When journalism fails

“‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” – George Orwell, “1984”

***

One of the most troubling developments in journalism, probably in my lifetime, with the exception of the overtly polarized media — Fox News, MSNBC and many others on television and online that don’t even pretend to hide their biases anymore — happened last month when Sinclair Broadcast Group, the conservative conglomerate that owns 173 local stations nationwide, forced its anchors to read a canned statement about the company’s supposed integrity in news reporting (including WPGH in Pittsburgh where I live). The company told the public to hold stations accountable for honest news gathering without the slant and invited viewers to contact them if they saw a problem.

On the surface, this sounds like an admirable thing to do. Any news source should be open to critiques and willing to air or publish corrections when they get details wrong. But these weren’t statements from local producers tailored to the communities in which they serve. These were identical talking points handed down from the corporate office, and taken together, are chilling reminders that without free speech and a free press, democracy cannot flourish. In fact, it withers.

[pullquote]
Yeah, nothing says we value independent media like dozens of reporters forced to repeat the same message over and over again like members of a brainwashed cult. — John Oliver, “Last Week Tonight”[/pullquote]

CNN’s Brian Stelter broke the story, but Deadspin spliced together a video of dozens of anchors all saying the same things in lockstep. The full transcript is here.

Glossing over the fact that these statements were delivered with no lead-ins or context whatsoever, which is bizarre by itself, the content sounded like fodder from Fox News and almost precisely echoes President Donald Trump’s breathless cries about supposed “fake news” coming out of The New York Times, CNN, NBC or any other outlets publishing information that doesn’t paint him or his administration in a positive light.

Here is an excerpt:

… We’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.

More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories … stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first.

Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think’…This is extremely dangerous to (our) democracy.

The first point should be obvious, but it has to be made: the lion’s share of reporting done at the local level, and especially the halfhearted, show-up-and-leave-in-a-trail-of-dust variety at local TV stations across the country, has little if anything to do with left- or right-wing dynamics. Some local stations add national news to their coverage just to have something to talk about for the full hour, but it’s not their coverage. They are just piggybacking off some other affiliate. And many local elections, like seats on the school board or city council, aren’t partisan in the first place.

This statement was projected onto a building recently in Alameda, Calif.

This statement was projected onto a building recently in Alameda, Calif.

Even for those local elections that are partisan, national Democratic and Republican platforms have little to do with funding school programs, fixing roads or maintenance of community facilities. The demarcation line usually revolves around whether to raise enough tax revenues to pay for continued county or city services or to just let things fall to shit, but aside from that, political affiliation isn’t as much of a variable on the local level as people may think.

The second thing to say is that the script just presents a paper thin, blanket argument, again parroted from Trump’s own mouth, about “fake news” without any corroborating information or specifics, taking great liberties with the word “some” to say the zero-sum of nothing:

Some members of the media [like who?] use their platforms to push their own personal bias [like what?] and agenda [like what?] to control ‘exactly what people think’ … This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.

The irony is that Sinclair is doing exactly the same thing, and it is reminiscent of state-run media in places like Russia and North Korea. As CNN reports, journalists like myself and many others across the nation are “chafing” at this encroachment on the free press. Some of Sinclair’s own employees, of course, are afraid to speak on the record about it for fear of losing their jobs. But many others who aren’t associated with the company have spoken out.

Erik Wemple with The Washington Post provided perhaps the most pointed assessment of the statement:

So: An editorial with no supporting evidence, no data, no argumentative beef. One hundred percent innuendo. No wonder Sinclair employees are freaking out about the thing.

I watched a little CNN yesterday, and commentators were talking about the plight of the individual anchors at these TV stations, who were made to read the statement and would likely face termination if they didn’t, noting that in more cases than not, they couldn’t just walk out of their jobs because they have families to support and mortgages to pay, etc. But journalism is a principled profession. Maybe the anchors can’t afford to walk out immediately, but if they sense that what they were forced to do was wrong, they can, and should, look for work at a more respectable company that actually values journalistic integrity. Consequently, I once worked for a paper owned by a family with friends on the local county council, and every so often, the managing editor and I would receive talking points via email and be expected to compose an editorial based on whatever opinion the owners felt the need to peddle, which was a severe conflict of interest. In addition to the tedious nature of the job itself — I spent most of my time copy editing and laying out pages — I couldn’t in good conscience work in an environment like that, so when the opportunity arose, I got out.

The larger issue is the continued damage Sinclair’s approach does to journalism and the principles of a free society. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are two of the highest ideals on which our nation was founded, and editors and producers must be allowed to make news decisions independently of government or corporate interests. Outlets like Fox News, MSNBC and others have already embraced a kind of partisan news vacuum that recalls the 19th century era of journalism in which most papers were either pro-slavery or staunchly against the “peculiar institution.” Supporting that kind of divide in the year 2018 not only represents an embarrassing disregard for journalistic integrity on the part of Sinclair, but, to borrow the company’s own phrase, it is an extremely dangerous threat to our democracy.

Sources:

[Cover image credit: “Orwell” by DeviantArt user TavenerScholar.

Mmm, irony

mississippi news article

As I said in a comment about this on Facebook, having worked at a five-day daily for a year, Associated Press stories coming across the wire are usually far from error-free.

This particular headline issue was probably the result of a hurried page designer trying to get a paper out on deadline. I believe the worst error in a headline that I have ever seen included a missing letter in the word, “public,” which was published in a prominent position on the page by the Anderson (S.C.) Independent Mail back in 2008.

In any case, in my experience, Associated Press stories are usually fraught with issues and can not just be thrown on the page on the assumption that the copy is clean, although they have supposedly already been edited. Perhaps the word “edited” should be in quotes, since few kids coming out of journalism school have the eagle eye anymore — and developing the eagle eye doesn’t seem to be a priority in college these days — which is sad.

Is this story about a red light system or the Chicago Tribune?

In the 2014 story, Tribune study: Chicago red light cameras provide few safety benefits, readers first hear about the Tribune’s “state-of-the-art” study — whatever that means — to examine the city’s red light system, and then the writers of the story insert “the Tribune” and the paper itself into the report so many times (“the Tribune” gets not less than 23 mentions) that one can easily forget what the story is actually supposed to be about. Not to mention it’s more than a little distracting.

This seems like a running theme with the Tribune. I’ve always thought that newspapers should not become part of the stories they cover. A newspaper’s job is to report information, and of course, tell readers about any interference public officials give about handing over public documents, but newspaper should not be so presumptuous as to think that the paper’s plight is more important than informing readers.

In any case, and despite all that hard-hitting journalism pitting the city of Chicago and the Tribune’s lion-hearted reporting staff, the Tribune still endorsed Rahm Emanuel for mayor. Go figure.

So much for the wall of separation

Integrity in national journalism is officially dead:

Time Inc. has fallen on hard times. Would you believe that this once-proud magazine publishing empire is now explicitly rating its editorial employees based on how friendly their writing is to advertisers?

Last year—in the opposite of a vote of confidence—Time Warner announced that it would spin off Time Inc. into its own company, an act of jettisoning print publications once and for all. Earlier this year, the company laid off 500 employees (and more layoffs are coming soon). And, most dramatically of all, Time Inc. CEO Joe Ripp now requires his magazine’s editors to report to the business side of the company, a move that signals the full-scale dismantling of the traditional wall between the advertising and editorial sides of the company’s magazines. … — “Time Inc. Rates Writers on How “Beneficial” They Are to Advertisers,” Gawker.com

And then there’s this, in which a Sports Illustrated article about Drew Brees was basically one long advertisement for a TRX training system. The article failed to mention that Brees is an investor in the company that makes the equipment, according to Forbes.

Here’s SI’s half-hearted reply:

This was a story about how an elite QB entering his 14th season stays at the top of his game, while affording readers access to those same training methods. It was not a story about TRX, though we should have disclosed the relationship. It was unintentional, but it should have been acknowledged.

How does a magazine on the level of Sports Illustrated, which is part of Time, fail to make such an acknowledgment unless, of course, that wouldn’t have been beneficial for advertisers.

Journalism’s ‘death’ merely return to form

Given the increased prominence and influence of partisan outfits like MSNBC and FOX News, increased job cutbacks and failed newspapers around the nation, increased information on the Internet, and given a decreased presence of good journalism, many have noted the obvious, and inevitable decline of journalism in recent years.

Michael Gerson, with The Washington Post, is the latest, who in his Nov. 27 column, “Journalism’s Slow, Sad Death,” outlines this decline, describing the old newspaper fronts displayed at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., as looking more like a mausoleum than an archive of living history. And he’s right. Journalism, or more accurately, newspapering, is almost a forgotten craft at this point in our history. But while he calls it a “slow, sad death,” I call it a return to form.

In the dictionary, one can find two definitions for “journalism,” one that includes the stipulation that the news gathering and presentation of information be given without interpretation or analysis, and one that simply says it’s about news gathering. Thus, magazines, tabloid publications and standard broadsheet newspapers “do” journalism, but it’s the broadsheet sort that Gerson is referencing, though he never really makes the distinction.

Of course, those who are actually in the newspaper business know what he means when he says “journalism.” We mean the kind of news gathering that attempts to leave commentary or interpretation out of straight news stories, opinion being relegated to the editorial page. But without that distinction, most people in the body politic can’t even distinguish, or don’t know how to, between the kind of journalism done by People Magazine and that of the L.A. Times or the St. Petersburg Times. Celebrities can’t even distinguish. Often, like in this Tiger Woods fiasco, movie or sports stars will refer to “the media” as a blanket term for everything from the trash tabloid publications to The New York Times. As the L.A. Times reported about Woods:

In a Q&A on his website last month, a fan asked Woods why she rarely saw photos of the couple in the gossip magazines. Woods replied that they have “avoided a lot of media (italics mine) attention because we’re kind of boring,” and he described a home life that included watching rented videos and playing video games with friends.

Many people don’t see the distinction, and that’s one point in which journalism as we know it might be going the way of the dodo. Thanks to the tabloids, Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann and others, true objective journalism is simply being drowned out and stamped down in preference to opinion and innuendo (Admittedly, there is no such thing as “objective” journalism as an ideal. Journalists are not robots, but humans. We interpret news and make decisions on a daily basis about what is important to include in news stories and what is not. That skill set largely distinguishes our product from claptrap put out daily by People, the National Inquirer and others.)

All that said, Gerson’s “slow, sad death” is a return to form because his “journalistic tradition of nonpartisan objectivity” is a fairly new phenomenon beginning at some point in the early 20th century. Prior to that, especially in the yellow journalism era and in the mid-19th century right around the Civil War,  newspapers and other publications were merely talking heads for political parties. They took a public stance, one way or the other, for slavery or against, for the Barnburners or against, for the Copperheads or not. So, if print newspapers followed the trend of television news, they will more increasingly become partisan, like FOX News and MSNBC.

I, of course, would hate to see this happen and hope that newspapers still practicing good journalism can find ways to remain solvent. Were newspapers to make that eventual turn, it wouldn’t necessarily be the death of journalism, for journalism, objective or not, can live on without getting “newsprint on your hands,” as Gerson lauds newsmen at the end of his column. But it would be a return to its former self. Remember, journalism wasn’t objective first in its history. It was partisan first. The turn to non-partisanship was a turn for the better, in my view, and here’s hoping print journalism remains true to its 20th-century transformation.

The newspaper crisis as I see it

As I said here, I like words, and I like information. While pictures and graphics can provide some level of information, I think solid reporting and well-crafted stories serve our communities the best. I think The New York Times’ traditional design is a beautiful thing. Newspapers such as that offer less filler and are teeming with information. As such, I would probably fit perfectly well in some 18th century London coffeehouse or pub reading the latest edition of The Spectator. But then again, and for better or worse, I’m not the average Joe.

Print media, as is evidenced by the recent demise of the Rocky Mountain News, the Detroit Free Press scaling back to only three days per week, Knight Ridder’s purchase by McClatchy, among others examples, print media is tanking. Perhaps sooner than later, the days of sitting in the local Huddle House or at your kitchen table reading the morning paper may be one and done. Today, at least among small to mid-size dailies, there’s this dire atmosphere, almost like a desperation, to sell papers. I saw it at a local daily I used to work for. The leadership wanted giant photos, “teasers” everywhere, sports cut-outs … basically as much crap as one could pile above the fold, the better, information and usefulness of such “elements” (as they called them) be damned. For a national example of this, see USA Today.

The problem with that model is that a publication could offer the most artistic, elegantly designed and well-photographed publication in the country, but if it missed the boat on content, it has failed in its duty to inform and educate the community it serves. After all, with all those “elements” flying around everywhere, something has to be compromised. And the content usually gets the ax, and at this aforementioned paper, that’s exactly what happened. Thus — and I know to the budget-minded publisher or editor this is unpopular territory — but the public is shortchanged when elements take precedence over content. The job of newspapers is to add to the intelligence and knowledge of the public, not take away from it or contribute to the general dumbing down taking place in other outlets like radio and television. Have we lost our muster when we simply can’t sell newspapers by compelling headlines and probing reporting? Have J-schools across the country failed us in producing a generation of editors and publishers who are OK with this nonsense? Can’t we be everything television and radio isn’t?

As an example, Stephen King’s name doesn’t jump out at you because he’s got lots of cool pictures and graphics in his books. In fact, it’s hard to find a single picture anywhere! His name jumps out at you because he does something with words and ideas that few others can. We are raising and educating a generation of journalism amateurs — or wimps — in this regard. What King does and what journalists do are polar, of course, but I’m arguing that words, in and of themselves, can be compelling and can make newspapers or books or whatever fly off the racks. Journalism is not for the bashful. True journalism doesn’t hide behind snazzy graphics or photos. It can be powerful, and it can change communities. I’ve seen it happen. But I’m probably arguing in 20th century, or even 19th century, terms.

Here in the 21st century, the Internet provides a literal free for all of information, thus rendering newspapers largely irrelevant, except only to a select few still enamored with their morning coffee-paper routine. I’m in that crowd, but admittedly, we must move on. Insomuch as small- to medium-sized dailies are going to continue to offer their daily fare of elements, giant photos, graphics simply for the sake of graphics and cartoon-sized headlines, they should just fold up shop and put all that time and effort into the Internet, as witnessed by this publication:

Whoever created this is probably quite proud, but this is a newspaper, not a graphic showroom. And by the way, to further illustrate why this is trash, where is the local news on the front page? Can you find it? Clemson Tigers basketball is local, but that’s sports. A local feature story about an artist is not local news. Photos and graphics have all but consumed this paper. I am sure local news in short supply can be found inside, but it should be found out front, and it’s not. (The paper recently reformatted to this tabloid design.)

Almost all of this paper’s readers — and millions more — are online, so why not scale back the effort, stop contributing to the trash heap and publish solid reporting and well-crafted writing on the Web site. And, the money saved from going virtual could be put into increased attempts to sell ad space on the Web through banners, specially-priced ads based on where they appear on the page, Web design, hosting and other ventures. In short, if the goal is to abandon the traditional model for newspapers as we know them, get on with the end game. Get completely virtual, stop publishing graphic-laden, information-less trash and give up the ghost. I’ll never read books online and if there is still a local or national newspaper still putting out quality work in print form, chances are I’m going to read it. But thankfully, books still have a market in print form. Of the former newspapers, I’m not sure. We are too enamored with the sound bites of FOX News and CNBC and CNN to care about newspapers anymore. And that’s fine. But it’s time some papers stop pretending to be relevant, if that relevancy means compromising journalistic integrity to en masse photos and graphics signifying nothing.

Should Black History Month be a thing of the past?

In a Feb. 8, 2009 column, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker supplied her view of Black History Month, dubbing it, “quaint, jarring, anachronistic.”

Coming from a black person, this comment itself may sound jarring. But it’s really not. As Tucker notes, even after Carter G. Woodson’s original 1926 Negro History Week went into effect, black folks were still the but of racial epithets and racial acts. Lynchings were still imminent for many. Segregation was still very much in force. Then, as now, Black History Month or Week or whatever we want to call it, means little, for those recognitions do little to repair scars, smooth hatreds or open locked minds.

As a child, I certainly remember sitting through special lessons in class geared to teach us about the important contributions of black people through America’s history, from Stowe to Tubman to Douglas to Du Bois down to King and Jackson (Jess, not Michael, though Michael has made important contributions as well). But even then (although it probably didn’t occur to me at the time), it merely seemed like we were just throwing black folks a bone, as if to say, “Sorry about those 150 or so years of slavery and another 100-plus of oppression and inequality under the law. Here’s a month just for you. Enjoy!”

I wonder how black children or youths feel nowadays when it comes time for the lessons on black leaders throughout history. Do they feel proud? Undermined? Embarrassed? No doubt, those lessons are important and every child, black or white or brown or yellow should be well-grounded in our own history. But shouldn’t we now, in the 21st century with a black man holding the highest office in the land, move past all the silliness of giving certain groups special tokens simply for being a certain color? As the new president has continually stressed, black people’s history is so inextricably bound up with America’s history that none of us can escape it. And why would we want to?

Tucker also notes that many traditional textbooks “gloss over” certain ugly periods in our history like Jim Crow and Reconstruction and the Black Codes. I would say this is largely true. Frankly, I knew little, if anything, about Reconstruction, lynchings or Jim Crowe before going to college. Some of that lack of knowledge falls on me. I didn’t have the hunger for learning that I do now. But part of that falls on our educational system. I knew all about Black History Month, even as a tyke. But after that month was over, it was back to pilgrims, stage coaches and manifest destiny (Interestingly, we learned less about the human atrocities resulting from that “destiny.” We did, however, touch briefly on the Trail of Tears. Thousands of Native Americans relocated from their homes and thousands dead. But let’s quickly move on.)

In short, at this point in our history, we can now, and should, move past the necessity for Black History Month. Of course, as a white person, it seems tougher for me to theoretically and socially to say such a thing than it is for Tucker. But perhaps that’s the point. The fact that it seems harder for a white person to say that proves the point. It’s time to move on and integrate the history of black folks with the history of America, both in our textbooks and in our social conscious. Or, as Tucker concludes:

Americans young and old, black, white and brown, will understand that black history and the nation’s history are one and the same. — The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Matt Millen’s NFL commentary and the press

First, apologies for not being terribly consistent with the blogging as of late. My personal writing time has been largely devoted to some short stories I’m working on.

Today, I wanted to comment on Matt Millen’s commentary during the Super Bowl pregame show. The content of said commentary is not my concern, of course. The fact the he was and is commentating is my concern.

What broadcast executive would give this guy a job at NBC after he, for all intent and purposes, ran the Detroit Lions farther into the abyss? What would make someone think, “Eh, he failed at running a football team. Maybe he will be OK at commentary?”

I don’t know the answer there, but he started talking on NBC during the pregame show, and it was a distraction for me, as I’m sure it was for many others, knowing the history of the Lions, etc. I think NBC took some hits for that … if not in the ratings, at least in untangible viewer perceptions.

To make it worse:

Every time a certain familiar face showed up on camera Sunday during NBC’s Super Bowl pregame show, Channel 4 ran a scroll at the bottom of the screen:

“Matt Millen was president of the Lions for the worst eight-year run in the history of the NFL. Knowing his history with the team, is there a credibility issue as he now serves as an analyst for NBC Sports? …” — Detroit Free Press

Ok, so, knowing his history with the Lions, we might agree with this statement. But what of Channel 4? A television news channel should not be running editorial content to supplement its coverage. And believe me, both of those sentences were nothing but opinion. Channel 4 was unquestionably in the wrong. But, to be sure, this is a symptom of many local news television channels. The only potentially truly objective news medium is newspapers (Broadsheet, not tabloid). While the word “money” rules the day no matter where you get your news, newspapers seem to still hold the purest form for objective news.