Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
(Sorry to hear, Ellen. Our Chronicle and Sunday NYT continue to arrive on
schedule, and in fact the daily Chron started landing a good 20 feet closer
to the house a few days ago. Either we have a new delivery guy with a
stronger arm, or the other guy has been practicing. (I have seen the delivery
guy drive by and toss my paper a few times in recent months.))
  

    
I don't think kids are doing this anymore.  To the extent that print
newspapers survive, they're delivered by grownups with cars.  I still get
the NYT on paper in a blue plastic sleeve.
But I expect that within my lifetime (I'm 74), it will go away and I will
mourn it.
  

    
THat's how it is here, Paula. A guy in a car, delivering both the NYT and SF
CHronicle.
  

    
Here in Boston, the same. Among other things, it has to be a guy
with a car because most streets only have one or two deliveries.
Can't cover the territory with a bike (and I have to wonder how many
kids would be interested, given that _their_ families don't get the
daily paper, either).
  

    

fwiw, it's been guys in cars for many years.
  

    
this is an ill-formed thought, but i have observed the term
'journalist' at times seems to have been appropriated to mean
'activist/advocate'. i realize this is a shades of gray situation
and obv. investigative reporting is a fine thing --- but i feel the
jobtitle, partic. among freelancers/young ppl/etc seems to have
become part in the misnfintormation/disinformation wars.

the whole 'cult of the amateur' trend sparked by the internet
decades ago has led to almost anything being called journalism. 

'i am a journalist because i felt like writing this'...which is not
to say there isnt xlnt grassroots work by ppl whose workproduct we
would consider journalism. but still...

as an aside, just watched apple tv's 'the morning show'. somehow
seems correct to mention it here (although that's about tv news not
newspapers).    
  

    <scribbled by af Tue 6 Feb 24 11:43>
  

    
Well, this is the logical consequence of that pesky First Amendment, which
prohibits any kind of requirement or licensure for the press. So yes, anyone
can say they are a reporter, and they may or may not subscribe to the code
that John and I teach at our respective universities, urging not both-
sidesism but honesty, soliciting a range of opinions, keeping our thumbs off
the scale.
The word "objectivity" has fallen into some dispute because it's truly not
possible. And yes, there is activist-minded journalism at places like Mother
Jones, the Nation, etc.
But on the whole, we still teach and I still believe that even if you have a
vested interest in the outcome, you still have to do the shoe leather
reporting, get the data, incorporate multiple voices, present what you know,
let readers and viewers come to their own conclusions.
  

    
How does one draw the line, though, between Mother Jones-style
activist journalism and whatever one calls the work of James O'Keefe
and Project Veritas?  Can that legitimately be called "journalism"
and, if not, why not?
  

    
of course i agree with #33. just saying, i feel the jobtitle has
been taken over by folks who dont do the stuff you just listed; and
by contrast have heard/read the contempt for 'journalists' as
expressed by other ppl because they feel people presenting
themselves as 'journalists' have not taken these steps.

perhaps a larger discussion possible here about the current debased
reputation of journalism...
  

    
and agree with the issue posed in #34...
  

    
Last night I saw the documentary by Rick Goldsmith that I mentioned
in #15, STRIPPED FOR PARTS: AMERICAN JOURNALISM ON THE BRINK. It's
an excellent exposé about how Alden Global Capital is buying up
functioning regional newspapers and stripping their assets. What was
confirmed as well is that it's not just newspapers Alden is
devouring--it is also going after trailer home parks and old
Greyhound terminals. These places house and service the most
marginal members of our communities. The hero of the film is Julie
Reynolds, who continues to report on Alden's crimes.

Trailer: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knkLfMsME0M>

Here's a good source of information by Newsguild:
<https://dfmworkers.org/>
  

    
I think objectivity was a side effect of having journalism be
heavily funded by advertising: Objectivity meant news products could
be used to sell toothpaste to both Democrats and Republicans.

Now that the mass audience has been fragmented and advertising no
longer keeps newsroom lights on, organizations have to target a
niche audience. And that niche audience is going to approach the
news with a point of view.

We’re headed back to the 18th century model of a partisan press, I
suspect.
  

    
Ron, the term "credible" is the key to answering your question, I
believe.

"Credible journalism" is why Project Veritas is not journalism, and
Mother Jones is.

Credible reporting involves using facts, and people's responses to
them, to tell a story. The reporter or outlet can back up what the
story says with factual information from reliable sources, and does
not quote people out of context. 

It doesn't bury or spin facts to get to a pre-determined conclusion,
or set out to promote a "side" of an issue or situation. 

Although, story choices often by their nature are evaluating
situations involving differing opinions and interests surrounding
it, and it is very possible that one interest really has a stronger
case, factually or ethically, for what it wants than another.

Facts can reveal that a specific "side" is taking a problematic
stance or doing problematic or unethical things.

"Reliable," "relevant," "stronger," "ethical" and "problematic" mean
pretty much what the dictionary says they mean based on millennia of
human language evolution.

(The main meta problem for what defines "objectivity" in news,
speaking very generally and in my own opinion, is that these
definitions themselves, in English at least, are often rooted in the
fundamental inequities of patriarchal and capitalist societies. Yet
it's hard to see that because we're swimming in it.)
  

    
(And bigoted. Patriarchal, bigoted and capitalist...)
  

    
obv i agree with #39 --- prob is the way the term and concept of
'journalism' has been torqued and debased out in the larger world.

i often see ppl self-describe as 'influencer/climate
activist/journalist' i.e. nice-sounding label to apply to one's
self.
  

    
I agree, Mary. The mass audience for mass media has fractured.

Yet, the local news audience not a mass audience, it's a community
audience of people living in the same geographic area, and the news
is being reported by members of that community. But those bonds have
not been enough to sustain scores of local newspapers. 

Here in NYC, there's an outlet called "Epicenter NYC." A news
veteran started it in 2020, as a newsletter, to tell community
stories and connect people to life-saving services and information. 

The initial audience was Jackson Heights, a majority-POC Queens
neighborhood that had devastating COVID rates of illness and death.
Gradually it's become a going concern with a small staff and good
reporting of stories barely or not being covered by the NY Times,
Post or News. It just got a $250K grant from the Mellon Foundation.

I think I know a bit about how Epicenter has been making it work,
but I'm looking around for interviews with S. Mitra Kalita, the
founder, to see if I can back that up. 

One obvious thing is related to a point Tiff made above: There is no
pretense of being objective. It's in the community and the articles
sound that way. It built its initial audience by reporting how to
navigate the pandemic, supplying information people needed and could
act on in a format easy to use on a mobile phone.


John, Paula: 

What are your programs teaching students about working in local
news? 

How interested are they in working local beats, whether for local or
national news outlets, as opposed to national or international?
  

    
Re. objectivity, all the way back when I was in journalism school, I
had the sense that objectivity was presented as an aspiration or
intention, understanding that even the most disciplined journalist
has a subjective perspective that it's hard to get around. I wonder
how objectivity is addressed in journalism courses these days? Are
there particular tools or approaches associated with an intention to
strive for objectivity?
  

    

Our programs are very involved in preparing students to work in local news
 -- one course in particular has students covering the state legislature for
local news outlets. The creator of the course, Kathleen McElroy, does the
matchmaking, and many of the students end up working for their hometown news
outlets. Kathleen and colleagues running the course edit/grade the stories
so that the local outlets get solid work and get to know the students.
Several students have gotten jobs at those news organizations after the
course ends. That's the best example, but not the only one; UT faculty are
deeply invested in seeing our students get into professional journalism.

   As for the <loris> point about influencers and activists and others
claiming to be journalists, the real question is whether the work holds up
upon examination. There are people who will believe anything, of course.
  

    
was just making one of my typical oblique cultural comments --- cant
tell you how often, in genre fiction or movies, a female protag is
presented as a 'journalist'. this seems to a) give her a 'nice
profession' b) gives her cause to act like harriet the spy. these
characters dont seem to do journalism as i understand it: i.e. they
dont seem to worry about income or where something might be
published or deadlines or...

observations about both how journalism has become devalued (am
sometimes shocked by how people am actually acquainted with are
proud of the fact they dont read newspapers or deride journalists;
dont understand the value of local news) yet 'journalist' seems to
pop up as a valorized fictive livelihood.

just an odd paradox, imho.

as for whether the work holds up, well...
  

    
> Guys in cars 

And women in cars. Our longtime Denver Post carrier would fold
chatty notes into the papers, asking people to call her directly if
they got missed, because she could respond faster and not get in
trouble with the Post. Her route got longer and longer as people
dropped the paper and Alden kept jacking up subscription costs. It
broke my heart to cancel our seven-day sub but when it rose to
$106/month, we just said no more. As usual the decisions of people
at the top land with a huge thud on people at the bottom, driving on
the wrong side of the road at 4 a.m. 

She finally hung it up when her car (and phone, and purse) got
stolen while she placed a newspaper on someone’s porch. She sent a
note the next day apologizing for missing deliveries because the
papers got stolen too. She had to walk the suburban wasteland to
find an open business in the middle of the night to call for help. 
  

    
tl;dr a lot of businesses have a last mile problem, but the
newspaper industry’s last mile problem is really terrible. 
  

    


>  Tiff, do you know how The Nugget is keeping itself afloat?

The Nugget newspaper in Sisters, Oregon, was actually bought out by small
chain based in Wyoming -- maybe five years ago? the longtime publisher had
passed years before, and his wife had become the publisher. our editor in
chief, Jim Cornelius, has been at the paper for many years. after the
buyout, he was still editor in chief. my impression is that the new
publisher/chain affords the Nugget some resources and expertise,
camaraderie, etc. at gatherings in Wyoming. i am not under the impression
that the new ownership has put any pressure on Jim regarding the Nugget's
actual coverage. 

i can't speak to the paper's entire revenue model and strategy. i can say
that it publishes a free weekly newspaper, which enjoys a very engaged
readership among locals in "Sisters Country" (a loose area around the town,
including the school district, so a small town plus a resort plus
countryside, altogether around 10,000 people). Sisters is also home to some
high intensity tourism, particularly during the famed rodeo, quilt show,
and Sisters Folk Festival (which are spread out throughout the summer).
tourists pick up the paper at the coffeehouse, the bookstore, etcetera. 

coverage is mostly hyper-local. sometimes you'll see an article about
something happening in the larger Central Oregon area; usually it's because
a writer like me really wanted to cover, say, that outdoor concert down in
Summer Lake, and wanted to get in free... or because there is a special
services section or article, and an advertiser in a nearby town or city has
bought an ad. but those articles typically remain very focused on the
subject matter/service. we're not typically covering local politics in
nearby towns. 

The Nugget has a clunky website with ads. website and Facebook will
occasionally be used to disseminate breaking news; otherwise i don't think
they're much of a focus? i am not sure. 

special pullout issues are big, and the Nugget publishes a robust Sisters
Oregon Visitors Guide with ample ads every year, and lately something
called Spirit of Central Oregon, which is distributed throughout the region
twice a year. i assume all of these are bringing in revenue! 

in a lot of ways, it reminds me of urban alt-weeklies i used to write for.
free, ad-driven, a lot of insider stuff, pay freelancers badly but the
freelancers just love being part of their community and doing their writing
so we suck it up, lots of event listings and calendars. 
  

    
In 2000, the last year I was with the SF Chronicle, the Newspaper
Agency (Chronicle/Examiner co-owned distributor) grossed 139 million
dollars from classified advertising. An entire floor of the building
at 5th and Mission housed the classified call center.  Now...nada,
pretty much.

It was a classic "innovator's dilemma" with huge profits and
hundreds of employees and Craigslist clearly about to sink the whole
thing, yet the owners and top management were essentially powerless
to stop it.  Much of that because they could not see a way to do it
and much because they didn't get how big the change was going to be.


Some of that I think was an insular attitude in the newspaper world.
As manager of SF Gate, a big part of my job turned out to be selling
to the rest of the paper(s) just how big a tsunami was about to hit
them.  I don't think I was loud enough about that, but I also think
it would not have made any difference.

I am 100% certain that Craig Newmark never had any intention of
damaging the health of newspapers; it was inevitable. And if it had
not been him, it would have been someone else.  To his everlasting
credit, he uses a lot of the massive profits he earns on
underwriting the development of journalism via J schools, esp CUNY. 
What is sad, is that the other social media bigshots talk the talk
and that's about all.

For awhile in the 90s, local newspapers were the only remaining
profitable kind of paper.  A big reason for that was people wanted
to see their kid's name in the sports section, or in other local
stories.  The other big reason was to see what's on sale at the
supermarket.  Social media ate the first reason, and direct
marketing, such as you see with Safeway, took the other.  You can
still use papers for those functions, but every year fewer people
do.

As the main 'Net person at the Chronicle and Examiner, I saw it
coming and I advised the papers to emulate the NYT in investing in
their newsroom, because ultimately it is the only thing a paper can
protect, provided it does a good job reporting the news.  Didn't get
far with that, and much of the resistance back then was in the
newsroom itself.  

Speaking of the NYT, I admire much about them, but I dislike their
political reporting and generally ignore it. A couple of things
about it bug me. One is what seems like a mismatch between a given
story and  its headline. I assume, like with most papers, the
headlines are written by someone other than the reporter.  I think
their headline writers show more bias than is often found in the
story itself, and it irritates me that the political headline
usually contain an editorial component, often satirized like, "The
economy is in strong recovery. Here's why that's bad for Biden." 
Way too much horse race in that stuff for me.  And secondly, I tire
of the way they subtly and sometimes not-so-subtly try to tell me
how to think.  That's expected if it's a critic or a columnist.
Otherwise, just report.  And don't bury the lede either.
  

    

"a female protag is
 presented as a 'journalist'. this seems to a) give her a 'nice
 profession' b) gives her cause to act like harriet the spy."

  Reporters in the movies also sleep with their sources. They do a lot of
things in fiction that I don't like.

  I stopped getting home delivery of the NYT and Austin American-Statesman
in the Austin area because they just couldn't get the paper to the lawn, day
after day. I couldn't pay for something I wasn't getting. The staffers
apologized, but made it clear there was nothing they could do to improve
delivery.