News-Record.com

Mark Glaser of Online Journalism Review wants someone to start the media company he would like to work for. In a guest post at Jay Rosen's PressThink blog, he talks about what such an organization might look like and how it might function. Because he talks a lot about emphasizing the needs of the consumer/reader/viewer, I thought I'd throw out some of his bullet points to see whether you, the reader, think this, or something like it, might be a news organization whose work you would like to see:

A news outlet that creates new content, aggregates the best outside content, and makes sense of everything, presenting it in a clear, simple format for the consumption of everyone.

A company founded on the values of serving the public and allowing the public to serve journalism by participating in all discussions of mission and direction.

A company that answers directly to its readers and consumers and doesn't talk down to them from editorial ivory towers.

A company that is focused on the value of journalism, the practice, and not only of marketing and stock dividends.

A group of like-minded people who are willing to start from scratch and build a new way of doing smart, groundbreaking citizen journalism. Not too amateur, not too professional but something in between.

A company that is flexible and knowledgeable, with people who "get it" and understand how they can tap the latest technology to improve the craft of journalism -- and help it survive. These new journalists would blend the research done online via search and databases, the production process of a content management system, the community involvement of bulletin boards and wikis, and the delivery mechanisms of RSS, blogs and mobile platforms. Rather than teach old dogs new tricks, employ techno-literate people from inception. The "everyone gets it" company.

A commitment to provide more transparency for all writers and editors, including political leanings, conflicts of interest and other details that will help readers know who they are. A balance of privacy for journalists with the public's need to know who they are and where they come from.

A staff and board of advisers of englightened media people and bloggers such as Jeff Jarvis, Jay Rosen, Elizabeth Osder, Susan Mernit, Matt Welch, Howard Owens, Robert Cox, Steve Rubel, John Battelle, James Lileks, Bob Somerby, Dan Gillmor, and many others who walk the talk.

A company where journalists follow the spirit of the rules and ethics of journalism -- and not the letter, as fundamentalists would.

A company where people realize that the Web audience is potentially global and therefore work together to create stories and packages that cross national and cultural boundaries.

A place where news will be a conversation and not a one-way lecture. Where the readers will also report, edit, fact-check and photograph the world around them.

Some news organizations, including this one, are doing some of these things now, or moving (comparatively) rapidly in that direction, but his whole point would be to accelerate that movement to, basically, instantaneous change.

I'll leave it to you readers to say whether this is something you'd like. As a working journalist, however, I'd say it looks awfully attractive.

The United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination with 1.3 million members and 6,000 congregations nationally (and at least seven congregations in and around Greensboro), today launched a TV ad campaign, "God Is Still Speaking," which will run through the 26th and is aimed at reaching 60% of the U.S. population. You can view the debut ad in the series here.

Just one problem: Viacom, the parent corporation of the CBS and UPN television networks, is refusing to run the ad, as is NBC, on the grounds that it is "too controversial."

The "controversial" part is the part where the church says it "welcome(s) all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation." One brief shot in the ad linked above shows a pair of women, apparently a lesbian couple. The denomination said it received a statement from CBS that read in part:

CBS/UPN Network policy precludes accepting advertising that touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance. ... Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations, and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks.

Blogger Josh Marshall has communicated with CBS, which is now adding other reasons for its refusal to run the ad: that it "proselytizes." Perhaps, but look at the ad for yourself: It proselytizes no more (or less) than similar ads run by other religious groups -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints comes immediately to mind, and I know there are others.

Moreover, if we're to take this "controversial-issue" argument seriously, well, then I'm sure CBS has never run any political advertising whatever, because that would be advertising that "takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance." Right? Besides, I'm not a lawyer, but to the extent of my research, political speech appears to have been granted the widest possible deference by the courts -- in other words, in a self-governing society, it's considered to be the most important speech of all.

So what, exactly, is Viacom really afraid of? I don't know; its executives don't regularly communicate with me. But I would guess that it has nothing to do with the question of whether exclusion of "other minority groups" is controversial, because exclusion of "other minority groups is illegal, by and large.

No, I would guess that this is based on the part in the statement about the "exclusion of gay couples" and the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage: Viacom does not want to offend the executive branch -- the Bush administration, which opposes gay marriage and has proposed the amendment -- because it, through the Federal Communications Commission, could retaliate, perhaps thwarting Viacom's business interests (e.g., acquiring additional properties).

I await the outcry from religious groups across the theological and political spectrums regarding this suppression of religious expression. And if you want to call CBS and protest -- I doubt they'd pay attention to e-mails -- you can reach them at 212/582-1149 or write them at 51 W. 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019. You can call NBC at 212/664-4444 or write them at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112.

Paper: Cheerleader
with no brains and no panties.
That's what Robbie wants.

Big Arm Woman knows, that's who.

Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, engages in some, well, creative self-defense on the New York Times op-ed page, and media critic Jeff Jarvis righteously, if occasionally rudely, calls him out on it.

Given the news out of some of our local schools in the past few days, you can be forgiven for thinking that the N&R's series on school discipline has already started. But it actually starts tomorrow. In this two-day package, my colleagues Taft Wireback and Jennifer Fernandez are going to be taking a detailed look at a subject of great interest to students, parents, teachers and a lot of other folks with no direct connection to the schools. Don't miss it.

Another family-owned newspaper, that is: In this case, the Herald-Sun in Durham.

I don't want to overly romanticize family-owned newspapers. Many of them, historically, have been just as bottom-line-fixated as chain papers, and some have been even more corrupt in terms of how far they would go to shape or cover up news to benefit local interests. But in this case, the Rollins family, from what I can see from the outside looking in, appears to have been a good and ethical steward of the paper in a very tough, very competitive news environment.

One thing I would take with a grain of salt, however, is this bit from newspaper-industry analyst John Morton:

The Herald-Sun has a reputation as a solid, well-run newspaper, said John Morton, a media analyst and president of Morton Research in Silver Spring Maryland.

"It's always had good management and it does a good job," he said.

Readers may not notice a big difference in the newspaper, at least at first, Morton said.

"What they're buying is what the Durham paper built up over the years," he said. "They'll be careful not to diminish it by cutting it one way or the other."

A friend of mine claims that Paxton will gut the Herald-Sun like a fish and that the Raleigh-based News & Observer will make another big push into Durham, further damaging the paper's finances. Certainly, with absentee ownership, the Herald-Sun will be vulnerable. And we love competition in the news bidness, but historically, this kind ends with lots of people losing their jobs.

You might recall back in October, when Sinclair Broadcasting Group was planning to air the anti-John Kerry film "Stolen Honor." I wrote a long post then with background on Sinclair, including speculation from Jay Rosen, chairman of the journalism department at New York University, that Sinclair might be trying to do something totally different: not a broadcasting company involving itself in politics but a (Republican) political empire that just happens to own a lot of TV stations.

Now, there's a new datum supporting that hypothesis: Clear Channel has picked Fox News Radio as the primary source of news for its news and talk stations.

Via Steve Rubel, here's a comparison of the professionals' account of a New York subway fire with a blogger's account. Do you like one better than the other? Why?

You might or might not be surprised to know that the number of complaints to the Federal Communications Commission about allegedly indecent material on the broadcast networks has grown astronomically in the past couple of years. But I'll bet you'll be surprised about why:

In an appearance before Congress in February, when the controversy over Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl moment was at its height, Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell laid some startling statistics on U.S. senators.

The number of indecency complaints had soared dramatically to more than 240,000 in the previous year, Powell said. The figure was up from roughly 14,000 in 2002, and from fewer than 350 in each of the two previous years. There was, Powell said, "a dramatic rise in public concern and outrage about what is being broadcast into their homes."

What Powell did not reveal -- apparently because he was unaware -- was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003 --99.8 percent -- were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.

In politics and activism, this is what's called an Astroturf campaign -- a campaign that looks like a grass-roots effort but is really organized by a relatively small group of people, usually a group with an agenda, frequently an agenda about which the group is being, well, less than fully forthcoming, shall we say.

This year, the trend has continued, and perhaps intensified.

Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints -- aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS -- were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1. (The agency last week estimated it had received 1,068,767 complaints about broadcast indecency so far this year; the Super Bowl broadcast accounted for over 540,000, according to commissioners' statements.)

The prominent role played by the PTC has raised concerns among critics of the FCC’s crackdown on indecency. "It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio," said Jonathan Rintels, president and executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, an artists’ advocacy group.

PTC officials disagree.

"I wish we had that much power," said Lara Mahaney, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles-based group. Mahaney said the issue should not be the source of complaints, but whether programming violates federal law prohibiting the broadcast of indecent matter when children are likely to be watching. "Why does it matter how the complaints come?"

Indecent programming is programming that deals with sexual or excretory organs or functions in a manner that is "patently offensive" by "contemporary community standards." It is constitutionally protected -- yes, you read that right -- but limited by the FCC to broadcast between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., when children aren't likely to be in the audience.

Now, Lara, to answer your question: When 99.9% of the million-plus complaints are coming from one group, and that group has demonstrated from the sheer volume of its complaints that it neither understands nor cares about the legal definition of indecency, then your group is wasting the taxpayers a ton of money in a time of record-breaking deficits.

Even given that the definition of indecency is broad enough to drive a truck through, does anyone really think that the broadcast networks air close to 1,000 indecent segments per year (outside the 10 p.m.-to-6 a.m. window)? Even if there are, on average, 1,000 complaints per segment -- which is a fantastically high estimate -- there would still be more than 1,000 such segments airing on broadcast TV every year based on current complaint numbers. If you watch any over-the-air TV programming at all, you know that's not the case.

So, Lara, you and your group need to stop wasting my tax money. Also, you need to know that Title 47, Section 326 of the U.S. Code forbids the FCC from censorship, so stop trying to make the FCC play national nanny, mmkay?

A reminder: I and I alone am responsible for the contents of this blog. No one, likely to John Robinson's occasional regret, edits me except for me, and God ain't the only one who knows I'm not perfect.

Accordingly, if you have a complaint about the contents, take it up with me: Hit the "comment" link below the appropriate post, or e-mail me. Leave my co-workers out of it. Of course, if, after communicating with me, you're still unsatisfied, you're free to communicate with my bosses, but the buck starts here.

We now return you to the usual inanity.

If you spend a lot of time reporting hard news for a newspaper, you'll make a few enemies if you do your job right. Most days, at most papers, that means nothing. In fact, compared to the outright threats to life and limb faced by reporters in some other countries, it means less than nothing.

But sometimes the danger gets a little too real even locally. That's what's alleged to have happened Tuesday in Alamance County, where a developer is charged with assaulting and threatening a reporter for the Times-News over a story the reporter had written in November. The reporter is pressing charges at the insistence of the executive editor, Lee Barnes.

I've known Lee for almost 20 years, and I trust his judgment. More than that, I wholeheartedly agree with his direction on this.

If you do reporting right, sooner or later you will have your intelligence, patriotism and sexual orientation questioned by people who could take lessons from linoleum, who would sell nukes to Osama bin Laden if the price were right and who would engage in adult relations with a snake if they could get someone to hold its head. That comes with the territory; as the old saying in this business goes, if you want friends, buy a dog.

And I certainly know how ill is my industry's repute -- and how many very good reasons there are for that illness.

But that doesn't give anyone the right to threaten a journalist. And if you assault one, don't be surprised if he or she hits back -- on a number of levels. Because you swallow a lot in this business, but there are some things even we won't eat.

I'd been sitting here for the past 30 minutes trying to remember how to do X on our computer system and then trying to remember where I had put my notes on how to do X on our computer system.

Failing at both, I rather shamefacedly sought help from one of our tech folks, apologizing as I did for my incipient senility.

"You CAN'T do X," he said. "You never could. You have to be a page designer [i.e., have page-designer software] to be able to do X.

"So you're not senile."

I'm. Not. Senile.

Hallelujah! My day can only get worse from here.

"Crisis," like so many other words, used to have a definite, concrete, commonly understood meaning. Nowadays, it has taken on a postmodernist, if not Alice-in-Wonderland, tinge and means whatever its user wants it to mean.

For example, if you read most newspaper articles and watch TV news, you probably think that Social Security is in a "crisis" and might not be there for our children and grandchildren.

The fact is this: If we do nothing at all to Social Security, and even if the economy grows at an average annual rate of only 1.9%, Social Security will be in perfectly fine shape until 2042 (and well beyond that with only modest changes). And if the economy does grow at such a slow average annual rate between now and then, any retirement investments in private accounts likely would be devastated.

I'm not saying privatization is a good or bad idea. I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that a lot of people who ought to know better are throwing around the word "crisis" as if Social Security were in immediate or medium-term danger. It is not. And if the facts are readily available, one must assume either that these people either haven't checked the facts or have some other reason for saying things that are so blatantly untrue.

So: no Social Security crisis. But Medicare and the government's general fund, on the other hand .... well, I'll just let economist Brad DeLong lay it out for you ...

UPDATE: Social Security would remain fully funded for the duration of its 75-year planning calendar if the amount of income subject to FICA withholding is increased from its current level, roughly $87,000, to about $110,000. This change would affect only the top 15 to 20 percent of wage-earning households while eliminating any need for benefit cuts. Just an observation, not advocacy.

Dear Ms. Gorham:

As someone whose work occasionally elicits reader wrath on subjects a lot more weighty than whose football team is better, I read sportswriter Paul Gattis' column with some interest.

I think your follow-up column, well-meaning as it might have been, was the same type of response as that of football officials who never see, and penalize, the guy who throws the first punch, only the guy who retaliates.

After 21 years in this bidness, almost all of that in hard news reporting on subjects that can involve a lot of emotion, I'd like to think I have a pretty thick skin. But I've noticed something else going on: The nature of the criticism these days is much more personal, and much more vicious, now than when I was starting out. And while I'm happy to try to address just about any substantive problem a reader or other customer might have -- or, if I can't do it, to try to find someone who can -- I'm tired of putting up with baseless personal abuse and simply won't do it anymore. And because I try not to ask the people I supervise to do things I wouldn't do, I've told my reporters that they don't have to do it, either.

Moreover, as thinkers a lot more learned than I have observed, a threat to a newspaper's credibility is a direct attack on its net worth, given that a large majority of a paper's market value is tied up in "good will," a financial term-of-art that includes how honest readers and advertisers think a paper is. As a manager at my paper and for my corporation, I no longer let unfounded attacks on our competence OR integrity pass unchallenged. To do so would be a disservice to our shareholders as well as my co-workers and the community we serve.

And think about this: We hope and expect readers to believe that we are on their side. But if we won't fight for ourselves, why should they believe us when we say we'll fight for them? (Do not be misled by the fact that this argument has recently been advanced by certain prominent Democrats in a purely political context. I've been saying it, about newspapers, longer than they have, and I've been a registered Republican since 1978.)

I won't argue that Gattis' column was perfect. The cold logic of his column, fine as it was, was undermined by the tone in some places.

But neither will I ignore the fact that that tone stemmed in significant part from baseless and unprovoked attacks on his character and integrity. I just wish you hadn't ignored that fact as well. But you did, and in addition to the small and invisible but very real hit on your bottom line, whatever trust you might have accumulated in your newsroom up to now also has taken a hit -- one from which it might never recover.

Sincerely,

Lex Alexander

"If you come into the newsroom dressed like a bunny, you're going to get what you deserve."
--One of my co-workers

You've been warned.

This article in the Wall Street Journal offers a real thumbsucker to those of us of the newspaper persuasion:

"The challenge for newspapers is for them to figure out what they can provide that isn't being provided by the Internet and CNN," says David Cross, a director at Zyman Group, an Atlanta marketing consultant that recently advised the newspaper industry.

One thing we can provide? Local news, and a lot of of it. And that's what most of our news staff is devoted to doing. Subsets of that include the community news that you and your neighbors are interested in, written, we hope, so as to entice even people who aren't your neighbors to read it, and local watchdog journalism (because "60 Minutes" can't be everywhere, and besides, there's that whole Dan Rather document thing).

Will we always be providing this news on dead trees? "Always" is a long time, but so far, predictions of the demise of print have proved premature. But my co-workers and I are trying to develop the kind of journalistic competence that crosses medium lines (or is, as the geeks say, "platform-neutral"). That means we want to be the ones who bring you the best-reported, best-written, best-illustrated, best-designed local news, whether that be via print, video, audio, online, modeling clay or any combination of the above.

If we can do that, and I'm confident we can, then we can live in harmony with the Internet and cable news for a long, long time to come.

As I mentioned in this blog's first post, I've frequently been the one-eyed guy in the land of the blind, the N&R's version of an early adopter, where computers and the Internet are concerned. So I get drafted every so often to try to figure out where we're going, or what we're going to adopt, next.

This'd be one of those times.

As I said in that same post, I encouraged the Powers That Be here at the N&R to get us involved in blogging primarily because of the possibilities I saw for the medium to enhance the relationship between the paper (and its Web site) and the community. Now, I'm pulling together a list of possible specific ways we can do that, ways in which you and I and everyone in the real-life and online community who wants to participate can make the N&R's Web presence a true online public square for Greensboro and Guilford County.

At a minimum, such a presence would include a deep and rich variety of links and RSS feeds, some form of aggregation, expanded online presence for N&R staffers (including more blogs) and ways in which members of the community can contribute directly to the content. In short, we plan to take some large steps, soon, toward building an open-source, online community.

We have no preconceived notions of what it should look like, and no idea is too weird. (And John Robinson will confirm that when *I* say no idea is too weird, I am not joking.) We want -- we NEED -- your input and help.

So have at it -- hit the comment link below or e-mail me and tell me what you'd like to see, do, contribute. Know of any sites already doing this in a way that appeals to you? Shoot me a link. Know anyone I should talk to? Shoot me the contact info.

And to help us prioritize, categorize each of your specific suggestions in one of these three ways: 1) You want it. 2) You need it. 3) You can't live without it.

For the longest time, newspapers have been an evolutionary business rather than a revolutionary one. Appropriately, for a city named after a Revolutionary War hero, that trend reverses course right here, right now. Join us.