About a month ago, I was sitting in a lecture hall as former Washington Post ombudsman Andy Alexander reminisced about his life a few decades ago as editor in chief of Ohio University's student newspaper, The Post. It was an excellent speech, a nice mix of self-deprecating humor and insight you would hope to hear from a man who has been quite successful in a field that can be especially demanding.
But one fact he mentioned is that much of Washington's political reporting boils down to writing about press releases. He noted this kind of reporting is not necessarily covering a metro beat as is often associated with journalism, but attending hearings and sifting through bureaucracy. As incredibly important as it is to the civic process, I can't imagine finding the same fulfillment in covering national politics than a city or state's, say, budgetary and crime concerns.
Numerous media outlets have complained the Obama Administration is not as transparent as then-Senator Obama promised it would be in 2008, which is highly discouraging. And considering the three 24-hour news networks compete all day and night with numerous political blogs trying to drive the news cycle (Talking Points Memo, Politico, Huffington Post, Drudge Report, etc.), there is a strong tendency to play up political stories that are of consequence for 10 minutes, if at all.
That leaves us with a blog post from Politico today, "Obama says his 12-year-old is 13." In it, MJ Lee writes that in today's news conference, Obama mistakenly cited his daughter's age when making a point about how Republicans can learn from their responsibility to complete their work in a timely manner.
Obviously, this was just a blog post and Politico led higher on its site with actual news from one of the president's rather rare news conferences, but the point remains. His daughter turns 13 in five days. While there does seem to be a more insatiable public interest in Obama's daily actions than even President Bush's, there is no justifiable reason to pretend this is news. Diluting a publication's name with content that is sub-standard, all the while justifying that it's on the blog only for those interested in such minutiae, is not the same as thoroughly covering an issue.
-30-
Tell him what we said about "Paint It Black"
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Oliver's Army
In a very brief amount of time, public opinion of the General Stanley McChrystal mess took a strange turn. First, as you would expect, people argued the pros and cons of whether President Obama should fire him as a measure to prove civilian control over the military. Only a few days later, the question was no longer to what effect this kind of division in the ranks would harm America's longest war, but rather, how did Rolling Stone pull this off?
In that meta way that journalism all too often operates, there have been numerous stories on how freelance journalist Michael Hastings secured such impressive access. Hastings himself has also stood front and center to answer these questions in interviews, which is admirable.
One such explanation comes from Matt Taibbi in a very good Washington Post piece. He says that Rolling Stone, to which he writes for in the vein of Hunter Thompson, gives him free reign to write as he sees fit.
"They give you an enormous amount of space to address any topic I want, and there's no editorial interference in terms of political viewpoint, and I can use any language I want," he said.
That quote has stuck with me for the past couple days. If Rolling Stone can publish two stunning pieces of journalism in short time (its recent piece on BP and the Minerals Management Service seems forgotten now, which is a shame), does that mean this philosophy of embracing biases is good for journalism? That boastfully writing with opinion and exaggerated personality is at least a successful route?
Rolling Stone thrived in the 1960s and early '70s doing just that with new journalism. It may have been more revolutionary then without the numerous opinions you find on cable news and the internet, but those narrative might be what people want.
Still, it wouldn't kill Rolling Stone to rate an album something other than three-and-a-half stars (five for reissues, of course).
-30-
WaPo's profile of Rolling Stone's push for more serious topics.
That story you likely read.
But you may not have read this
In that meta way that journalism all too often operates, there have been numerous stories on how freelance journalist Michael Hastings secured such impressive access. Hastings himself has also stood front and center to answer these questions in interviews, which is admirable.
One such explanation comes from Matt Taibbi in a very good Washington Post piece. He says that Rolling Stone, to which he writes for in the vein of Hunter Thompson, gives him free reign to write as he sees fit.
"They give you an enormous amount of space to address any topic I want, and there's no editorial interference in terms of political viewpoint, and I can use any language I want," he said.
That quote has stuck with me for the past couple days. If Rolling Stone can publish two stunning pieces of journalism in short time (its recent piece on BP and the Minerals Management Service seems forgotten now, which is a shame), does that mean this philosophy of embracing biases is good for journalism? That boastfully writing with opinion and exaggerated personality is at least a successful route?
Rolling Stone thrived in the 1960s and early '70s doing just that with new journalism. It may have been more revolutionary then without the numerous opinions you find on cable news and the internet, but those narrative might be what people want.
Still, it wouldn't kill Rolling Stone to rate an album something other than three-and-a-half stars (five for reissues, of course).
-30-
WaPo's profile of Rolling Stone's push for more serious topics.
That story you likely read.
But you may not have read this
Sunday, December 6, 2009
I Stand Corrected
It's always embarrassing to run a correction. You spend all day researching and writing a story - drained, tired and irritable by the night - only to have a few readers call in the next morning to say you weren't diligent enough in your work.
That sets off the cycle. The Web site will probably be updated to mention the mistake, and for at least 24 hours until the next issue comes out, your mistake sits seemingly highlighted on thousands of copies while you wish you could have it back.
In baseball, pitchers say they often know they threw the wrong pitch that screwed everything up. The responsibility's on you, and it's a matter of having that short memory - to move on when everyone else does.
Maybe a name is misspelled (which is pretty much inexcusable) or a fact incorrectly attributed. Every once in a while some huge error happens, and the only thing we can do is apologize, plead human error and go to work the next day.
I always read the corrections sections in papers, but rarely hold the mistake against the reporter. We've all been there, and that day after really is the worst. That punishment is enough. Nothing else can be done.
Sometimes though, a correction is so epic that it's circulated around the Internet and used as an example for how out of touch the whole industry is. Those mistakes are funny and spread quickly. When that occurs, you can only laugh it off and enjoy the infamy.
-30-
Those corrections of classic rap songs will kill you every time.
That sets off the cycle. The Web site will probably be updated to mention the mistake, and for at least 24 hours until the next issue comes out, your mistake sits seemingly highlighted on thousands of copies while you wish you could have it back.
In baseball, pitchers say they often know they threw the wrong pitch that screwed everything up. The responsibility's on you, and it's a matter of having that short memory - to move on when everyone else does.
Maybe a name is misspelled (which is pretty much inexcusable) or a fact incorrectly attributed. Every once in a while some huge error happens, and the only thing we can do is apologize, plead human error and go to work the next day.
I always read the corrections sections in papers, but rarely hold the mistake against the reporter. We've all been there, and that day after really is the worst. That punishment is enough. Nothing else can be done.
Sometimes though, a correction is so epic that it's circulated around the Internet and used as an example for how out of touch the whole industry is. Those mistakes are funny and spread quickly. When that occurs, you can only laugh it off and enjoy the infamy.
-30-
Those corrections of classic rap songs will kill you every time.
Sign o' The Times
There's a reason the New York Times faces such a huge amount of scrutiny for a daily newspaper - the paper's really good.
That's obvious, yes, but I think we forget it sometimes. It's assumed the stories come easier, because who wouldn't want to talk to the New York Times? Even if the reporter calls with a story where your caught dead to rights, you're much better off playing ball and trying to get in your side of the story. That is some very impressive clout.
I bring all this up to highlight today's front page story on how President Obama decided on the latest Afghan surge. It's one of the best things I've read in months. With many deep-background quotes, Peter Baker tells a very intimate story of the meetings with Obama's closet advisers.
The best part was this leaked quote:
--
"'What I’m not going to tolerate is you talking to the press outside of this room,' (Obama) scolded his advisers. 'It’s a disservice to the process, to the country and to the men and women of the military.'”
--
The access they have in the White House is stunning, especially considering Obama's predecessor. President Bush once infamously called Times reporter Adam Clymer a "major league asshole" while on the campaign trail in 2000 and ripped the paper during his entire administration. Rahm Emanuel supposedly calls up Times reporters just to shoot off about whatever crazy thing is bugging him that day.
Here's hoping that kind of access is kept through, you know, good journalism, and not holding great stories that would be detrimental to the White House. Because if another paper picks it up and the Times' critics (your Hannitys and Becks) have more ammunition to accuse the paper of censoring the truth, everyone would suffer.
-30-
Enjoy.
That's obvious, yes, but I think we forget it sometimes. It's assumed the stories come easier, because who wouldn't want to talk to the New York Times? Even if the reporter calls with a story where your caught dead to rights, you're much better off playing ball and trying to get in your side of the story. That is some very impressive clout.
I bring all this up to highlight today's front page story on how President Obama decided on the latest Afghan surge. It's one of the best things I've read in months. With many deep-background quotes, Peter Baker tells a very intimate story of the meetings with Obama's closet advisers.
The best part was this leaked quote:
--
"'What I’m not going to tolerate is you talking to the press outside of this room,' (Obama) scolded his advisers. 'It’s a disservice to the process, to the country and to the men and women of the military.'”
--
The access they have in the White House is stunning, especially considering Obama's predecessor. President Bush once infamously called Times reporter Adam Clymer a "major league asshole" while on the campaign trail in 2000 and ripped the paper during his entire administration. Rahm Emanuel supposedly calls up Times reporters just to shoot off about whatever crazy thing is bugging him that day.
Here's hoping that kind of access is kept through, you know, good journalism, and not holding great stories that would be detrimental to the White House. Because if another paper picks it up and the Times' critics (your Hannitys and Becks) have more ammunition to accuse the paper of censoring the truth, everyone would suffer.
-30-
Enjoy.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Buenas Tardes Amigo
Many give Bill O'Reilly credit for popularizing the idea of a prime-time cable news host who forces his opinions on everyone else, and rightfully so. That forcefulness of opinions, whether right or wrong, has been intimidated several times over with little success. I feel Lou Dobbs got lost in that middle ground - where he's hated by blogs for all the dumb things he says but does not draw the ratings. And now, he's officially leaving CNN.
Before Glenn Beck perfected it, Lou Dobbs promoted his show by linking everything to a rather disgusting hatred for immigrants. Basically blaming them for everything. His brand of forcefulness was nothing like the compelling variety O'Reilly had or the train wreck of Beck. It was just awful.
I think CNN deserves some credit here. While MSNBC and Fox News push for ratings by blatantly aligning with the left and right, respectively, CNN does its best to shoot straight for the center. Or whatever Rick Sanchez is. The channel is at least making an effort to keep journalistic integrity. Even the analysis shows like Anderson Cooper 360 and The Situation Room are almost too fair for their own good.
-30-
Some things are inevitable, I guess.
Before Glenn Beck perfected it, Lou Dobbs promoted his show by linking everything to a rather disgusting hatred for immigrants. Basically blaming them for everything. His brand of forcefulness was nothing like the compelling variety O'Reilly had or the train wreck of Beck. It was just awful.
I think CNN deserves some credit here. While MSNBC and Fox News push for ratings by blatantly aligning with the left and right, respectively, CNN does its best to shoot straight for the center. Or whatever Rick Sanchez is. The channel is at least making an effort to keep journalistic integrity. Even the analysis shows like Anderson Cooper 360 and The Situation Room are almost too fair for their own good.
-30-
Some things are inevitable, I guess.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Ill Communication
Remember when Obama could control the media with brilliant speeches and eloquently put his message on point to the American people without getting caught up in ridiculous pettiness like being a socialist? I guess that honeymoon's over.
Although, counter-point: death panels.
-30-
Really strong points from the Harvard Crimson on Obama's stalling at getting the message out on health care reform
Although, counter-point: death panels.
-30-
Really strong points from the Harvard Crimson on Obama's stalling at getting the message out on health care reform
Shine on you Crazy Diamond
During last year's election cycle, MSNBC struck television gold with the pairing of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. Not separately, mind you, as the unchecked egos of each on their own shows generally stalled things to a halt and made both Hardball and Countdown unwatchable a lot of the time.
But when sitting on the same set, there was definite tension between the uber-serious Olbermann and, well, let's say lunatic Matthews. The show never gave much political insight, the whole thing was a game where both men knew their roles. But it was entertaining, and despite the tense lead up to the election, that quality was in short supply.
That magic combination of pure mania and delusion isn't hit often, cable news really is that boring, but I think that's now changed with Fox News' Glenn Beck.
His craziness is well documented, and I'm sure he's proud of it in a martyrdom sense. I remember watching his show on CNN Headline News a few years back and thinking, not unlike all the other shows on that channel, that it was kinda dumb. In about a year, Beck has completely tapped into the conservative outrage as seen in the health care debate and everything Obama does.
I happened to be watching last night (clip below) and caught one of the craziest things I've ever seen. There are many shots between Fox/MSNBC during the commentary shows on both channels, which makes sense, being competitors, but this is ridiculous.
To think, fake populist rage is the reason we aren't getting a public option on the health care bill. It's a real disappointment, to be honest.
-30-
These are some of the biggest leaps I've ever seen.
But when sitting on the same set, there was definite tension between the uber-serious Olbermann and, well, let's say lunatic Matthews. The show never gave much political insight, the whole thing was a game where both men knew their roles. But it was entertaining, and despite the tense lead up to the election, that quality was in short supply.
That magic combination of pure mania and delusion isn't hit often, cable news really is that boring, but I think that's now changed with Fox News' Glenn Beck.
His craziness is well documented, and I'm sure he's proud of it in a martyrdom sense. I remember watching his show on CNN Headline News a few years back and thinking, not unlike all the other shows on that channel, that it was kinda dumb. In about a year, Beck has completely tapped into the conservative outrage as seen in the health care debate and everything Obama does.
I happened to be watching last night (clip below) and caught one of the craziest things I've ever seen. There are many shots between Fox/MSNBC during the commentary shows on both channels, which makes sense, being competitors, but this is ridiculous.
To think, fake populist rage is the reason we aren't getting a public option on the health care bill. It's a real disappointment, to be honest.
-30-
These are some of the biggest leaps I've ever seen.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Way down in the hole
I managed to finally sit down and watch all of The Wire this summer - I've seen a few episodes before, but nothing made any sense out of order - and enjoyed that it devoted a full season to the plight of newspapers, specifically the Baltimore Sun.
Maybe the whole theme of the Sun's fall was a bit dramatic, but it was a strong season. Truthfully, I kind of doubt journalists are that interesting, but it was good TV. One episode even included a quote that I'm sure rings true across the country.
--
"You know what a healthy newsroom is? It's a magical place where people argue about everything all the time!"
--
Exactly. I know for a fact that whenever I'm no longer employed in this industry I'll miss that part the most.
There was also, however, this quote in the final episode.
--
"As I look back over a misspent life, I find myself more and more convinced that I had more fun doing news reporting than in any other enterprise. It is really the life of kings."
--
It's a nice thought when the job weighs a bit too heavy, and I like to think there's still a bit of truth to it. Although the man who said it, H. L. Mencken, died in 1956, at a time when they probably were kings. What happened?
-30-
Can't deny it had a perfect first scene and intro music.
Maybe the whole theme of the Sun's fall was a bit dramatic, but it was a strong season. Truthfully, I kind of doubt journalists are that interesting, but it was good TV. One episode even included a quote that I'm sure rings true across the country.
--
"You know what a healthy newsroom is? It's a magical place where people argue about everything all the time!"
--
Exactly. I know for a fact that whenever I'm no longer employed in this industry I'll miss that part the most.
There was also, however, this quote in the final episode.
--
"As I look back over a misspent life, I find myself more and more convinced that I had more fun doing news reporting than in any other enterprise. It is really the life of kings."
--
It's a nice thought when the job weighs a bit too heavy, and I like to think there's still a bit of truth to it. Although the man who said it, H. L. Mencken, died in 1956, at a time when they probably were kings. What happened?
-30-
Can't deny it had a perfect first scene and intro music.
Perry Farrell
Whenever I tell someone I'm a journalism major, I'm often reminded that there is still some time left to change my major. It's pretty discouraging, but I like to think my degree isn't the most useless of diplomas from a four-year school. That is a daily struggle with art history majors.
But the constant message in journalism is that of multimedia. Journalists are supposed to be proficient at getting a story online well before final deadline for print, and supplement it with video of the scene, audio of a few interviews and a less-than-objective blog update detailing what the event was really like. Balance that with another similar story due that day and an investigative piece that demands attention and nothing gets done well.
It'd be nice if we could all take a breath. Average journalism isn't hard to do, it's probably why the pay is so low, but the good stuff takes time. When newspapers post clunky videos from a shaky handheld camera over a bad connection of what happened that day, is it really worth it to the reader? A few hundred more page views is always nice to tout, but that's time the reporter could spend probing further. I'd imagine most readers still get their news while at work, a time when it isn't really practical to turn on the speakers and watch a video of local news.
I'm far from against new media, my personal goal has always been to work internships in different mediums to find some sort of well-rounded view of journalism, but this shift away from telling the most detailed and interesting story we can is depressing. If it brings in more advertising, I say kudos for finding an outlet. Overall though, it just seems counter-productive to what we're trying to do.
-30-
I was pretty stumped on what to link to this time, so here, enjoy this classic again.
But the constant message in journalism is that of multimedia. Journalists are supposed to be proficient at getting a story online well before final deadline for print, and supplement it with video of the scene, audio of a few interviews and a less-than-objective blog update detailing what the event was really like. Balance that with another similar story due that day and an investigative piece that demands attention and nothing gets done well.
It'd be nice if we could all take a breath. Average journalism isn't hard to do, it's probably why the pay is so low, but the good stuff takes time. When newspapers post clunky videos from a shaky handheld camera over a bad connection of what happened that day, is it really worth it to the reader? A few hundred more page views is always nice to tout, but that's time the reporter could spend probing further. I'd imagine most readers still get their news while at work, a time when it isn't really practical to turn on the speakers and watch a video of local news.
I'm far from against new media, my personal goal has always been to work internships in different mediums to find some sort of well-rounded view of journalism, but this shift away from telling the most detailed and interesting story we can is depressing. If it brings in more advertising, I say kudos for finding an outlet. Overall though, it just seems counter-productive to what we're trying to do.
-30-
I was pretty stumped on what to link to this time, so here, enjoy this classic again.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Random Rules
Consider this a disclaimer, because it only seems fair to be upfront. I've criticized the Athens Messenger ('Mess) and Athens News (A-News) from time to time, and it's no secret our paper messes up too, but there won't be any snide remarks about The Post on these pages.
As per Post policy, I can't critique the paper. That distinction/responsibility is solely given to Ashley Lutz, our editor in chief. It's a rule that I'm okay with, as the ability to comment on a daily paper with more than 100 employees shouldn't be granted to everyone. If the rules say only the editor can do so, that makes sense to me.
So perhaps unfairly to them, Athens media criticism will be directed mainly toward the Mess and A-News. Then again, A-News editor Terry Smith is a fan of the Silver Jews and Pavement. Your move, 'Mess.
-30-
I don't think this Web site is a high priority
As per Post policy, I can't critique the paper. That distinction/responsibility is solely given to Ashley Lutz, our editor in chief. It's a rule that I'm okay with, as the ability to comment on a daily paper with more than 100 employees shouldn't be granted to everyone. If the rules say only the editor can do so, that makes sense to me.
So perhaps unfairly to them, Athens media criticism will be directed mainly toward the Mess and A-News. Then again, A-News editor Terry Smith is a fan of the Silver Jews and Pavement. Your move, 'Mess.
-30-
I don't think this Web site is a high priority
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
