Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
Sharon, that is a real concern -- it's not so much the trend toward
partisanship that we should be worried about (some would even argue
that this is a welcome change from the old American-style of
"objective" reporting), but it is the abandonment of fact-based
reporting that is extremely troubling (and that this kind of reporting
is financially rewarded with few consequences, as in the case with much
of Fox News). 

As the foundations for traditional journalism are further weakened,
they are vulnerable to political hacks like O'Keefe and Breitbart who
rush into the vacuum created by the loss of real journalists. O'Keefe's
misleading expose on the community activist group Acorn, and
Breitbart's advocacy for a misleading video of Shirley Sherrod are
examples of where mainstream media ran with -- and helped amplify --
dubious allegations. There are many factors that go into these
productions, but one is certainly the decrease in fact-checking and
other vetting processes that have been trimmed back due to cost-cutting
in traditional news rooms.

So, in other words, this is all symptomatic of larger structural
problems in journalism and we will likely be seeing much more of it.
Laura McGann has an excellent chapter in our book that focuses on the
rise of right wing "muckraking," specifically that being funded by
conservative think tanks.
  

    
Following that last comment, what do you think about such a small
group of people determining the content on the Web with respect to
media, etc.?
It's the same six or ten guys at every gathering, at the top of the
tweet lists, etc.  Not that they don't have a lot to say, but the fact
that they are so 'wide-cast' at the moment and the top "influencers".
Is that just part and parcel of a transition and will we eventually get
the diversity of opinion necessary for real public discourse? I mean,
they are their own 'filter bubble'.
  

    
I just posted this elsewhere, but it fits right into this discussion.  I'm 
watching C-SPAN at the moment just watched a perfect thumbnail of what's 
wrong.

"I'm listening to two reporters, one from Politico and the other from 
Bloomberg, dancing as fast as they can NOT to deal with a very articulate
caller's point that the media refuses to hold politicians responsible for 
their facts, or to back up their opinions, and that since they have no    
real historical background, all they can do is report a horse race with   
no context.

The two professional reporters immediately ignored her and began talking  
about the horse race.  They haven't a clue what they're reporting on."
  

    
Victor, one of the pieces in the book (McChesney & Nichols) refers to
Jaron Lanier's You Are Not a Gadget. The quote casts journalists (and
creative types in general) as "the new peasants." 

Many start-up and online operations seem to be counting on writers who
will work for peanuts or even for free. I suppose the Huffington Post
story has encouraged this approach--get your content for free and then
sell to AOL for big money. 

I've never looked at HuffPo much, but as Ross Perot used to say, it's
good dog food if the dog will eat it. A similar approach in broadcast
television--lots of dance contests, karaoke, low-budget "reality"
shows, etc.--has attracted viewers without big outlays for talent.    

Do you think this approach is sustainable when it comes to journalism?
 As I say, I buy your definition of political journalism as a public
good, and I don't think this is a sound approach to its provision. But
I also accept McChesney and Nichols's claim that we'll always have
news--headlines, weather, scores, etc.--which may mask the absence of
journalism. It may take some people a while to realize they're not
getting quality stuff, and millions more may be quite willing to live
on screed. 
  

    
Excellent post, Peter. 

Complicating all of the above is the coming of new generations of both
consumers and documenters of news. Crowdsourcing to them will be the
norm to those who try to work in the field, and the standard applied by
consumers in years to come can only be guessed at.

I'm falling to some extent into the trap that faces all elders:
bemoaning the folly of the young. It's still a valid concern, IMO - my
parents watched Cronkite and his ilk; the young now see Andrew
Breitbart as a welcome commentator on somewhat respectable news venues.
The effect can't be dismissed.
  

    
Interest point Angie...I was thinking after reading Rik and Peter's
posts that there might be some pressure applied by all the new media,
bloggers and citizen journalists applied on the traditional outlets via
simple competition, but after reading your post I'm not so
sure...perhaps it will take a combination of competition and adaptation
as the old merges with the new.
  

    
Victor, I'm thinking it might be helpful to view the areas of factual
reporting and public discourse as a Commons and develop collaboration
and cooperation strategies accordingly. 

e.g. what's going on in Seattle:
http://journalismthatmatters.org/blog/2011/02/18/seattles-bold-plan-for-a-jour
nalism-commons/

and what's going on within Creative Commons:
https://creativecommons.org/tag/journalism
  

    
I think Ted and Rik in the posts above offer important insights on
increasingly prominent trends in our news media ecology -- more
uninformed commentary and less hard reporting and analysis. The recent
debates over the debt ceiling have been a great case study in the false
equivalence I mentioned earlier - both parties equally to blame and an
emphasis on their political maneuvers as opposed to historical
context, what it will do to our social services and economy, etc.

Ted has pointed to a number of new models and initiatives -- all
promising, IMHO -- but I'm not convinced they will, even in
combination, provide an antidote to the shrilling and trivializing of
our national news discourse. Nonetheless, I love the Commons idea, and
I hope to see more collaboration and cooperation in future journalistic
models. 
  

    
Peter has added to the discussion another great post (#54). Tom Frank
in our book also gets at this labor aspect of journalism -- some
commentators have referred to part of it as a "de-skilling" process in
news production. Others have dubbed it the "hamsterization of
journalism." But basically it points to a downward trend in paying
journalists increasingly less an increasingly degraded final news
product. (Imagine if this same process was happening to, say, medical
doctors). This doesn't bode well for the future of news for obvious
reasons.

To get at Peter's last point, will people notice that they are
consuming a shoddier product and will they care? It's hard to predict,
especially since it's a gradual process and it is increasingly hard to
discern the differences between different types of content, especially
online. It also lends itself to the facile critique that media simply
"give people what they want." Even if this article of faith neglects
the fact that people cannot know what they are missing if they haven't
been exposed to different kinds of media, for us to argue that people
should be receiving a particular kind of news diet opens us up to the
age-old charges of paternalism. 

Nonetheless, it's not elitist to point out that our news media are, by
and large, amplifying a lot of misinformation. And these processes are
being driven by profit motives and little else. 
  

    
"Nonetheless, it's not elitist to point out that our news media are, by
 and large, amplifying a lot of misinformation."

Boy, does that beg to be repeated.  It became obvious during Gulf War II 
that the media was part of the problem.   When we were years into this 
fiasco, a huge percentage of the US population still thought that Saddam 
Hussein was responsible for 9/11.   Not only was the truth not getting 
out, the media misinformation was continuing unabated.
  

    
The digital generation seems to have moved from "I want my MTV" to "I
want my mobile". Back to what Angie said, this generation of Millenials
seem to be more concerned with who had what for lunch, saw what movie,
and checked into what pub last...my point is that it does us no public
good to cater to their data hunger - it's a calorie free diet of
internet junk food.

Hopefully the news media will target where the larger populations are:
Boomers and Seniors...who still like a richer info diet. I suppose it
all comes down to disposable income and disposable time. Marketers and
advertisers are going to chase the money. I understand that, someone
has to pay the bills. So the struggle seems to be won on the side of
the purchasing public...who is willing to put their money where their
data wants really are? That will take some creative pushes to reach and
cultivate those audience awarenesses.

Meanwhile we should be concentrating on educating the kids coming up
to appreciate the richness of information available on all media
platforms and to think reflectively...to question their futures and the
importance of being informed....we should be getting them involved in
data acquisition and creation as soon as possible. Many Millenials
aren't going to get too serious until they have children of their own.
Creative Pull articles are probably most effective in drawing them into
broader interests. Boomers and Seniors are already pissed and
concerned about what's going on, we should fan the flames. 
  

    
According to this article the reason people still read newspapers is
for local news and coupons...doesn't bode well for that platform:

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-why-people-still-subscribe-to-
newspapers-2011-8?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=SAI%20Chart
 %20Of%20The%20Day&utm_campaign=SAI_COTD_080211
  

    
I think local news, like local politics, is incredibly important and
deserves attention. Misinformation and ignorance on the local level
hurt us too, all over the world.
  

    
Let me ask the assembled here, then: where do you get your local news?
Is it from a mix of old-style professionals and new media? Is it
fiscally sustainable, as you surmise?

Here in San Francisco, we're lucky on this point: in addition to the
more prominent traditional outlets, tiny KALW-FM has made it a goal to
pick up the slack from other radio entities*, building and nurturing a
local news division disproportionate in its reach and excellence. It's
a case study of everything we've been discussing here, defying lack of
funding, miniscule resources (small, crowded facilities), and massive
competition to produce award-winning deep journalism.

As to that *asterisk: not fifteen years ago, every radio station, even
the almost 24/7 pop music stations, supported a news staff of sorts,
and was required to keep an FCC "good guy" file. It had to be produced
on demand - documentation of everything the station did to fulfill its
obligation as a holder of a public trust. This usually took the form of
Sunday or overnight public service shows, but also included charity
events and other "do-gooder" endeavors.

We've all but lost the sense that the radio airwaves are owned by the
public, only leased to the corporate owners (and still, the odd small
company here and there). With that we've lost yet another form of local
news and event coverage. 

It's a bit afield of what we've been discussing here, but relevant to
the overall loss of public input on the importance of news. 

It's analogous to the fragmenting of print media, as well: used to be
concentrated in a few hands, which were forced to be publicly
responsive and responsible. Now, the local journalism it once supported
is cropping up instead in podcasts and pirate stations.

Victor, have you any sense that this is an arena where we might regain
traction in the future? Some reclaiming of the authority the Fairness
Doctrine once covered, perhaps, or some other vision of re-forming the
airwaves for journalistic gain?
  

    
I listen to KALW every morning, and I still watch KTVU TV, even though
too often they get the Fox viewpoint on. Their news readers are just
really still first rate.

Can't watch any local TV news.

Oh, and I listen to Sam Seder's podcast every day. First rate.
  

    
We have a local neighborhood paper that comes out 3 times a week, then
our Phoenix paper....add to that the three regional Facebook news
pages,Yelp, Kayak and Google News (local) and I'm pretty much covered.
That and the local pubs and coffee shops:) 
  

    
This is a great discussion. As a number of folks have noted, it speaks
to the ongoing importance of news, especially local news. Until
recently, a major source for local news was local radio (and t.v.)
stations. Now broadcast journalism has all but disappeared among
commercial outlets. NPR provides solid national radio coverage and
under-funded independent community stations continue to try to provide
local coverage.  

This absence is an important reminder that the journalism crisis cuts
across all news media, not just newspapers. Angie is right to suggest
that there might be some opportunity to recover a public service
mission for radio. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps (who also contributed
to our book) has been campaigning for a public value test that, among
other things, would give broadcast policy some real teeth by mandating
public interest obligations for broadcasters or they will have their
licenses yanked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/business/media/03fcc.html

Unfortunately this initiative has gained little traction thus far, and
the FCC recently squandered an opportunity with their "future of
media" report by minimizing the FCC's role in intervening in the
journalism crisis: http://www.fcc.gov/info-needs-communities 

For a bit of historical background on trying to convince commercial
broadcasters to serve the public interest, I wrote a paper on 1940s
efforts to create a public service model for broadcast news:
http://www.victorpickard.com/upload/Pickard%20Blue%20Book%20article.pdf

To get back to Angie's question, I would argue that we should continue
to try reforming commercial broadcasting -- and regain some regulatory
authority, as Angie suggests -- by instituting stronger public
interest obligations. But it might be more important to try to fund
nonprofit alternatives and de-commercialize media in general (by
breaking up chains, diversifying ownership, etc.).
  

    
And there's the area of 'voice'....hopefully new journalist's will
find their voice across multi-media platforms and audiences will grow
around them...they might even form into  new digital organizations like
the old and somewhat mediated AP and UPI.
  

    
Ironically, the best broadcast TV news channel for SF-Marin-East Bay, is  
channel 2 in Oakland, which is a Fox affiliate.   But it's not Fox News.  
And they put a new anchor in a couple of years ago to replace Dennis 
Richmond, who was our best local anchor since Dave McElhatton, and the new 
guy sounds a bit too much like Kenneth the Page. But the local reporting 
is, IMHO, the best.   

The networks are useless for national news.  All context-free, horse-race 
reporting.
  

    
Google+'s Carnival of Journalism, via RJI and the Knight Foundation:

http://carnivalofjournalism.com/2011/07/29/august-carnival-of-journalism/

For our August carnival, I’d like to talk about Google+ from a
journalist (not necessarily news organization) perspective, from a big
picture (privacy or open web) or smaller picture (how to manage scale
issues with comments) perspective. What does Google+ mean for
journalists, today and tomorrow?
  

    
Victor, would you talk a bit about Revisiting the Road not Taken: A
Social Democratic Vision of the Press and also your reflections on the
Hutchins Commission and the Role of Media in a Democratratic Society?
  

    
Sure, Ted. My essay in the book is based on my dissertation/book
research (the article that I linked to in my last post focuses on one
of my case studies, the 1946 FCC Blue Book). I look at key historical
debates that defined the role of media in U.S. society.  Drawing from
archival research, I analyze current media policies and reform efforts
by looking at previous critical junctures, specifically the postwar
1940s when policymakers, social movements, and communication industries
grappled over commercial media’s role in a democratic society. 

By focusing on policy formations around the Hutchins Commission and
the FCC’s "Blue Book," I propose that a suppressed media reform
movement resulted in a "postwar settlement" marked by three
assumptions: media should remain self-regulated, practice social
responsibility, and be protected by a negative freedom of the press.

You specifically asked about the Hutchins Commission, a blue ribbon
initiative composed of the leading intellects of the day. More than 60
years ago the Hutchins Commission faced many of the same challenges we
face today during a similar media crisis, and boldly stated the problem
for what it was: the result of deeply systemic flaws endemic to
commercial media. But then, at a crucial moment, when equally bold
solutions were needed, the commission fell back on palatable halfway
measures, helping ensure that future generations of Americans would be
forced to face similar media crises. 

The American public has inherited the legacy of this failed media
reform project that left intact a nominally socially responsible,
self-regulated, commercial media system. 

This postwar settlement would impact much of what Americans would see
and hear in their media for decades to come. It consolidated an
industry-friendly arrangement that contained reform movements,
foreclosed on alternative models, discouraged structural critiques of
the U.S. media system, and privileged media owners’ rights over those
of the public’s — a relationship that continues today.

For further reading, I wrote a paper on the Hutchins Commission (I
also discuss it in my chapter in our book):
http://www.victorpickard.com/upload/Whether%20the%20Giants%20Should%20be%20Sla
in.pdf

In my final analysis, I suggest that we need to undo this "postwar
settlement" to save journalism. We need to revisit those debates in
today's context and select the road not taken, a democratic vision of
the press that sees news media as a public service, not a commodity. In
other words, the time has arrived for a renegotiated social contract.
The Hutchins Commission, although ultimately failing, pointed the way.
We must learn from their mistakes and move forward with bold new
models. 
  

    
recent documentary 'the front page' --- not just about the new york times
--- was heartbreaking. perhaps most interesting was the comment a
technophilic friend made about david carr --- who, for his story on the
chicago tribune corp mess --- said that he took two weeks to report and one
week to write. that seems about right to me for feature writing --- and my
friend was agahst! in internet time, that much care and depth cant work...

i feel too often in these discussions feature/magazine writing is forgotten
about (something i used to do a lot of). and yes, among the things it
requires is =time=, and compensation for it...
  

    
Encouraging...crowdsourcing for fundraising for local journalists:

http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2011/08/prx-story-exchange-shows-power-of-crowdfund
ing-via-public-radio213.html
  

    
How's the nonprofit/foundation model working out for Harper's and the
Nation?