AR&D Reinventing Local Media

The New York Times sued the government to get 8,000 pages of documents that prove those retired generals who function as expert analysts for network news programs and beyond are, in fact, pawns of the government! Oh no! The “hidden hand of the Pentagon,” they’re called. While most news organizations are falling all over themselves with this juicy piece of news manipulation, my initial reaction is, “Move along. There’s nothing to see here.”

Having just finished George Creel’s 1920 book, How We Advertised America: The First Telling Of The Amazing Story Of The Committee On Public Information That Carried The Gospel Of Americanism To Every Corner Of The Globe, the idea that the Pentagon would brief retired generals on what to say is hardly a bulletin. It’s been taking place for 100 years (and probably longer). And, of course, the press has no right to object, because it has been a willing participant for decades. As I have tried to communicate on many occasions, the father of professional journalism, Walter Lippmann, and the father of professional public relations, Edward Bernays, were both members of the Creel Committee.

Perhaps this “revelation” by The Times will be a good thing, but until the press accepts its duplicitous role beyond such currently unpopular themes as the Iraq war, it’s not going to mean much, for the “hidden hand” of the cultural elite includes the press.

Three years ago, I was a part of a research project in the Northwest that included discussions with young people who didn’t participate in the local news scene. Jay Rosen would call them “the people formerly known as the audience.” In one question, we asked people 18-49 to agree or disagree with this statement: “I don’t mind reporters with a bias, as long as they’re honest in telling me what it is.” Nearly six in ten agreed with the statement, and that seemed to surprise everybody.

The response isn’t surprising, however, from a postmodern worldview, because pomos tend to make decisions of trust based on their own experiences, so the concept of “objectivity” is seen as poppycock. There is no such thing as a lack of bias. From a larger perspective, the mistrust of institutional power is based in a fundamental belief that such institutions exist first to serve themselves, and claims that justify a special position within the culture are viewed as disingenuous, to be kind.

So it’s not surprising to find similar thoughts expressed in a new study by the Associated Press Managing Editors group and the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the University of Missouri. The Online Journalism Credibility Study found an unfamiliar disconnect between journalists and consumers.

Some 70 percent of editors surveyed said requiring commenters to disclose their identities would support good journalism, while only 45 percent of the public did. Similarly, 58 percent of editors said letting journalists join online conversations and give personal views would harm journalism, but only 36 percent of the public agreed.

Expressions of personal views seem to help boost readers’ interest and trust in Web sites, said John `Bart” Bartosek, editor of The Palm Beach Post in West Palm Beach, Fla., and chairman of the credibility committee for the AP managing editors group.

“That’s contrary to most of the traditions we’ve all grown up with, to keep our opinions, viewpoints and personal lives out of our story,” Bartosek said. “There’s some indication that readers are looking for something more online. Whether it’s information about our expertise, our knowledge, our background, I’m not really sure.”

People want to trust journalists, but it’s hard to trust somebody whose best argument is “just trust me.” The more we try to separate ourselves from the people formerly known as the audience, the harder it’s going to be to build credibility. Journalists are people, too, although many certainly don’t act like it.

The message from the people is pretty clear: just be real.

A noteworthy piece in the New York Times by Brian Stelter outlines beautifully a postmodern perspective on “the news” and brings a little clarity to the matter of how young people stay informed. It will give modernist, top-down professional news people heartburn.

According to interviews and recent surveys, younger voters tend to be not just consumers of news and current events but conduits as well — sending out e-mailed links and videos to friends and their social networks. And in turn, they rely on friends and online connections for news to come to them. In essence, they are replacing the professional filter — reading The Washington Post, clicking on CNN.com — with a social one.

“There are lots of times where I’ll read an interesting story online and send the U.R.L. to 10 friends,” said Lauren Wolfe, 25, the president of College Democrats of America. “I’d rather read an e-mail from a friend with an attached story than search through a newspaper to find the story.”

While Stelter’s article deals with political information, I would argue that this is taking place across all information niches, because in a postmodern, postcolonial culture, trust is with one’s tribe, not institutional expertise. So why shouldn’t we expect Bill to email his friends when he finds something of interest? It’s word-of-mouth gone-to-seed.

Young people also identify online discussions with friends and videos as important sources of election information. The habits suggest that younger readers find themselves going straight to the source, bypassing the context and analysis that seasoned journalists provide.

Stelter quotes Jane Buckingham of the market research company Intelligence Group recalling a student in a focus group who said, “If the news is that important, it will find me.”

This is a great mantra for the traditional news industry to adopt, because it flips the news mission from putting the word out via “distribution” channels to the active pursuit of “finding” people like the student referenced above. You can’t “find” anybody by insisting them come to you. Old meet new.

(Thanks, Jeff)

Eric Alterman has written an excellent piece for The New Yorker that gives me a chance to remind people of the core of my philosophy: that the real disruption that’s taking place in our world today is the empowerment of people through technology. This is so profound that it will impact every institution of “modern” humankind, and first up is how we communicate with each other, a.k.a. “the media.”

Called “Out of Print, The death and life of the American newspaper,” Alterman brilliantly goes back to the source of “professional” journalism and the social engineering of my old pal, Walter Lippmann. Here’s a sample:

Lippmann likened the average American—or “outsider,” as he tellingly named him—to a “deaf spectator in the back row” at a sporting event: “He does not know what is happening, why it is happening, what ought to happen,” and “he lives in a world which he cannot see, does not understand and is unable to direct.”

…Lippmann’s preferred solution was, in essence, to junk democracy entirely. He justified this by arguing that the results were what mattered. Even “if there were a prospect” that people could become sufficiently well-informed to govern themselves wisely, he wrote, “it is extremely doubtful whether many of us would wish to be bothered.”

…in one of the oddest formulations of his long career, Lippmann proposed the creation of “intelligence bureaus,” which would be given access to all the information they needed to judge the government’s actions without concerning themselves much with democratic preferences or public debate. Just what, if any, role the public would play in this process Lippmann never explained.

Alterman brings into play John Dewey, who made it his calling to “debate” Lippmann’s positions. Dewey would love today’s blogosphere.

Dewey did not dispute Lippmann’s contention regarding journalism’s flaws or the public’s vulnerability to manipulation. But Dewey thought that Lippmann’s cure was worse than the disease. While Lippmann viewed public opinion as little more than the sum of the views of each individual, much like a poll, Dewey saw it more like a focus group. The foundation of democracy to Dewey was less information than conversation.

…Dewey also criticized Lippmann’s trust in knowledge-based élites. “A class of experts is inevitably so removed from common interests as to become a class with private interests and private knowledge,” he argued. “The man who wears the shoe knows best that it pinches and where it pinches, even if the expert shoemaker is the best judge of how the trouble is to be remedied.”

As I have been writing for years, Lippmann is the “father of professional journalism,” and the apple never falls very far from the tree. And so we’ve had decades of an elitist press getting all comfy with the power brokers of the culture — in fact, becoming the NEW power brokers — and it is against this that the people of the culture are objecting.

I mean who wants to be treated like a herd of dumb cattle, a la Lippmann? And worse, Lippmann’s elite gets its status, in part, from money earned by the relentless carpet bombing of the herd with unwanted ad messages. Does anybody really have a problem understanding the revolt? This is the energy that drives J. D. Lasica’s “personal media revolution.”

Contemporary journalism MUST honestly deal with this issue or face certain extinction.

So Dow Jones is leaving the Associated Press. This is a very big deal, folks, and I think it’s fair to examine the assumption of the “co-op’s” value proposition in light of disruptive technologies. While the AP began as a cooperative, it has evolved over the years to that of a monopoly, and one that can exercise complete control over pricing. You want the “service,” you pay for it, whether you can afford it or not. This is reflected in AP Chief Revenue Officer Tom Brettingen’s reaction to the Dow Jones decision.

“We did not believe we were being adequately compensated for the use of our content on DJ Newswires,” Brettingen said in a statement. “We weren’t able to resolve that with DJ, so we’re going our separate ways.”

I love it. “Our” content. If the AP paid members for that content, it would be easier to justify such a statement. That’s not the case, however. AP members contribute the content and then pay stiff fees to get in on the aggregation of everybody else’s. Regardless of the shade of your rose-colored glasses, the reality is that it is very much a one-way street.

So the question for media companies is whether the service is really necessary anymore. DJ has decided to go with the French news service Agence France-Presse, but the bigger issue remains — what will the AP do when “members” begin searching out a less-expensive, less dictatorial system?

A wire service is a middle man in the news business, assembling items from members and passing various feeds back to those members. This is the spirit of a cooperative, but there are two problems with this for the group. One, the Internet makes assembling items into a feed ridiculously easy, so the cooperative simply can’t make the case that costs keep escalating. Two, newspapers are especially well-position to go their own way, because they’ve been working together with the Yahoo! consortium and other cooperatives for many months in an attempt to shift their business model to one that’s more web-centric.

The AP has recognized that shift, but rather than use its resources to help the industry, it’s used the occasion to charge more for “different” uses of the same material.

Believe me, it isn’t cheap to be an AP “member,” and at a time of industry-wide expense reduction, one wonders how long that money can be justified. And anytime the AP decides to create a new feed from its content pool — niches, for example — the price goes way up, period. The AP argues that it’s cheaper to pay them than to organize such content for yourself, but that value proposition is, frankly, on-the-table.

Meanwhile, the AP continues to go where the dollars are. They just hired 21 new staffers to bolster their entertainment news offerings, knowing that media companies covet this content. That feed, I promise you, will cost plenty. The problem in this niche, for the AP, is that the existing sources of entertainment news don’t give a rip about being a part of the cooperative, so the AP has to have its own staff to keep up.

And that reflects the real problem for the AP overall: sources of news content aren’t scarce anymore, and machines — like Google News — are taking the place of editors required to assemble all that content and spit it out.

Like everything else in the world of media, the nature of the wire service is being disrupted by technology. Just because the world of journalism once required wire services to organize and distribute news from faraway lands doesn’t necessarily mean that it does today.

Moreover, the real battle that media companies face is local, and with consumers able to tap other sources for regional, national and global news, the value of that content to local media companies is declining rapidly.

These are tough times that call for asking hard questions.

Dow Jones is just the beginning.

Broadcasting & Cable reports on the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s fifth annual State of the News Media report due out tomorrow and quotes one of the conclusions:

News consumption has become continual, with news morphing from a “finished” product — a newspaper, a newscast, even a Web site — to a service that helps consumers “find what they are looking for [and] react to it.”

Please refer to News is a Process, Not a Finished Product by yours truly, published last fall.

I’ll bet I don’t get quoted in the report.

So Newsweek has a story this week titled “The Myth of Objectivity.” A few days ago, the New York Times ran a piece called, “The Rise of the ‘Citizen Paparazzi’.”

I love these kinds of articles, because they all sound vaguely familiar — as in my 2003 essays “The Rise of the Independent Video Journalist” and “Argument Versus Objectivity,” both of which were doubtless poo-pooed by the mainstreamers who published the stories this week.

Who knew?

In one week, we’ve had two “studies” telling us different things about where Americans get their news.

In a report from Magid and Hearst-Argyle, most people choose local TV news. The study made mouths water and lips smack as a chorus of “we told you so” rang from the board rooms of various local broadcast companies.

Not only is local TV news content the biggest audience draw for news and information on-air and on digital platforms – it is also the most effective video advertising platform, according to new research results…

But a second report, this one from Zogby International, reveals that the Internet is the top source of news for nearly half of Americans. Two thirds, the survey found, are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism, calling it “out of touch.”

So who do you believe? Both can’t be right. The truth is neither is right. The Magid study is of 2,700 viewers of local news. Of course, they’d say that local news is their top choice. The Zogby study is of 1979 adults on the Web. Of course, they’d say the Web is their top source for news.

We badly need research in this area, but we shouldn’t pay any attention whatsoever to studies like these, because research is all about the source.

Minds much better than mine have examined this whole business with the New York Times and their allegations of hanky-panky involving Senator McCain and a female lobbyist. Jay Rosen brilliantly dissected the whole thing, and Jeff Jarvis expressed astonishment over Times Executive Editor Bill Keller being surprised at the negative reaction to the story.

I only wish to add a comment about the public reaction to the story that Keller finds so surprising.

The Modern Era is giving way to the Postmodern Era in Western culture. A foundational element of postmodernism is a practice called deconstruction, the systematic (or not) taking apart of an argument to examine its roots, many of which are assumptions based on the life and times of the author of the argument. This practice is facilitated — in fact, actually forced — by the structure of the World Wide Web, with its associated links to source documentation. If John Smith writes that the water in Lake Whatever is polluted, we ought to be able to determine why he thinks that by examining not only the lake but also John Smith and his background. We don’t have to take John’s word for it.

This concept of relentless deconstruction is a disaster for modern institutions built on “facts” of history and maintained by hierarchical systems of rule, order and especially tradition, for each — deconstructionists teach — is subject to examinations that reveal the subjective nature of humankind and its decisions, big and small.

It is in this light that I wish to state the argument that Bill Keller — and many, if not most people in such positions within the institution of modernist journalism — continue to function as if their access to knowledge is unique and justifies conclusions that can be used to manipulate culture, whether deliberately or otherwise. So deep is this belief, that Keller expresses shock when the Times’ conclusions are challenged.

The problem is that the public now has access to enough information — in most cases — to make up its own mind about issues and events, their causes and results. Moreover, the public now has enough knowledge to rightly question the assumptions and history that shape even the day-to-day decisions of the press, and with that knowledge, they also increasingly have the ability to make up their own minds. This will never return to the way it was, and in fact, will increasingly impact the culture as a whole.

So to me, Keller’s “surprise” is legitimate, but it’s based in the confusion of the era, especially for modernist, institutional thinkers. The public is a lot smarter and better informed than anybody in media gives them credit for being, and they are armed with simple tools to do their own investigating. And every time the curtain is pulled back on the editorial decision-making process within the institutional press, it gets easier and easier to find the natural biases and influences that drive the information gatekeepers of the culture.

So deconstructionism isn’t limited to a handful of far-out academic intellectuals in ivory towers; it’s being practiced every day at the ground level, and that has profound ramifications for the culture as a whole.

Romenesko: “In a blog post, Alan Mutter wondered if it’s time for newspapers to edit out some editors, then asked his readers how many editors they believe it takes to vet a story. Of the more than 400 respondents to his survey, 55.2% favored two editors per story, 21.9% advocated three or more editors per story, 20.4% said a single editor was sufficient and a mere 2.5% said reporters didn’t need anyone looking over their shoulders.”

Um, who knew? Alan’s read by editors and journalists who want to be editors. Kinda like asking lawyers if there’s a need for judges.

Mike Allen wrote in The Politico this week that he doesn’t vote, because he’s a journalist.

I’m part of a minority school of thought among journalists that we owe it to the people we cover, and to our readers, to remain agnostic about elections, even in private. I figure that if the news media serve as an (imperfect) umpire, neither team wants us taking a few swings.

Where in the world do people get the idea that we’re “umpires,” imperfect or not? Umpires? Good grief! He quotes Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post:

“I decided to stop voting when I became the ultimate gatekeeper for what is published in the newspaper. I wanted to keep a completely open mind about everything we covered and not make a decision, even in my own mind or the privacy of the voting booth, about who should be president or mayor, for example.”

This caught my attention, because the firing of Chez Pazienza by CNN follows this line of thinking. Many, many people have commented on Chez’s blog, and here’s the reasoning of one:

I’m sure he knows deep down as a professional–if he attended journalism school–that he couldn’t be writing what he was writing and be in the news business.

So let’s take a step waaaaaaay back and examine this position of neutrality vis-à-vis the news business, something I have done many times here and in my essays. If there exists in the mind of collective America the idea that the press should be “neutral,” it is there because we put it there. This idea is not and was not a part of the First Amendment; it grew out of largely economic necessity — the creation of a sterile environment within which to sell advertising. Moreover, it is the social engineering centerpiece of Walter Lippmann (the “father” of professional journalism), Edward Bernays (the “father” of professional public relations) and other members of the Creel Committee formed under Woodrow Wilson as a way to convince the public that the U.S. needed to be in World War I.

I hate to be so bloody cynical, but the objectivity concept is crap, and we owe it to ourselves and our trade to let it go. Why? Because it’s impossible, it is used by special interests to mold culture, the public doesn’t believe the holiness of the calling, and it’s turned our political process into predictable mush. Read Chris Lasch, for crying out loud. Investigate the Creel Committee and the writings of Lippmann and Bernays.

I’ve no clue how we get from where we are now to a more ardent and involved press, but the blogosphere seems to have taken up the call. I will say that firing writers like Chez Pazienza isn’t the path.

In Mr. Allen’s column, it’s pretty clear that one of the reasons some journalists don’t vote is that it would make their jobs harder in the halls of power if people knew they batted for one team over the other. The poor political reporters need to protect their sources, right? (”They like me. They really, really like me.” Jim Carrey in “The Mask.”)

When will we find the courage to point the light of our own brilliance back onto ourselves?

Let’s file this one under unreal.

Chez Pazienza, a producer at CNN assigned to American Morning, was unceremoniously fired from his job today — without severance — over the content of his popular and edgy blog, Deus Ex Malcontent (warning: adult language). He had worked for CNN for four years, beginning as a Senior Producer in Atlanta. Chez is a member of my tribe and a friend, and I’m not happy about this turn of events.

According to Chez, he was terminated for violating network policy by not running what he was writing through their vetting system. So he was fired not for blogging but for the content of his blog. “It’s not that I’ve been writing,” he wrote in an email. “It’s WHAT I’ve been writing.” That may be the official decision, but the truth is he was fired because he had the balls to write about the industry without telling CNN. I would add that there is no mention of his connection to the network on his site, and as a producer, it’s hard to justify the notion that he’s in any way a public figure or publicly connected with the company.

What Chez Pazienza is is a damned fine writer and an even better observer and commentator on life. So spot on is the guy that he’s been “discovered” by sites like Fark, Pajiba and the Huffington Post, where he was recently brought on as a guest commentator. The guy is a brilliant new media writer, and CNN’s position is that it’s in their best interests to fire the guy. Go figure. What they should have done is find a place for that sensational talent.

Chez told me he knew that this day was possible, because he was determined to be true to himself, his history, his observations and his craft. Frankly, our industry needs more people like this and a few less of the people who fired him. What’s WRONG with us?

I feel bad for Chez, but I think this will turn out to be a blessing. I know that’s hard for him to see, because he and his wife are alone now in New York with a baby on the way and with only Jayne providing income. This is one extremely talented, albeit angry man, and I can hear the sound of doors opening elsewhere.

Here is the latest essay for your consideration, The Public Journal.

As traditional media companies struggle to hang onto models that have served us well for a very long time, the forces of change are leading us down a path that’s not quite as foggy as it once was. I wrote about it a few months ago in “News is a Process, Not a Finished Product,” and I continue that theme in this essay with a look at how the “journal” in journalism is shifting from the private to the public. This new journal is the product of many voices, all coming together to serve the information moment. It is sometimes raw and sometimes unedited, but mostly it’s the collaborative work of amateurs and professionals alike.

This concept will challenge your assumptions about media in a way, I hope, that will produce a genuine willingness to explore what I view as a pretty clear path to tomorrow. It’s scary, but in an exciting sort of way. The only question is this: will we wait until somebody else figures it all out, or will we pave the way in our own communities and beat everybody else to the punch?

Romenesko offers up the discussion in several places about cursing in newsrooms, and I thought I’d drop in my two cents. It began with a Slate TV Club entry about the latest episode of Wired, HBO’s series about police in Baltimore. This year, the show features the newsroom of the city’s paper, which has gotten a lot of coverage by journalists over whether it fairly depicts actual newsrooms. In this episode, a reporter was taken to task for language in the newsroom, so Slate wondered if anybody had any actual experience with that.

Free speech and all, remember?

When I ran the newsroom for WDEF-TV in Chattanooga in 1988, the cursing was so bad that I put a jar (later dubbed “The Fuck Jar”) on the assignment desk and required staffers to put a quarter in it every time they dropped the F-bomb. We used the funds collected for parties, and it was a source of great fun for all.

Somebody decorated the jar, and I still have it on my desk. It’s a wonderful reminder of the time and the people.

One day, my assignment editor arrived in an especially foul mood and announced she was putting $5 in the jar, so that we all should be prepared. I’ll never forget that. I just spoke with her recently (she’s now a news director), and she said she had calmed down considerably.

So, yes, cursing in the newsroom does sometimes get out of hand, but at least for us in Chattanooga, we got the point while having a little fun, too.

Long ago, a mentor of mine taught me about “the currency of ego,” and I want to share some of that with you to make a point about a Nieman Reports essay by Will Bunch — Forgetting Why Reporters Choose the Work They Do. The subtitle summarizes the article: “Will journalists ‘cover local news for life, with no chance of parole?’”

This is an outstanding essay and one that really strikes at the key local media matter of our time — coverage of “local” is really all that local media companies have left. Bunch writes that this is problematic with journalists who see local as a means to an end. He speaks of print journalists, but this also speaks dramatically to local television.

On an emotional level, I’m going on 49 years old, and I have a lot of friends around my age who have survived the surge in newsroom layoffs and are still working in an ink-stained newsroom somewhere. Not one of us wanted to be covering local news at our age (or, for that matter, at any age.) But we’ve been there, done that. To be brutally honest: For an ambitious journalist, the only way to get through a four-hour suburban school board meeting—even at age 22—is to keep repeating the mantra “this, too, shall pass.” In other words, treat this day’s assignment as just a boring but necessary pit stop on the road to Moscow or Beirut…

…I’d say that for the local journalism movement to succeed within the existing newsroom, there’s going to need to be a very different system of rewards to replace the dreams of Beltway punditry or a glamorous foreign beat. In fact, the rewards of the more pointed kind of journalism that blogging allows—the ability to develop a voice and a personality and to connect daily with readers—are considerable.

I tried to address this very thing in 2004 in a post that examined the assertion (by traditional media) that bloggers are in it for the money. I encourage you to read that post, because it speaks directly to what Bunch envisions. His vision has pretty profound ramifications for journalism altogether, all of which I view as good. I’m personally sickened by the farm system we’ve created, one in which budding reporters enter small market shops with one foot out the door. I’m heartened by the rise of personal media that is turning LOCAL citizens into reporters every day.

One of the ways bloggers get paid is through the currency of ego. It’s a form of status that’s recognized within, a feeling of being needed, of having a recognized place in the things of life — a voice, as Bunch calls it. Ego is an interesting part of the human condition, and it drives certain people forward more than even a paycheck.

I was taught about this from a very successful guy who was gifted at getting people to talk with him — to trust him and reveal things that they perhaps ought not to be revealing. He did this by always making the people he was interviewing feel like the most important people around. People left feeling great, although they never really learned much about my friend. He would turn every question about him around, so that the interviewee was talking about themselves. He taught me that there are many different currencies in life, and that ego was even stronger than money.

I had an employee once who was big on pay raises, because his father had taught him that this is how a company shows its appreciation for work done. That may indeed be true, but it limits life’s currencies to only one, but as my friend taught me, there are many more. At some point, they may cross, but the original currencies of journalism, I believe, have more to do with the chase for the story, recognition among peers and the public, the curiosity of how things work, the ability to influence others and make a difference, creative expression and a sense of worth that’s tied to one’s occupation. In a sense, the blogosphere is all this and more, and that’s why I agree so strongly with Bunch that the model for tomorrow is likely within that which is being evolved by bloggers.

As I’ve written many times, media is my life and has always been so. When I first got into the business in 1969, the newsroom was a place for people who found the trade one where a single person could make a different. My first news director was an old newspaper guy named Don Loose at WTMJ-TV in Milwaukee. When I became assignment editor and a member of his management team, he called me into his office and taught me the following:

“Terry, people are motivated in this business by three things: ego, working conditions and money. If somebody asks you for a raise, first ask yourself these questions: Does this person know their value in the newsroom? Am I making him feel valuable and appreciated? If the answers to those is true, then ask yourself this: Does this person’s equipment all work — his recorder, his typewriter? How does he get along with the photographers? Is there enough light at his work station? If the answers to these questions are all positive, then think about giving him the raise.”

When I retired from news management in 1998, 95% percent of the newbies I interviewed had gone to “communications” school, because they “wanted to be on TV.” These are the people who write on the discussion boards, “I just got my first job and want to know what I need to do to get my second?”

I have no problem if that kind of crap goes away permanently, because that’s the kind of ego that’s destroying the industry and something we can all do without.

I’ve said before that tomorrow’s reporters are being trained today in the school of personal media, including the guy or gal who sees drama of the school board personalities, issues and, yes, even the meetings. Life is like that. It sees a void and fills it.

In this case, we created the void ourselves, and I’m excited to be alive as the correction is underway.

(Hat tip Romenesko)

I watched with sadness yesterday the developing story of the death of movie star Heath Ledger. I’m a TMZ.com fan, so their RSS feed was extremely useful. At one point, however, they reported that Ledger had died in the apartment of Mary Kate Olsen, which was incorrect. The New York Times’ “City Room” blog also got it wrong, and I’m not sure who got it wrong first (sigh).

Both corrected the mistake and moved on, and I thought to myself, “Boy, we’re going to hear the critics come out of the woodwork on this one.” TMZ took some criticism in its comments, but a piece in the Los Angeles Times poses a fascinating concept about what really happened from a journalistic perspective.

But here’s the problem: Stories have never arrived to the world fully formed or vetted. Journalists have generally had hours — not minutes or seconds — to craft a story from the blast wave of facts and factoids that comes in the wake of a bombshell.

What people are seeing now is an old-fashioned process — reporting — as it unfolds in real time. If the public wants its information as raw and immediate as possible, it’ll have to get used to a few missteps along the way, and maybe even approach breaking stories with a bit of skepticism, like a good reporter would.

So a part of the “process” of news is mistakes, and the ethical question is does it matter in a world of news-as-a-process? I’m not so sure it does, as long as mistakes are corrected — just as, I might add, they are corrected in the newsgathering process in professional newsrooms.

Hmm.

Anybody want to argue about the profit value of gossip and why dignified media companies have joined the other frogs in the pot?

Lookie here at this Broadcasting & Cable header:

“Syndication Ratings: Britney’s Travails Are Mags’ Triumphs — Syndicated Entertainment Magazines Up by Double-Digits. Here’s the meat of the article:

In the week ending Jan. 6, CBS’ Entertainment Tonight had the largest increase of any strip in first run, gaining 26% from the prior week to a 4.4 live-plus-same-day national household average, according to Nielsen Media Research. That includes a 34% ratings jump Friday, Jan. 4, the day news broke that Spears had been hospitalized after a frightening custody stand-off.

…The constant chronicling of Spears’ problems also drove the other magazines up. CBS’ Inside Edition jumped 15% to a 3.1 four-day average. NBC Universal’s Access Hollywood, dropping both New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, gained 14% to a 2.5. CBS’ The Insider and Warner Bros.’ Extra both counted all five days, with Insider increasing 11% to a 2.1 and Extra leaping 20% to a 1.8.

So now we know why the AP declared last week that Britney was a big deal.

Veteran journalist Glen Mabie resigned from his position of news director at WEAU-TV in Eau Claire, Wisconsin last week over a disagreement about how his news department would cover medical news and features in the wake of a sponsorship deal with one area hospital. According to the Leader-Telegram, the deal meant that face time for medical expertise would have gone to those affiliated with the sponsoring hospital and nobody else. Mabie quit, saying he couldn’t “with a clear conscience go into that newsroom and tell the staff that this was a good thing.”

I don’t know Glen, but I dealt with this very issue several times as a news director, although the financial problems of the stations weren’t nearly as acute back then as they are today. It was usually a sales account exec “asking” that if we were going to do stories that required medical expertise, could we please use expertise associated with sponsors? I had no problem with that (should we deliberately avoid interviewing sponsors?), but this situation is a little different. It’s being positioned as a done deal, whereas I always had the choice.

News directors are under tremendous pressure these days to help the sales department. Gone are the days when the answer would automatically be “no,” and the reasons for that are complex and many. Refusing to cooperate just because it conflicts with traditional views of “objectivity” is like refusing to bail water when the boat on which you’re riding is sinking. I’m not suggesting that the sales department run the news department, but there are ways to help without actually violating ethical standards.

There will be more stories like this in the months ahead and, sadly, more careers ending with a thud. Perhaps what we ought to do instead is take a real hard look at this wall between news and sales and explore the assumptions that built it in the first place. We’re trying awfully hard, it seems to me, to protect “objectivity,” when the people formerly known as the audience either don’t think we have any or already recognize it for the illusion that it really is. Take a look, for example, at this study from Sacred Heart University and ask yourself (honestly) how far our “objectivity” has gotten us with the people we’re supposed to serve?

“The fact that an astonishing percentage of Americans see biases and partisanship in their mainstream news sources suggests an active and critical consumer of information in the U.S.” stated James Castonguay, Ph.D., associate professor and chair of SHU’s Department of Media Studies & Digital Culture. “The availability of alternative viewpoints and news sources through the Internet no doubt contributes to the increased skepticism about the objectivity of profit-driven news outlets owned by large conglomerates,” he continued.

Along with many others, I’ve been writing for a long about the value of transparency versus the artificiality of the hegemony that currently governs professional journalism. In the Eau Claire case, there would be nothing wrong with the sponsorship arrangement that the station apparently sought, if proper attribution was given to such interviews.

Do we really think the audience cares that we’ve gone to the trouble to find a medical expert with nothing to gain from being on TV? Is there such a thing? And what about interviews arranged by PR people? Is there not a form of currency there?

I think the audience is a lot smarter than we think and that transparency makes amends for great offenses.

(Tip: Romenesko)

Daniel Schorr has a new book and the interviews are beginning. At age 91, Schorr is the oldest, full-time journalist in the business. He writes and broadcasts for NPR now, and his mind is still sharp as ever. If there ever was a “traditional journalist,” it is Daniel Schorr, and he told the Sacramento Bee that he’s glad he’s not any younger.

Q: In the book’s introduction, you talk about adapting from one medium to another, having worked in newspapers, radio and television. I wonder what you think about the changing media landscape today.

A: At my age, I look at it and say, “Boy, I’m glad that’s for other people.” I couldn’t stand what’s going on today (as a reporter). Of course, the changes are partly technological. You no longer have to rely on a great newspaper like the Sacramento Bee or on a television network to get news. You can go on the Web and get anything you need.

And I’ve found that people are now deluged with information. In my day, as a newspaper man, radio man and television man, I had the feeling I was telling people something they wouldn’t otherwise know. That’s no longer true. I’m glad I’m not 20 years younger, because I’d be very discouraged.

…Q: In some commentaries, you touch on the latest journalistic trends, sometimes in not so complimentary a way. Such as blogs and citizen journalism. Is this a form of news gathering that you embrace?

A: I can’t embrace it. Not after what I’ve been through at the hands of the copy editors’ desks. I have suffered many, many arguments about what I’ve wanted to say — whether it was grammatically correct, factually correct and all of that — and I want everybody to have to experience what I experienced. But today, your blogger is totally free. He is his own reporter, his own editor, his own publisher, and he can do whatever he wants.

A person like me who believes in the tradition of a discipline in journalism can only rue the day we’ve arrived at where we don’t need discipline or anything. All you need is a keyboard.

When I read stuff like this, my heart goes out to guys like Schorr, who worked in an era of centralized media power. I have too much respect for him to call him a dinosaur, but the reality is that his ideas are based in a cultural era that is no more. We can wax about how good it was and lament the losses that we feel, but the extent to which it is purely nostalgia does more harm than good.

If the “discipline” of journalism is what needs reviving, it simply won’t happen by driving with our eyes on the rear view mirror. Nostalgia is not revival. Never has been. Never will be.

(ASIDE: If you read the link, take note of the condescending tone of Schorr’s questioner as regards anything new.)

One of the big topics of discussion around the blogosphere this weekend was an emotional response to an Arizona RIAA lawsuit against an illegal downloader of copyrighted music. The music industry sadly continues to pursue legal remedy for its own malfeasance, and reports about various suits are commonplace discussions. Suing your customers is, after all, a highly crappy business practice.

Most of these stories are about sharing files, but this one had a twist.

According to a Washington Post story about the suit, “the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer” — that the MP3 files the defendant made on his computer from legally bought CDs are “unauthorized copies” of copyrighted recordings.

This is what got the blogosphere all riled up. How DARE they tell me what I can do with MY music! The only problem is that the story isn’t, well, precise. The assertion regarding the simple copying of a song for personal use was not a part of the lawsuit.

Blogger and new media thinker Robert Scoble jumped aboard the story and wrote that the RIAA is actually doing consumers a favor by forcing artists away from the fold.

This behavior will make sure people buy (or steal) music directly from bands. See how Radiohead did it. By doing that, the price for music will go down thanks to fewer intermediaries. RIAA is just helping us get rid of them, which is good for everyone who loves music…Radiohead put the power of setting the price in OUR hands. Brilliant.

The truth about the matter appeared in the comments of Scoble’s post and elsewhere, and the sources of the story backed off.

Three commenters to Scoble’s post, Jerry, Louis and Shelley, raised serious questions about the journalistic practices of those who spread the story and used the opportunity to criticize citizens media as a result.

JERRY: Have you actually read the briefing, or are you just basing your sarcasm on information you skimmed from other blogs? Why not read the actual briefing then make your argument?

LOUIS: It seems pretty obvious to me from these comments that none have read the actual briefing. It doesn’t say the RIAA wants to prevent is (sic) from copying music for your PERSONAL use.

SHELLEY: The summary judgment and the follow-up brief all specifically state that the law suit is based on the distribution of the files, not the ripping of the files from CD…Facts, people. I know facts aren’t fun, but can’t we try focusing on the facts? At least, from time to time?

JERRY: So much for the accuracy and reliability of “citizen journalism”. And people complain about the accuracy of the MSM?

JERRY: I guess the adage “don’t believe everything you read” applies to the blogging world, too. Too bad most bloggers don’t apply it. Most are more interested in getting linked to than getting facts straight.

With respect to Jerry, this case shows the value of citizen journalism, not its shortcomings. As I pointed out in Scoble’s comments, the Washington Post was involved in this. They may have gotten their “tip” from the bloggers, but they were involved just the same.

Before the blogosphere, before citizen journalism or citizen media, before the people formerly known as the audience had the opportunity to publish for themselves, mainstream media outlets could operate with impunity with regards to the shaping of stories. This is called setting the information agenda, in which the only spin that matters is what the media company says.

Imagine, if you will, if the Washington Post had run such a story 10 years ago. Who would’ve provided the correction? Where would it have been published? How far downstream would the story have gotten before the focus shifted?

The point is that citizen journalism doesn’t function like the mainstream press of years gone by, because comments to a blog post or story ARE A PART OF THE STORY. News is a process, not a finished product, and this is crystal clear in the world of citizen journalism. As such, the fact that Jerry and Louis and Shelley could help set the record straight makes the case FOR the practice.

They and others might argue that the incorrect story shouldn’t have ever seen the light of day in the first place, but that idealistic perspective strikes at the heart of the problem of gatekeeper journalism. Journalists are no less human than anybody else, and despite elaborate (or not) systems of vetting, mistakes are commonplace. If we accept that, then any open and transparent method of immediate correction moves journalism forward, in my judgement, and not backwards, as many in traditional media would have us believe.