A Progressive on the Prairie » Media

U.S. falling behind — in press freedom

Tim — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:04:37 +0000

There’s plenty of problems plaguing the press, particularly the mainstream media. The digital and social media world seem to have preempted or seriously damaged the traditional press. But I found this a real shock: the United States fell from 20th to 47th in the annual Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders.

Twentieth was bad enough but 47th??? Granted, there’s 179 countries on the list but the ranking puts America outside the top 25 percent. Here’s a few of the countries where the press enjoys more freedom than America: Estonia, Namibia, Mali, Papua New Guinea, El Salvador, Botswana and Comoros (which I admit I’d not heard of before). Now I’m not dissing any of these countries. It would just seem that a country that holds itself out as a beacon of freedom ought to do better.

What is it that brought the ranking down? The response to another First Amendment right — protest, specifically the arrests of journalists covering Occupy Wall Street protests. According to the report:

The crackdown on protest movements and the accompanying excesses took their toll on journalists. In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behaviour, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation.

It’s hard to believe some 25+ arrests were alone sufficient to create such a drastic decline. That is only one of the measurements in the 44 main criteria used to compile the index, which covers the period from December 2010 through November 2011. These include physical attacks, threats, censorship, harassment, the country’s legal framework and the level of press independence. Certainly, there are many other things at play in the decline. I’d hate to think where we’d be if it weren’t for the First Amendment

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate.

William O. Douglas

After 35 years, still one of the best

Tim — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:22:34 +0000

Bob Mercer put it well: “A newswoman like no other.” That was the headline of his blog post today in which I learned Tena Haraldson is leaving her position as the Associated Press bureau chief for the Dakotas and Nebraska. Tena probably is a 35-year veteran of AP. I’m proud to say I’ve known her longer than that.

We went to journalism school together (in different graduating classes), worked on the SDSU Collegian together and covered the state Capitol together (for competing wire services). We go back to the days when you wrote news stories on typewriters and there were teletypes pounding away in the news or press room. Regardless of whether we were cooperating or competing, Tena always was (and still is) the epitome of class and professionalism. Her intelligence, commitment and experience gave readers greater insight into the issues she covered and undoubtedly helped train dozens of younger reporters.

Tena treats everyone with respect while still striving for the goal of good journalists — to inform and educate the public in a fair and objective way about events that affect our lives. It’s a trait that’s disappearing in our 24/7 digital news world. Sadly, she’s not the only good reporter I know who’s encountered the impact digital and social media have had on traditional media organizations and the ensuing “restructuring.” Moreover, each one who comes to mind is one I held in high regard.

How much do I admire and respect Tena and her talents? Even though it’s probably been a couple years since we’ve talked to or seen each other, upon reading she was leaving I immediately called her to express my surprise and regret. It’s not hyperbole when I say Tena is one of the best ~~newswomen~~ journalists I’ve had the pleasure to know. It was not only a pleasure to work with her, I have no doubt she made those of us who had that chance better reporters and better people. Hopefully, whatever comes next for her will still bring her abilities to bear for the public.

One of the great pressures we’re facing in journalism now is it’s a lot cheaper to hire thumb suckers and pundits and have talk shows on the air than actually have bureaus and reporters.

Walter Isaacson, Bill Moyers Reports, April 25, 2007

FTC to help “the reinvention of journalism”?

Tim — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:53:10 +0000

No one disputes the impact the digital age has had on journalism, particularly newspapers, so there’s a variety of ideas floating around to keep newspapers alive. The Federal Trade Commission’s staff just released a draft discussion report as a result of the FTC saying last year that it wanted to consider the challenges faced by journalism.

The FTC points out that the report, titled “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism in the Internet Age,” is not made up of its proposals but, rather, is a collection of suggestions from a series of workshops it hosted and from reports and articles about the future of journalism. There are some interesting concepts. Here’s a few:

Limiting the “fair use” doctrine to address issues posed by news aggregators and search engines.

Amending the Copyright Act to create “hot news” protection. While you can’t copyright facts, this doctrine recognizes some quasi-property interest in the value of having the news first, before there is widespread public dissemination.

Establish a “journalism” division of AmeriCorps to help “ensure that young people who love journalism will stay in the field.”

Collecting fees from telecom users, broadcast licensees or ISPs to create a national fund for local news.

Creating “citizenship news vouchers, which would allow taxpayers to allocate some amount of government funds to the non-profit media organization of their choice.

In conjunction with the latter, using a non-profit model for new organizations or explore other types of business structures. (A bill that would allow newspapers to qualify as nonprofit entities was introduced in the U.S. Senate in March 2009 and still sits in committee.)

These are just a few of the ideas discussed to one degree or another in the report. As a former newspaper reporter and a readere, I want newspapers and print magazines to survive. At the same time, I am more than a bit leery of government being involved with the funding or structure of news organizations. Just like with churches, I think we are all better served by separation of state and news media.

Still, the only way for newspapers to survive is to explore, discuss and debate a wide range of ideas. Or perhaps I’m just a Luddite unwilling to recognize that the dead tree-based form of journalism will inevitably disappear. If that’s the case, it looks like the FTC is in the same boat.

In sum, newspapers have not yet found a new, sustainable business model, and there is reason for concern that such a business model may not emerge.

Potential Policy Recommendations to Support
the Reinvention of Journalism in the Internet Age

Newspapers aren’t reaching the front porch

Tim — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:34:53 +0000

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism today released its seventh annual report on The State of the News Media. While it covers all variety of media, it certainly bears out the concerns about my old stomping ground — newspapers. (I’m old enough to remember the transition from typewriters to word processors in the newsroom.) Here’s the metaphor the report uses for newspapers: people who deliver the newspaper “are complaining that the Monday edition doesn’t have enough throw-weight to get all the way up the porch.”

The local daily certainly bears that out. A significant problem, of course, is revenues, an area in which newspapers are not the only ones suffering. The study indicates that newspaper ad revenue fell 26% during 2009, bringing the total loss over the last three years to 43%. Both radio and local television ad revenue fell 22% last year, magazine ad revenue dropped 17% and network TV 8% (and news alone probably more). But the real kicker for newspapers is that the study estimates the industry has lost $1.6 billion in annual reporting and editing capacity since 2000, or roughly 30%.

In 2009 alone, an estimated 5,900 full-time newspaper jobs were shed, numbers similar to 2008. hat means roughly one-third of newsroom jobs in American newspapers that existed in 2001 are gone, with the cuts coming in significant part from specialty beats like science, the arts, suburban government and statehouse coverage. These figures threaten an outcome that may make throw-weight concerns irrelevant: newspapers “are flirting with a tipping point where the cutbacks are so great that even loyal audiences give up.”

Across the media board, some of the damage may well be self-inflicted. Attributable in part to cable television and radio, the executive summary observes that 71% of Americans believe most news sources are biased and 70% feel overwhelmed rather than informed by the amount of news and information they see. “Quantitatively,” the study notes, “argument rather than expanding information is the growing share of media people are exposed to today.”

To me, that is more disconcerting than throw-weight: fewer outlets elevating argument over information and objectivity. Combine it all and it’s not a good formula for a marketplace of ideas.

The losses suffered in traditional news gathering in the last year were so severe that by any accounting they overwhelm the innovations in the world of news and journalism[.]

Press release for State of the News Media 2010

Censorship irony almost painful

Tim — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:06:38 +0000

Index on Censorship bills itself as “Britain’s leading organisation promoting freedom of expression.” So it isn’t surprising it would be interested in the decision earlier this year by the Yale University Press to publish The Cartoons That Shook the World, an account of the uproar and riots that occurred in September 2005 when a Danish newspaper published 12 caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad without including the cartoons themselves — or any other illustrations of Muhammad that were originally to be included in it.

So, this month the organization’s magazine is running an interview with author Jytte Klausen about her publisher’s decision not to publish the images. In doing so, what did the Index on Censorship also decide? Its board of trustees “reluctantly decided” not to illustrate the article with the cartoons.

The board chair said the “main concern” was for the safety of the organization’s staff and others in the building in which it is housed. The organization also has posted the dissenting view of another board member, who concludes that “in refusing to publish the cartoons, Index is not only helping strengthen the culture of censorship, it is also weakening its authority to challenge that culture.”

Undoubtedly, the fallout from the original publication of the cartoons — including the recent indictment of an American man for plotting attacks against the newspaper — played a role. But what does it say when an organization opposed to censorship censors itself in reporting on censorship?

Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart
dissenting in Ginzburg v. U.S. (1966)