Monday, March 15, 2004
The State of American Journalism
The Project for Excellence in Journalism has just released a new report called The State of the News Media 2004. A description in today's New York Times summarizes the report: "Journalism in 2004 is in the midst of an epochal transformation that is complicated by cost-cutting and a public mistrust of the media, a study released Sunday concluded."
Here are two paragraphs from the section on online journalism: "In the meantime, a handful of giant media companies have come to dominate Web news, at least for the moment. Time Warner, the largest of them, controls two of the top four news sites. Nearly 69 percent of the most popular news Web sites are owned by one of the 20 biggest media companies. There are also a myriad of local Internet news sites, whose goals are not to compete for the nationwide audience but rather to appeal to the local community. Their popularity is harder to track."
Web logs, or blogs, such as instapundit.com and kausfiles.com, are an exciting new prospect for the Web. And some of these bloggers are influential. For now, though, bloggers appear to command only a fraction of the online audience. During the first week of the Iraq war, for instance, the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that only 4 percent of Internet users had visited a blog."
Here are two paragraphs from the section on online journalism: "In the meantime, a handful of giant media companies have come to dominate Web news, at least for the moment. Time Warner, the largest of them, controls two of the top four news sites. Nearly 69 percent of the most popular news Web sites are owned by one of the 20 biggest media companies. There are also a myriad of local Internet news sites, whose goals are not to compete for the nationwide audience but rather to appeal to the local community. Their popularity is harder to track."
Web logs, or blogs, such as instapundit.com and kausfiles.com, are an exciting new prospect for the Web. And some of these bloggers are influential. For now, though, bloggers appear to command only a fraction of the online audience. During the first week of the Iraq war, for instance, the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that only 4 percent of Internet users had visited a blog."
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Let's see what happens next . . .
John Kerry called some GOP critics "a crooked, lying group" today, unaware that a nearby mic was "live" and that others could hear his comment. How often will the media replay that clip, and in what context?
I only ask as I clearly remember when, on Sept. 4, 2000 - after speaking at a Labor Day picnic, attended, presumably, by families with children - candidate GW Bush referred to N.Y. Times reporter Adam Clymer as "an asshole." This, too, was picked up by a live mic. The comment was barely covered by the media.
No kidding.
Compare that to Howard Dean's rebel yell following his loss in the Iowa Caucuses. That clip was replayed ad infinitum, ad nauseum for days afterward.
These three examples highlight the consequences (intended or otherwise) of what I like to call "the new voyeurism," where each of our mundane, everyday actions and activities is scrutinized, microanalyzed and available to a population that's ever in search of contextless nuggets of information. (See David Brin's "2020 Vision: Journalism the Day After Tomorrow").
Two of these examples are historical, one is contemporary; let's see what happens next.
Do these nuggets represent news? Maybe. Are they important? Perhaps. Will they be covered? Reported on? Analyzed? Hmmm.
Let's see what happens next.
I only ask as I clearly remember when, on Sept. 4, 2000 - after speaking at a Labor Day picnic, attended, presumably, by families with children - candidate GW Bush referred to N.Y. Times reporter Adam Clymer as "an asshole." This, too, was picked up by a live mic. The comment was barely covered by the media.
No kidding.
Compare that to Howard Dean's rebel yell following his loss in the Iowa Caucuses. That clip was replayed ad infinitum, ad nauseum for days afterward.
These three examples highlight the consequences (intended or otherwise) of what I like to call "the new voyeurism," where each of our mundane, everyday actions and activities is scrutinized, microanalyzed and available to a population that's ever in search of contextless nuggets of information. (See David Brin's "2020 Vision: Journalism the Day After Tomorrow").
Two of these examples are historical, one is contemporary; let's see what happens next.
Do these nuggets represent news? Maybe. Are they important? Perhaps. Will they be covered? Reported on? Analyzed? Hmmm.
Let's see what happens next.
This is Roger "Ain't Nothin Live Over Here!" Scimé a graduate student at the Reynolds School of Journalism, signing off!
Sunday, February 29, 2004
"WARNING: This newscast contains no nutritional value"
Just when we thought it was safe to start watching White House press conferences again -- as the intrepid protectors of the First Amendment were beginning to get ahead of White House spinmeisters (For a discussion of how administration officials manage to avoid answering uncomfortable press queries, click here), and when the press appeared to be finally shrugging off the not-so-veiled accusations of "treason!" by Fleischer and Ashcroft, the White House is getting ready to launch its own answer to the likes of CNN and C-SPAN: the Digital Video and Imagery Distribution System (DVIDS), which promises to take that pesky ol' "freedom" out of "freedom of the press."
If the press is increasingly kept from news stories out of Iraq by a hostile military -- to the extent that the only news that is allowed to emerge from that beleagured country is the "official party line," courtesy of the taxpayer-funded DVIDS —- how, then, can we be certain what is really happening over there? The simple answer is: we can't.
If the US government 1) controls independent access to the news, and 2) offers its own proprietary and exclusive coverage, free from any such control -- bought and paid for by (among others) the very news outlets against whom they will be competing -- is there a future for any free press in the US?
This is the Administration's version of "Radio Free America," and I, for one, am offended!
"All Bush, all the time?" Not with my Bill of Rights, Bubba!
If the press is increasingly kept from news stories out of Iraq by a hostile military -- to the extent that the only news that is allowed to emerge from that beleagured country is the "official party line," courtesy of the taxpayer-funded DVIDS —- how, then, can we be certain what is really happening over there? The simple answer is: we can't.
If the US government 1) controls independent access to the news, and 2) offers its own proprietary and exclusive coverage, free from any such control -- bought and paid for by (among others) the very news outlets against whom they will be competing -- is there a future for any free press in the US?
This is the Administration's version of "Radio Free America," and I, for one, am offended!
"All Bush, all the time?" Not with my Bill of Rights, Bubba!
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Keep Bush's religion out of my Constitution!
"[Mr. Bush] has always strongly believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman . . . There is widespread support in this country for protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage." - White House press secretary Scott McClellan, Feb. 24. 2004.When GWB asserts that it is his responsibility to help preserve the "sanctity" of marriage through a Constitutional amendment banning gays from enjoying that institution, he is doing so solely on religious grounds.
As even this linguistically and syntactically challenged president is undoubtedly aware, "sanctity" has a purely religious meaning, referring to holy, saintly, sacred or Godly.
Since his assumption of the presidency in 2001, Bush has managed to inject his religious beliefs into almost every aspect of his questionable policies, from his fight against "evil-doers" to his faith-based domestic initiatives.
This latest assault on the First Amendment's admonition that government be no respector of any religion goes too far and is too blatant an attempt to turn the greatest political and human rights' document in the history of mankind into an appendix to the Old and New Testaments.
Mr. Bush: If you dare to assume that your "Bush Doctrine" compares favorably with the Founders' Bill of Rights, then you are even less aware of your role in the history of this country than even your harshest critics charge.
This is Roger "You'll take my Bill of Rights When You Pry it From my Cold, Dead Fingers" Scimé a graduate student at the Reynolds School of Journalism, signing off!
Monday, February 23, 2004
This just in!
Acting on a tip from Secretary of Education Rod Paige, the Department of Homeland Security today carried out raids on more than 200,000 public schools, seizing textbooks and gradebooks and forcing thousands of handcuffed K-12 teachers on a "perp walk" before hundreds of bewildered students.
Paige, former head of the Texas School System and architect of that state's "Texas Miracle," accused the NEA (the national teachers' union) of being a "terrorist organization."
Speaking to the nation's governors at a White House meeting this afternoon, Paige's comments prompted Atty. General John Ashcroft to launch an all-out assault on that organization. Acting swiftly, agents immediately moved to freeze the NEA's assets and seize its membership records.
A short time later, George W. Bush designated the group's leaders "enemy combatants," and ordered they be held at Guantanamo Naval Base. Experts agree that it will take more than a "doctors' note" before they will be allowed back in a classroom.
Mr. Bush defended the action: "The most important job of anyone in public office is to protect the people of our country," he said.
It was not immediately known if the crackdown will be extended to include college professors, who are thought to be in a particularly vulnerable position, considering Mr. Bush's grades while attending Yale during the 1970s.
Paige, former head of the Texas School System and architect of that state's "Texas Miracle," accused the NEA (the national teachers' union) of being a "terrorist organization."
Speaking to the nation's governors at a White House meeting this afternoon, Paige's comments prompted Atty. General John Ashcroft to launch an all-out assault on that organization. Acting swiftly, agents immediately moved to freeze the NEA's assets and seize its membership records.
A short time later, George W. Bush designated the group's leaders "enemy combatants," and ordered they be held at Guantanamo Naval Base. Experts agree that it will take more than a "doctors' note" before they will be allowed back in a classroom.
Mr. Bush defended the action: "The most important job of anyone in public office is to protect the people of our country," he said.
It was not immediately known if the crackdown will be extended to include college professors, who are thought to be in a particularly vulnerable position, considering Mr. Bush's grades while attending Yale during the 1970s.
This is Roger Scimé, hoping for at least a B at the Reynolds School of Journalism, signing off!
Outrage!
Education Secretary Rod Paige called the National Education Association (NEA) a "terrorist organization" today, during a White House governors' meeting.
Paige, by the way, was the steward of the corrupt and discredited so-called "Texas Miracle" -- the model, by the way, for "No Child Left Behind."
By any measure, Paige has overstayed his welcome. I'd like to think we have a society that believes its leaders should strive for something better than a C.
Such reckless disregard for a) the truth, b) the safety of NEA members c) all sense of legal common-sense and decency cries out for Paige's resignation. In this post-9/11 world, to call an individual a terrorist is tantamount to accusing somebody of being a witch in 17th century Salem; to label an organization "terrorist" is to have its funding cut and assets seized, its members investigated and its officers provided lifetime food and lodging at Guantanamo Naval Base.
We can't let this go by. It's arguably the first salvo in Bush's reelection campaign.
Rod Paige has got to go!
Paige, by the way, was the steward of the corrupt and discredited so-called "Texas Miracle" -- the model, by the way, for "No Child Left Behind."
By any measure, Paige has overstayed his welcome. I'd like to think we have a society that believes its leaders should strive for something better than a C.
Such reckless disregard for a) the truth, b) the safety of NEA members c) all sense of legal common-sense and decency cries out for Paige's resignation. In this post-9/11 world, to call an individual a terrorist is tantamount to accusing somebody of being a witch in 17th century Salem; to label an organization "terrorist" is to have its funding cut and assets seized, its members investigated and its officers provided lifetime food and lodging at Guantanamo Naval Base.
We can't let this go by. It's arguably the first salvo in Bush's reelection campaign.
Rod Paige has got to go!
This is Roger "Not A Terrorist" Scimé, supporting the NEA as a student at the Reynolds School of Journalism, signing off!
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Limits on freedom, redux . . .
In this digital age, more and more government documents are being posted on the Internet, which has - as its upside - allowed unprecedented access to a vast ocean of information. This permits the public, press and watchdogs to see past its oily surface scum to what's hidden below.
Now, however, the DOD (Department of Defense) is posting a "No Swimming" sign on that ocean of information, by severely restricting the information that can be posted on the DOD's web site.
To belabor the metaphor, lifeguard Don Rumsfeld has decided that the hoi-polloi are not to be trusted in the restricted waters of his own private beach front.
Now, however, the DOD (Department of Defense) is posting a "No Swimming" sign on that ocean of information, by severely restricting the information that can be posted on the DOD's web site.
To belabor the metaphor, lifeguard Don Rumsfeld has decided that the hoi-polloi are not to be trusted in the restricted waters of his own private beach front.
Brought to you by Roger Scimé - desperately dog-paddling in shark-infested waters.
Monday, February 16, 2004
Candidates e-mail Web videos
Interesting story from MSNBC about the newest form of political advertising: emailing Web videos to supporters. See "Bush, Kerry turn to Web video ads."
Limits to . . . er, what was that again?
If we're going to have a serious discussion about candidates' web sites, we really shouldn't overlook web sites of the anti-candidates.
In 1999, the web site gwbush.com was launched, and to say it was not sanctioned by the Bush-Cheney campaign would be an understatement. The campaign was understandably angry (!) and launched a concerted attack on the site's owners.
This prompted a remarkable statement from the man who would later become the sole arbitor of who could be designated an "enemy combatant" -- and held without trial, charge or attorney for the rest of his or her life: "There ought to be limits to freedom."
In 1999, the web site gwbush.com was launched, and to say it was not sanctioned by the Bush-Cheney campaign would be an understatement. The campaign was understandably angry (!) and launched a concerted attack on the site's owners.
This prompted a remarkable statement from the man who would later become the sole arbitor of who could be designated an "enemy combatant" -- and held without trial, charge or attorney for the rest of his or her life: "There ought to be limits to freedom."
This is Roger Scimé free (at least for now) at the Reynolds School of Journalism, signing off!
See what happens when you don't have a First Amendment!
Like a lot of Americans, I like to check out what other countries' media are saying about us. That's why I regularly visit such exotic web sites as al Jazerra, The International Herald-Tribune, and even - God help me! - The Washington Times.
Most often, though, I surf, look or listen to the BBC - in all its iterations (respectively: web, PBS and NPR).
What will I do, however, if the British government succeeds in dismantling the old gal, as this Yahoo News story suggests it's considering
Any suggestions?
Most often, though, I surf, look or listen to the BBC - in all its iterations (respectively: web, PBS and NPR).
What will I do, however, if the British government succeeds in dismantling the old gal, as this Yahoo News story suggests it's considering
Any suggestions?
This is Roger Scimé, still blogging from the Reynolds School of Journalism, signing off!
Memo to Matt Drudge: Let's (not) do the Time Warp again!
Dear Matt,
Er, it was an error -- wasn't it?
I couldn't help but be amused by your headline of the last few days: FLASHBACK: MEDIA GRILLED BUSH OVER 'ADULTERY' CLAIMS. For a moment or two, I found myself thinking in alarm: Omigosh! Now, it'll be all over talk radio and Fox that the press is biased! A double standard: going after Bush, but not Bob. Please, please, don't say that, Matt!
Fortunately, I needn't have worried. Anyone with the intelligence of a carrot would have followed the link to the story itself, which is a bit of misdirection, based upon the headline.
For those of us who have less than the intelligence of a carrot, the actual story can be found here. My point is that the story has nothing at all to do with GWB (George II), but rather with GHWB (George I).
Matt, oh Matt. How could you have made such an error?
Er, it was an error -- wasn't it?
This is Roger "(It's just a) jump to the left" Scimé dancin' the night away from the Reynolds School of Journalism, signing off!
Improving reporting about campaigns and candidates
Campaign coverage has been repeatedly criticized over the years for focusing on polls, the horserace, on scandal and personality, while ignoring coverage of issues, context, and the practical advice necessary to help citizens get more involved with elections.
The American Prospect has an article today, Wake up Time, providing five pointers for improving political reporting in the U.S. today. Those of you who support Bush may have a hard time getting through the preamble, but read the author's five points carefully to see how much "new media" has changed the environment in which political reporting takes place. The author recommends:
1. Go beyond the "he said, she said" and tell us what you believe to be true and important about a story.
2. Challenge the master narrative with genuine investigative reporting.
3. Show proportionality in covering controversies.
4. (Show) A little solidarity on behalf of the truth...
5. Don't let non-news organs drive the news cycle.
In each of these areas, he shows how the "new media" are changing the way old media should operate. Newspapers, television and radio aren't disappearing, but they are changing as the competition changes, and understanding how to resist that which reinforces thin, superficial, misleading political reporting, and how to build on reporting that is truly a public service is a challenge for this era.
Campaign coverage has been repeatedly criticized over the years for focusing on polls, the horserace, on scandal and personality, while ignoring coverage of issues, context, and the practical advice necessary to help citizens get more involved with elections.
The American Prospect has an article today, Wake up Time, providing five pointers for improving political reporting in the U.S. today. Those of you who support Bush may have a hard time getting through the preamble, but read the author's five points carefully to see how much "new media" has changed the environment in which political reporting takes place. The author recommends:
1. Go beyond the "he said, she said" and tell us what you believe to be true and important about a story.
2. Challenge the master narrative with genuine investigative reporting.
3. Show proportionality in covering controversies.
4. (Show) A little solidarity on behalf of the truth...
5. Don't let non-news organs drive the news cycle.
In each of these areas, he shows how the "new media" are changing the way old media should operate. Newspapers, television and radio aren't disappearing, but they are changing as the competition changes, and understanding how to resist that which reinforces thin, superficial, misleading political reporting, and how to build on reporting that is truly a public service is a challenge for this era.
Getting it wrong . . . getting it right
Matt Drudge is at it again. Trying to build on its success in breaking l'affaire Lewinski during the previous administration, that accumulator of others' stories who fancies himself the reincarnation of Walter Winchell, is pushing the rumor that John Kerry once had an affair with an intern. So far, though, the story has failed to gain any traction other than with the British tabloids.
In a burst of initiative, CSJ's Columbia Spectator tried to track down the rumor and . . . well, here's the story.
Hey, Matt: Better you should seek to emulate Ari Fleicher; that way you needn't tell us anything.
In a burst of initiative, CSJ's Columbia Spectator tried to track down the rumor and . . . well, here's the story.
Hey, Matt: Better you should seek to emulate Ari Fleicher; that way you needn't tell us anything.
This is Roger Scimé, who channels no one but himself, from the Reynolds School of Journalism, signing off!
