Great questions about the "S"-word (Scandal!)

Skip Foster, writing for Everyday Ethics on the Poynter site, deconstructs an AP lead about the recent situation at Duke University involving allegations of rape by a stripper at a party hosted by the lacrosse team. Foster asks the right questions about how journalists frame stories, and how we use loaded words inappropriately in our articles. It's worth a read and discussion.

What do we expect from gossip columnists?

The current turmoil over charges that gossip columnists at the New York Post not only accepted lots of expensive freebies from sources, but that one allegedly attempted to bribe sources, is creating a maelstrom of comment and disgust among journalists. (See this New York Daily News article.) The controversy leads to the inevitable question of whether the same ethical standards we expect from journalists should be applied to gossip columnists. That's the subject of discussion in the pages of the Poynter Institute's ethics columns this week. The question is a good one: do we expect that the "news" we receive about celebrities is really true? Do we expect that the people who bring us this "news" can be free to accept trips, parties and other favors from the celebrities or the PR people who run their clients' lives? What do you think?

Katie and Meredith

What changes are in store for the CBS Evening News after the announcement that Katie Couric has agreed to follow in the legacy of Murrow and Cronkite by anchoring the national newscast? Couric brings a different style--warmer, yet every bit as professional. In an era of personal celebrity journalism, she is a good choice to try to boost ratings and that is what counts the most these days to corporate executives. Hopefully her stint as a serious reporter will help her find a balance between the human touch she exhibited on the Today show and the more staid and stoic approach we expect from serious network news anchors.

An interesting element of both the Couric and Vierra "stories" are the public struggles of their spouses and the tragic and heroic personal lives they have led. This human quality of both women should serve to bond them to viewers and perhaps increase viewers for both their shows.

Will the civic life of America be better served by the information they provide us and the influence they may wield over serious news-gathering and reporting efforts in TV? I'm certainly willing to give them a chance.

[BTW--Jeff Bliss of the Hoover Institute is reporting that Pepperdine alumnae Nicolla Hewitt, a Today show producer, is moving to CBS with Couric.]

Take Your Laptop With You to the "Reading Room"

Today's post is courtesy of Audrey Reed, editor of Pepperdine's weekly newspaper, Graphic.

The New York Times changed its Web site on April 3, and the resulting product is much more reader friendly. As Slate writer Jack Shafer said (http://www.slate.com/id/2139278/), he's cancelling his subscription to the New York Times print edition, and saving the 600+ bucks his subscription costs. He advises others to do the same, and with the money saved people should buy a larger monitor.

The Times is arguably the county's leading newspaper, so when they do something, the entire field takes note. I suppose we, as "print"
journalists, should be getting used to hearing these sort of comments from Web-savvy readers, and begin to think more like the Star in terms of how we present our stories. (Remember, Gretchen Macchiarella. of the Ventura Star said that the Stars’ stories are moving toward first being published on the Web and then in print.)

I think it'll be interesting to see which school of advertising thought will prevail. On one hand, there's the idea that plopping ads on the site and having no subscription fees will produce higher profits. The other side is to have a subscription fee (which also requires a login), but then there's no to little advertising. I'm rooting for the free access with ads, even though that means I'll be subjecting myself to blatant and non-so blatant advertising. I think when it comes down to it, having to remember one more password and user name combination and logging in to one more site will eventually turn away people.

And then there's the issue of what to read in the bathroom now that Web sites are picking up steam ... Call me old fashioned but, I think I will always find laptop use in the restroom gross.
--
Audrey E. Reed
Editor in Chief, the Graphic
Freelance Writer
c. 310.498.1077
o. 310.506.4314
http://audrey.e.reed.googlepages.com

Kill Objectivity?

Michael Kinsley, writing in Slate, says it's time to kill the notion of objectivity. Kinsley calls objectivity "less an ideal than a conceit." The former (and short-lived) editor of the editorial pages of the L.A. Times makes an interesting argument worth debating. One hopes he is dead wrong! (Thanks to Romanesko for the post.)

Future of Journalism panel discussion

Here's the link to an interesting panel discussion recently in San Jose. With the Mercury News' future up in the air, it's a good place for those who care about the paper, and about digital "journalism," to provide us with some insights. Happy reading.

A strength like no other

In a post today on the Poynter Institute website, Northeastern University prof Bill Kirtz interviews winners of Harvard's Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting. The gist of his interviews is that award winners are all dedicated to the proposition that newspapers are best situated to succeed in the niche arena of investigative reporting. "If papers are going to survive, we must provide readers with these services," says Jack Leonard of the Los Angeles Times.

At papers where this year's winners work, reporters are encouraged and supported as they undertake the time-consuming (and therefore expensive) grunt work necessary to ferret out information we need to function as a civil and free society. As Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post remarks: We can do it. Bloggers can't. That's our franchise." Her colleague, Jeffrey Smith adds, "If we concentrate on investigative reporting, we can make a difference and distinguish ourselves from everything available on the Web. We're very slow as an institution to realize that we can't just write what happened. We have to tell them what they can't get in any other media."

A Voice of Hope

According to McClatchy Company CEO Gary Pruitt, “newspapers are still among the best media businesses—and the most important.” In his op-ed piece on the Wall Street Journal today (students can access it through FACTIVA), Pruitt lays out the counter-argument to the wail of voices predicting the demise of newspapers. He notes most newspaper companies are still profitable, even though circulation and advertising has slipped. Still, he asserts, newspapers are holding onto their audiences well in the face of a proliferation of TV outlets, new magazines, and certainly more web sites. He also cites surveys showing readership of newspapers hovering around 50 percent of the adult population. Pruitt’s main contribution to our understanding of the future of journalism, and the main reason his company paid $6.5 billion for Knight Ridder, is the belief that the traditional newspaper is at the top of a pyramid of media sites disseminating information. “Replacing the notion of ‘readers’ with ‘audiences,’ we’re fast becoming multi-platform, 24/7 news companies—and it’s working,” he says. Most important to this journalism professor’s ear, Pruitt reinforces his belief that a strong journalistic enterprise is necessary for the survival of self-government and democracy. That’s an important role, he notes, as democracy undergoes attack from “spinmeisters, partisans and ideologues.”

A victory for newspapers?

Today there are lots of people talking about McClatchy’s $4.5 billion offer to purchase Knight Ridder. The buzz concerns McClatchy’s intention to sell Knight Ridder’s higher profile papers such as the San Jose Mercury News and the Philadelphia Inquirer. These papers, according to McClatchy CEO Gary Pruitt, aren’t in communities where the growth rate of the population, and hence the circulation and advertising base, is sufficient enough to justify keeping the papers. There’s a fair bit of agreement that McClatchy is a newspaper-focused company committed to the future of journalism, not a company that dances to the tune of short-term Wall Street analysts. Still, the man who some say forced Knight Ridder’s sale, hedge fund guru Bruce S. Sherman, also owns a stake of McClatchy, and the sale of some of the papers troubles journalistic purists. Potential buyers for the Knight Ridder castoffs include William Dean Singleton, whose Media News company owns a string of papers in California, Colorado and elsewhere. Stay tuned.