft on the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.

"Clinton was a significant or dominant factor in 58% of election stories last week, her highest level of coverage in 2008. With the Clinton media narrative focused on her being a candidate firmly in combat mode, she enjoyed a respite from recent coverage that had focused on her post-Super Tuesday losing streak and her campaign’s strategic shortcomings.

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

"-- In a week when the media focused nearly four times as much attention on Democrats (68%) than Republicans (15%), presumptive GOP nominee John McCain (28%) was the third-leading newsmaker. But he experienced a 10-point drop from last week and had his lowest coverage level in more than a month.

"-- At 38% of the overall newshole, the campaign accounted for its smallest share of overall weekly news coverage since the Campaign Coverage Index was launched in early January. The previous low mark was 39%.

"-- Mike Huckabee registered at only about 2% of the coverage last week and has practically disappeared from the media’s radar screen. The press gave more attention to non-candidate Michael Bloomberg (3%), who announced that he will not run for president, and Ralph Nader (3%), who declared he will enter the race for the fifth consecutive time."

-- David House

Chewing on the messenger

2008-02-27T17:17:12-06:00

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

2008-02-27T16:19:29-06:00

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

2008-02-27T16:08:54-06:00

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

2008-02-26T11:29:08-06:00

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