by David Burn | Jan 26, 2006 | Media
Wall Street Journal: When Ted Koppel appeared on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” in 2002, he plugged National Public Radio to so much studio applause that host Jon Stewart cracked, “Somebody got themselves a tote bag.”
At the time, Mr. Koppel was simply another NPR admirer. Now, the former “Nightline” anchor is getting more than just swag — he’s got a new part-time job with NPR, joining the growing ranks of television news stars who are seeking refuge at the Washington, D.C., public broadcaster.
Michel Martin (on right)
While some of the NPR recruits, like Mr. Koppel and CBS newsmen Walter Cronkite and Daniel Schorr, have joined the organization at the end of their long broadcast TV runs, other television news talent is defecting to NPR mid-career. ABC News, for example, has almost become a farm team for NPR. Last week, NPR announced it had hired Michel Martin, an ABC News correspondent, to jump-start a new program targeting African-American listeners. Last month, it reeled in Robert Krulwich, another ABC News correspondent, to join its science squad. The new hires will be greeted by a familiar face: ABC News correspondent Michele Norris signed on to NPR in 2002.
Network news is increasingly generating prospects for NPR in part because some broadcast journalists think the networks are veering away from serious, in-depth reports. Many television journalists say they are fed up with the move toward consumer-friendly news-you-can-use and away from weightier subjects like foreign affairs and government.
“When I started at ABC News, it was a large division of a communications company,” says Ms. Martin, recalling the days before Walt Disney Co. bought the company. “Now, it’s a small division of an entertainment company, and that creates different pressures.”
by David Burn | Jan 19, 2006 | Media
The Atlantic is 150, and alive to tell about it.
According to the magazine, “fifteen decades is a long time; only a handful of publications anywhere have exceeded that benchmark. A great deal has occurred since a small group of writers and editors met in the dining room of a Boston hotel to plan the first issue of what would become The Atlantic Monthly. The economy of the United States at the time was smaller than Britain’s, and its armed forces lesser than those of France. Germany and Italy didn’t exist, and Das Kapital and The Origin of Species hadn’t been written. American territory already stretched from coast to coast, but there were only thirty-one states in the Union. The vote was restricted to men, and a system of public education was a thing of the future. The most salient fact about this country was that slavery remained legal in the United States. The Atlantic’s founders were leaders of the abolitionist cause.
But if some things about The Atlantic Monthly have changed in 150 years, the most important things have not. First, the founders of the magazine understood that breaking news was not always worth paying attention to, and in fact could distract the public from important stories that needed to be told–and that took more time to tell.”
by David Burn | Dec 19, 2005 | Media, Politics
Mike Wallace spoke to The Boston Globe earlier this month. Here’s some of what he said:
Q. President George W. Bush has declined to be interviewed by you. What would you ask him if you had the chance?
A. What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? In your background, Mr. President, you apparently were incurious. You didn’t want to travel. You knew very little about the military. . . . The governor of Texas doesn’t have the kind of power that some governors have. . . . Why do you think they nominated you? . . . Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [expletive] up?
[via Kottke]
by David Burn | Dec 15, 2005 | Media
Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols explore the values of a partisan press in In These Times:
It comes as a surprise to many to learn that the notion of objectivity or simply professional journalism is a relatively recent development in the United States. In the first one hundred-plus years of the republic, journalism tended to be highly opinionated and partisan. Indeed, the first few generations of U.S. journalists–the years from Madison and Jefferson to Jackson and Lincoln–were diametrically opposed to what many Americans think is intended by the First Amendment: a commitment to neutral, values-free news reporting.
The key to having partisan journalism promote democratic values, rather than repress them, is to have a wide range of partisan viewpoints available, and for it to be feasible to launch a new partisan newspaper or magazine if one is dissatisfied with the existing range of options. One way to view the freedom of the press clause in the First Amendment is to see that it protects the right of citizens to launch their own publications, even if they are opposed to the political views of those holding political power at the time. That radical idea was mainstream thinking at the time of the country’s founding.
Over the course of the nineteenth century, as publishing became an increasingly lucrative sector, market competition generated innumerable new newspapers, with publishers seeking profit as much or more than political influence. This was a classic competitive market, where new entrepreneurs could enter the field and launch a newspaper with relative ease if they were dissatisfied with the existing publications. Major cities like New York or Chicago or St. Louis tended to have well over a dozen daily newspapers at any given time, reflecting a fairly broad range of political viewpoints. The system was far from perfect, yet it worked.
On the other hand, as newspapering became big business, markets became much less competitive. By the early twentieth century, there were fewer and fewer newspapers in any given community, and in many towns there remained only one or two competing dailies. Barriers to entry emerged that made it virtually impossible to launch a new newspaper in a community, even if the existing papers were highly profitable. In short, newspaper publishing became monopolistic, far more so than most other major industries.
This led to a political crisis for journalism. It was one thing for newspapers to be stridently partisan when there were numerous competing voices and when it was not impossible to launch a new newspaper if the existing range was unsatisfactory. It was altogether different when there were only one or two newspapers and it was impossible to start a new one.
Professional journalism was the solution to the crisis. It was the revolutionary idea that the owner and editor of a newspaper would be split, and a “Chinese Wall” put between them. News would no longer be shaped to suit the partisan interests of press owners, but rather would be determined by trained nonpartisan professionals, using judgment and skills honed in journalism schools. There were no such schools in 1900; by the end of World War I nearly every major journalism school in the nation had been established, often at the behest of newspaper owners. Professionalism meant that the news would appear the same whether the paper was owned by a Republican or a Democrat.
Now that we’re in the age of citizen media, we’ve returned to the multiplicity of voices ideal. Except we’re on a global stage today, and there aren’t a dozen “papers” in a given market, there are thousands of “voices” competing to be heard. The more eloquent and trustworthy these voices become, the more readership they will garner.
by David Burn | Dec 13, 2005 | Media
Editor and Publisher has a telling piece on the pointless divisions between old guard White House reporters for the Washinton Post and new school WP bloggers.
A debate is raging at The Washington Post, pitting the newspaper’s traditional print staff (and newly appointed ombudsman) against a representative of a new generation of journalists who work for the company’s Web site.
Newly appointed Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell kicked off the debate Sunday in a column titled “The Two Washington Posts.” In it, Howell looked to distinguish between the Washington Post’s print newspaper, with its weekday circulation of 671,322, and washingtonpost.com, with its 8 million unique visitors a month. In the process, Howell took particular aim at washingtonpost.com’s popular “White House Briefing” columnist Dan Froomkin, who tracks the key stories on the Bush administration and links to them, often adding pointed commentary and context.
“Political reporters at The Post don’t like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin’s ‘White House Briefing,’ which is highly opinionated and liberal,” Howell declared flatly. “They’re afraid that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter.”
Before ending her column with a recommendation that “the Web site should remove the ‘White House Briefing’ label from Froomkin’s column,” Howell quoted John Harris, a national political editor at the print Post, who complained that the title of Froomkin’s column “invites confusion” and “dilutes our only asset — our credibility” as objective news reporters.
From Dan Froomkin’s own fingers:
Regular readers know that my column is first and foremost a daily anthology of works by other journalists and bloggers. When my voice emerges, it is often to provide context for those writings and spot emerging themes. Sometimes I do some original reporting, and sometimes I share my insights. The omnipresent links make it easy for readers to assess my credibility.
There is undeniably a certain irreverence to the column. But I do not advocate policy, liberal or otherwise. My agenda, such as it is, is accountability and transparency. I believe that the president of the United States, no matter what his party, should be subject to the most intense journalistic scrutiny imaginable. And he should be able to easily withstand that scrutiny.
While it’s easy to understand the need to drag the old guard forward inch by inch, what’s odd about this development is the fact that The Post is light years ahead of most newspapers when it comes to adapting their product to the tastes and needs of today’s news consumer.
In related news, USA TODAY tore down the walls between its print newsroom and its online newsroom.
by David Burn | Nov 22, 2005 | Digital culture, Media
By a unanimous vote, the Federal Election Commission issued Advisory Opinion 2005-16 which concludes that the Fired Up! Network of blogs qualifies for the “press exception” to federal campaign finance law. The Commission adopted the draft opinion without revision.
The AO states:
Fired Up qualifies as a press entity. Its websites are both available to the general public and are the online equivalent of a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication as described in the Act and Commission regulations.
The Commission concludes that the costs Fired Up incurs in covering or carrying news stories, commentary, or editorials on its websites are encompassed by the press exception, and therefore do not constitute “expenditures” or “contributions” under the Act and Commission regulations.
Lot 49 further notes this passage in the ruling: “…an entity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity…”
by David Burn | Oct 21, 2005 | Media
Bill O’Reilly speaking with Katie Couric on The Today Show:
“To fight every single day of my life, which is literally what I do in this culture war, this intense battle, it just sucks the energy out of you. So, I’m like an athlete. My body’s going to break down sooner or later under the stress of this.”
Wonkette’s answer:
Would somebody please give this soldier, this athlete, this broken-down, sucked-out four-star general and high-scoring quarterback of the Culture Wars a massage, please? Honestly, he makes Keith Richards look like a Noxema Girl.
by David Burn | Sep 19, 2005 | Media, Nebraska
KETV: ABC sportscaster Brent Musburger was ticketed at the intersection of 9th and T Streets in Lincoln after Saturday’s Husker game.
Lincoln police said Musburger was a passenger in the ABC crew’s rental car.
One witness said a traffic officer had just waved traffic through the intersection when he spotted Musberger drinking a beer.
The witness said he saw other passengers with alcohol, but Lincoln police said only Musburger was ticketed.
The driver was not drinking.
Musburger was given a $144 citation, including court costs.
[UPDATE] This is classic. There’s a Brent Musburger drinking game. “It may be the only way to listen to a Musburger broadcast without throwing a hammer through the screen,” says its propagator and fellow Big 12 fan.
Here’s one of the rules of the game:
Rule #8: Mentioning a Big 10 school during a non-Big 10 game. Whenever Brent does this, the first person who names the Big 10 school’s mascot gets to make somebody drink for 11 seconds, since there’s 11 schools in the Big 10.
by David Burn | Aug 11, 2005 | Art, Media
DK invited me to prepare a paper and attend an Ethics conference at Ringling School of Art + Design in Sarasota this November.
Here’s the synopsis: The “creative class” has emerged as a hot job market in the 21st century economy. Artists and designers increasingly shape not only the art of the gallery or museum, but also consumer products, public and personal spaces, films and TV programs, and corporate images. With the rise of “new media,” images have become more powerful, and new non-linear, digital, and interactive modes of storytelling have challenged us all to new standards of visual and media literacy. This long reach of the arts into everyday and public life raises a variety of ethical issues pertaining to the social responsibility of artists and those who teach them. Government funding, artistic collaboration and appropriation, sustainable design, freedom of expression, ethnic representation, and commodification are just a sample of the topics that arise as we attempt to assess the impact of artists on society. How can we encourage aspiring artists and designers to anticipate these issues and respond with a strong sense of social responsibility?
by David Burn | Jun 19, 2005 | Media
According to a transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s radio show from Tuesday, the conservative commentator is, by his own admission, no journalist.
“I’m not a journalist. I’ve never pretended to be a journalist. For one thing I laugh. For one thing I enjoy life. You know, I’m not dour, I’m not filled with doom and gloom, I’m not a pessimist, I don’t dislike the country, and I don’t suspect my country’s guilty every time there’s some sort of international conflict. I’m not a journalist. But I am America’s anchorman. I am America’s anchorman and for nearly 17 years I’ve been doing play-by-play of the news here.”
“I never wanted to be a journalist. I’m an advocate. I’m a commentator. I mean, I do so much more than just journalism. I do tell people things they don’t know. I mean, that is the strict definition of a journalist. I even looked it up in the dictionary, just to be sure — you never know what the dictionary definition of a term is going to be these days — and it said: somebody who writes news for broadcast on radio or TV. So the broadcasters themselves are not journalists. The people who write it are, so the people who put the TelePromTer together for the evening news anchors are the journalists. Well, that’s according to the dictionary definition.”
Thanks to Fishbowl DC for the post.
