Scratching The Surface?
We're a little late on this, but the blogosphere is buzzing about a "garish and jarring" few minutes on the NBC show "Surface." Here's Richard Blow at HuffPo:
With TiVo and other new technologies forcing a rethinking of traditional advertising strategies, crossovers like this may be the wave of the future. You could argue that it's harmless: Why shouldn't NBC use its own anchor in its entertainment programming, if it's necessary for the story? (I didn't see "Surface," so I can't say whether or not it seemed to be.) Or is the "Surface" incident problematic because, as Tom Shales argued in a discussion of the "West Wing" debate, it's "an indication that maintaining the line between news and entertainment is no longer much of a priority?"
I was checking out the NBC show "Surface," a guilty pleasure. On tonight's episode, two characters, Rich and Laura, are trying to spread word that they've discovered a sea monster. They show a videotape of the monster to a reporter who works at what appears to be an NBC affiliate in San Francisco.Righty Mark Kilmer couldn't resist taking a shot:
Not only can we put this on the air, the reporter declares, we can put it on our website. Rich and Laura say they've already uploaded it to the web. "But have you posted it on MSNBC.com?" the reporter says breathlessly. Rich and Laura are instantly won over.
(NBC, of course, owns MSNBC and partners with Microsoft in MSNBC.com.)
After the reporter interviews Laura, the entire segment is aired on -- you guessed it -- "Countdown with Keith Olberman," on MSNBC. Olberman introduces the segment and closes it. We hear lots of his show's music, and then, for no apparent reason, the theme from NBC Nightly News. It's an eight-minute ad for an NBC news show tucked jarringly into the middle of a program produced by the entertainment division.
Keith Obermann's ratings have skyrocketed! I'm not kidding. On almost every weeknight at 8p ET, his MSNBC Countdown attracts about 300,000 viewers…Last night, 10-million people watched Olbermann… when he did a cameo as himself on the NBC science fiction vehicle Surface.Product placement on television is nothing new, as anyone who watches "Survivor" or "The Apprentice" can tell you. Neither are blurred lines between news and entertainment: Many movies, like "Dave," feature journalists playing themselves. But this plugging of the news division on an entertainment show has become – forgive me, Jack Shafer – something of an emerging trend. On shows like Fox's "24," the characters get their news from Fox News, not some generic news report. And as we pointed out in November, NBC's "West Wing" staged a live debate between fictional presidential candidates with the NBC News logo plastered in the lower right hand corner of the screen. Doug Elfman called it "a slip of NBC's separation of fact and fantasy."
With TiVo and other new technologies forcing a rethinking of traditional advertising strategies, crossovers like this may be the wave of the future. You could argue that it's harmless: Why shouldn't NBC use its own anchor in its entertainment programming, if it's necessary for the story? (I didn't see "Surface," so I can't say whether or not it seemed to be.) Or is the "Surface" incident problematic because, as Tom Shales argued in a discussion of the "West Wing" debate, it's "an indication that maintaining the line between news and entertainment is no longer much of a priority?"
Pay No Attention To That Attention-Grabbing Thing On Your Screen
The technical innovations that many of us grew up not seeing on our television screens seem so vital to us now. The ticker – that constantly flowing stream of textual information that makes us feel like we're getting five times the bang for our news buck – appears here to stay. The little market updates in the corner instantly convey to us whether it's a good day or not (little green arrow pointing up = good; little red one pointing down = not so much so). It's even a relief to know instantly, with no finger-counting involved, what time it is in every U.S. time zone, whether you know anyone in them or not.
But just because something is possible to do on-screen doesn't mean it should be done, and something that caught my eye last night drove home the fact that all this technology can become more of a distraction than a help.
As I settled in to enjoy one of the last college football games of the season, the Orange Bowl, I was anticipating a competitive game between Penn State and Florida State, helmed by two legendary coaches. I know, I know, it's football and not news. But it's important to note that many technological on-screen developments have taken the lead in televised sports, later to make their way in one form or another to television news. So hang in there with me a minute.
Many of the new "toys" used in sports in general, and football in particular, have made events more enjoyable and understandable. Nothing has quite revolutionized the football-viewing experience like the "yellow line" – that superimposed yellow ribbon stretched across the field that marks the spot a team must advance to for a first down during each series. Rather than guessing or waiting for the announcers to tell us whether a pass or run has crossed that line, we can see it. And it's almost always accurate.
Another helpful tool has been the "flag" flash. When a penalty flag is thrown on a given play, a little flash goes off underneath the requisite box that keeps the score and the time and the word "flag" usually rotates onto the screen. No more jumping up excitedly and high-fiving the room over a touchdown pass only to discover it had been called back because of a holding penalty. Good stuff.
But what happened last night was almost enough to make me reach for the radio. ABC televised the game (they will also air tonight's national championship contest), a network with plenty of experience in airing important football games on Monday nights. Their logo, a round "bug" with ABC inside, was nestled in the middle of the box floating near the upper left-hand corner of the screen – the same one mentioned above with the score and time contained.
So far, so good except then I began to notice a flash within the box, one that did not announce a penalty. As I continued watching, that flash kept catching my eye so I took my attention away from the game for a moment and began to examine just what was happening. What I observed was this – during every single play, the little round ABC logo would flash and rotate, clearly in an attempt to make eyes move to catch the action. It was not subtle, and even after I returned my gaze to the screen, the eyes constantly returned. They kept seeing the flash and sending the signal to my brain of "flag," keeping me in a constant state of confusion (even more so than usual) about what was happening.
Now I'll confess, I haven't watched a lot of football games on ABC this year since Monday night games are usually taking place past my bedtime and I don't know whether this is a new technique for them or not. I can't even say if other networks, like CBS or NBC, do the same thing. All I know is it was the first time I observed it and it nearly ruined the game for me.
It also got me thinking about some of the junk that from time-to-time clutter up our screens when we're trying to watch some news. Tickers are great, but can we have more than five stories running across at any given time? I love to know what the Dow is doing even though I have very little idea what it really means for me, but I don't need the individual statistics that are sometimes run because I have absolutely no clue about those. And do we really need simultaneous live shots from ten different locations?
The moral of the Orange Bowl for me was not so much about making sure the place kickers were prepared, it was that when it comes to watching television, I'm much more interested in the primary program than the distracting bells and whistles that sometimes surround it. Have fun watching that USC-Texas game tonight, but keep a radio on hand, just in case.
But just because something is possible to do on-screen doesn't mean it should be done, and something that caught my eye last night drove home the fact that all this technology can become more of a distraction than a help.
As I settled in to enjoy one of the last college football games of the season, the Orange Bowl, I was anticipating a competitive game between Penn State and Florida State, helmed by two legendary coaches. I know, I know, it's football and not news. But it's important to note that many technological on-screen developments have taken the lead in televised sports, later to make their way in one form or another to television news. So hang in there with me a minute.
Many of the new "toys" used in sports in general, and football in particular, have made events more enjoyable and understandable. Nothing has quite revolutionized the football-viewing experience like the "yellow line" – that superimposed yellow ribbon stretched across the field that marks the spot a team must advance to for a first down during each series. Rather than guessing or waiting for the announcers to tell us whether a pass or run has crossed that line, we can see it. And it's almost always accurate.
Another helpful tool has been the "flag" flash. When a penalty flag is thrown on a given play, a little flash goes off underneath the requisite box that keeps the score and the time and the word "flag" usually rotates onto the screen. No more jumping up excitedly and high-fiving the room over a touchdown pass only to discover it had been called back because of a holding penalty. Good stuff.
But what happened last night was almost enough to make me reach for the radio. ABC televised the game (they will also air tonight's national championship contest), a network with plenty of experience in airing important football games on Monday nights. Their logo, a round "bug" with ABC inside, was nestled in the middle of the box floating near the upper left-hand corner of the screen – the same one mentioned above with the score and time contained.
So far, so good except then I began to notice a flash within the box, one that did not announce a penalty. As I continued watching, that flash kept catching my eye so I took my attention away from the game for a moment and began to examine just what was happening. What I observed was this – during every single play, the little round ABC logo would flash and rotate, clearly in an attempt to make eyes move to catch the action. It was not subtle, and even after I returned my gaze to the screen, the eyes constantly returned. They kept seeing the flash and sending the signal to my brain of "flag," keeping me in a constant state of confusion (even more so than usual) about what was happening.
Now I'll confess, I haven't watched a lot of football games on ABC this year since Monday night games are usually taking place past my bedtime and I don't know whether this is a new technique for them or not. I can't even say if other networks, like CBS or NBC, do the same thing. All I know is it was the first time I observed it and it nearly ruined the game for me.
It also got me thinking about some of the junk that from time-to-time clutter up our screens when we're trying to watch some news. Tickers are great, but can we have more than five stories running across at any given time? I love to know what the Dow is doing even though I have very little idea what it really means for me, but I don't need the individual statistics that are sometimes run because I have absolutely no clue about those. And do we really need simultaneous live shots from ten different locations?
The moral of the Orange Bowl for me was not so much about making sure the place kickers were prepared, it was that when it comes to watching television, I'm much more interested in the primary program than the distracting bells and whistles that sometimes surround it. Have fun watching that USC-Texas game tonight, but keep a radio on hand, just in case.
Welcome To The Neighborhood
A new "World News Tonight" launches on ABC this evening, but not before other new features of the broadcast have been unveiled. "WNT" launched a new blog, on which Elizabeth Vargas promises she and co-anchor Bob Woodruff will use as part of an effort "to bring you inside our newsroom and bring the world's news closer to you." More Vargas:
"Here, you'll find our thoughts on daily news and the way we build our broadcast; details from reporters in the field; videoblogs and reporter's notebook entries, like Bob's from Iran, and the ones we posted during my trip to Baghdad for the Iraqi elections. We hope you will check in throughout the day for updates."We say welcome to the blogging neighborhood and we hope that your efforts will provide the kind of transparency and behind-the-scenes glimpses that we try to provide. The more information all news organizations provide about how they gather and present the news, the better off the consumers of the news will be.
The Ratings Game
On a recent episode of the public radio show This American Life, Alex Blumberg discussed how, growing up, he always assumed that the Nielsen Ratings – the ratings used to measure television viewership – got their name from the fact that all of the viewers sampled shared the last name Nielsen.
"I think I'd figured [as a child] that they'd done some research and found that the name Nielsen, because it was a common name maybe, that seemed to cut across class and economic lines, actually came pretty close to a representative sample," he said. Twenty years later, he was speaking to someone who said her friend had been selected as a Nielsen family. "Isn't it weird that they're all named Nielsen?" Blumberg asked. He was met with an uncomfortably long silence.
The moral of the story? We know less about the Nielsens than we think. (And no, the sample isn't made of people named Nielsen. The name comes from the much-more-mundane fact that system was developed by Nielsen Media Research.) If you want to go "Inside TV Ratings," the company has a page on their website that takes you through how it all works. (Blumberg may want to check out the section tagged "The first crucial step? We scientifically select a group of households that mirrors the population at large. Learn how."
The Nielsens impact how billions of dollars in advertising money will be spent each year, and, not surprisingly, they've faced their fair share of controversy. Last year, the company came under fire when minority groups and networks like Fox and Univision charged the Local People Meter, an electronic set-top box the company wanted to use to measure audiences instead of the written diaries that had been in use since the 1950s, undercounted minority viewers. The campaign against the Local People Meter was an aggressive one, led by a group funded in part by Fox that represented more than 100 advocacy groups. (Many Fox programs, a number of which were geared towards minorities, took a ratings hit under the new system, which meant less advertising dollars for the company.) Rupert Murdoch lambasted Nielsen CEO Susan Whiting in front of network executives, Al Sharpton criticized her in her office as reporters waited outside, and a Senate subcommittee grilled Whiting on whether Nielsen, which is a monopoly, needed government oversight.
Whiting's company won the battle, however, in part because, as Business Week put it, "Nielsen wasn't counting minority viewers out: It was counting them elsewhere." The ratings points were going to cable under the new system, and outlets like Black Entertainment Television showed huge increases. (Presently, both meters and diaries are used to measure ratings. The diaries are most important during "sweeps" periods, when the entire national audience is measured. Meters are used primarily to measure viewership in large markets. More on sweeps here.)
Nonetheless, there have been charges that the system continues to undercount minority viewers, particularly Latinos. As the Los Angeles Times reports today, the company has now made a change that should please it's critics. "Nielsen Media Research will include in its national ratings shows aired by Univision Communications Inc. starting next week, a move that is expected to better measure the nation's growing Latino audience," writes Meg James. Univision executives predict "tens of millions of dollars in additional ad sales" as a result. (Previously, "Nielsen has estimated the audiences for Spanish-language shows through a separate audience panel, releasing those numbers with little fanfare." Many advertisers focus only on shows in the traditional ratings framework.)
And as USA Today pointed out this week, "Nielsen is finally entering the TiVo age." As of yesterday, the company offers three different ratings depending on when a viewer watches a program – increasingly, viewers are recording shows on Digital Video Recorders and watching them later. It's a move TV networks have been pushing for. CBS research chief David Poltrack told the paper that research shows that "people who have DVRs are watching more television and watching proportionately more network television, particularly the top shows. Their exclusion has been hurting the broadcast networks, and we're obviously anxious to get them in the sample."
Despite these changes, the Nielsens remain an imprecise measure. Like a poll, the system is based on a sample that isn't necessarily representative. And viewers who know they're viewing habits are being recorded might report that they're watching different shows than they actually are – PBS, say, instead of Fear Factor. (I talked to Poltrack about this issue in October.) In addition, it's virtually impossible to measure television audiences in shared spaces like dorms and airports.
Still, this week's news suggests that Nielsen is trying to change with the times. We'll see how far they go – and, in the meantime, ponder the scary thought that more people are actually watching Fear Factor than we thought.
"I think I'd figured [as a child] that they'd done some research and found that the name Nielsen, because it was a common name maybe, that seemed to cut across class and economic lines, actually came pretty close to a representative sample," he said. Twenty years later, he was speaking to someone who said her friend had been selected as a Nielsen family. "Isn't it weird that they're all named Nielsen?" Blumberg asked. He was met with an uncomfortably long silence.
The moral of the story? We know less about the Nielsens than we think. (And no, the sample isn't made of people named Nielsen. The name comes from the much-more-mundane fact that system was developed by Nielsen Media Research.) If you want to go "Inside TV Ratings," the company has a page on their website that takes you through how it all works. (Blumberg may want to check out the section tagged "The first crucial step? We scientifically select a group of households that mirrors the population at large. Learn how."
The Nielsens impact how billions of dollars in advertising money will be spent each year, and, not surprisingly, they've faced their fair share of controversy. Last year, the company came under fire when minority groups and networks like Fox and Univision charged the Local People Meter, an electronic set-top box the company wanted to use to measure audiences instead of the written diaries that had been in use since the 1950s, undercounted minority viewers. The campaign against the Local People Meter was an aggressive one, led by a group funded in part by Fox that represented more than 100 advocacy groups. (Many Fox programs, a number of which were geared towards minorities, took a ratings hit under the new system, which meant less advertising dollars for the company.) Rupert Murdoch lambasted Nielsen CEO Susan Whiting in front of network executives, Al Sharpton criticized her in her office as reporters waited outside, and a Senate subcommittee grilled Whiting on whether Nielsen, which is a monopoly, needed government oversight.
Whiting's company won the battle, however, in part because, as Business Week put it, "Nielsen wasn't counting minority viewers out: It was counting them elsewhere." The ratings points were going to cable under the new system, and outlets like Black Entertainment Television showed huge increases. (Presently, both meters and diaries are used to measure ratings. The diaries are most important during "sweeps" periods, when the entire national audience is measured. Meters are used primarily to measure viewership in large markets. More on sweeps here.)
Nonetheless, there have been charges that the system continues to undercount minority viewers, particularly Latinos. As the Los Angeles Times reports today, the company has now made a change that should please it's critics. "Nielsen Media Research will include in its national ratings shows aired by Univision Communications Inc. starting next week, a move that is expected to better measure the nation's growing Latino audience," writes Meg James. Univision executives predict "tens of millions of dollars in additional ad sales" as a result. (Previously, "Nielsen has estimated the audiences for Spanish-language shows through a separate audience panel, releasing those numbers with little fanfare." Many advertisers focus only on shows in the traditional ratings framework.)
And as USA Today pointed out this week, "Nielsen is finally entering the TiVo age." As of yesterday, the company offers three different ratings depending on when a viewer watches a program – increasingly, viewers are recording shows on Digital Video Recorders and watching them later. It's a move TV networks have been pushing for. CBS research chief David Poltrack told the paper that research shows that "people who have DVRs are watching more television and watching proportionately more network television, particularly the top shows. Their exclusion has been hurting the broadcast networks, and we're obviously anxious to get them in the sample."
Despite these changes, the Nielsens remain an imprecise measure. Like a poll, the system is based on a sample that isn't necessarily representative. And viewers who know they're viewing habits are being recorded might report that they're watching different shows than they actually are – PBS, say, instead of Fear Factor. (I talked to Poltrack about this issue in October.) In addition, it's virtually impossible to measure television audiences in shared spaces like dorms and airports.
Still, this week's news suggests that Nielsen is trying to change with the times. We'll see how far they go – and, in the meantime, ponder the scary thought that more people are actually watching Fear Factor than we thought.
It's Just A Restless Feeling By My Side
On Sunday mornings around 10:30, political junkies (read: nerds) like myself can face a conundrum: Tune into CBS for "Face The Nation," NBC for "Meet The Press," or ABC for "This Week?" Depending on where you live, you might not have the same timeslot conflicts, but if you're in the same boat as I am, there's now at least something of a solution. From an NBC press release:
I don't, to be honest. But it's going to be great to be able to catch "Meet The Press" online. Now instead of having to choose between three shows I want to watch I can get "Meet The Press" anytime, provided I'm willing to wait a couple hours.
"Meet the Press," now in its 59th year, will be the first Sunday morning public affairs program to be available in its entirety, free of charge, on-demand and online beginning at 1:00 pm, ET on Sunday afternoons.As Lost Remote notes, "NBC says its Meet the Press podcasts are doing well, with 90,000 downloads in November and 25,000 already in the first week of December." TV Newser, meanwhile, has a question in light of all this web hosted programming: "NBC started netcasting the Nightly News several weeks ago. It may offer Today on MSNBC.com too, but do online viewers want to watch three hours of Katie, Matt, Al, and Ann?"
I don't, to be honest. But it's going to be great to be able to catch "Meet The Press" online. Now instead of having to choose between three shows I want to watch I can get "Meet The Press" anytime, provided I'm willing to wait a couple hours.
Pull it, Sir!
Big news (at least, if you're a journalist): The folks behind the Pulitzer Prize said today that, starting in 2006, newspapers can submit online material for consideration "in all 14 of its journalism categories," according to a press release.
Here's a quote from Pulitzer administrator Sig Gissler: "The Board believes it has taken a significant step in recognition of the widening role of online journalism at newspapers. The Board will continue to watch the evolution of this medium."
CBS News and CBSNews.com remain ineligible, since the Pulitzers continue to be limited to newspapers alone. But one strong candidate would be the New Orleans Times Picayune and nola.com for their Katrina coverage – blogger Rex Hammock, among others, has called for them to receive the award.
As for a Pulitzer for best blog, we're not there yet, but Kevin at Lakeshore Laments says "it could happen." He adds: "Give it time. They seem prime to do it within the next decade."
In September, Jeff Jarvis wrote in the Guardian that he agreed with Hammock, and added the following:
Here's a quote from Pulitzer administrator Sig Gissler: "The Board believes it has taken a significant step in recognition of the widening role of online journalism at newspapers. The Board will continue to watch the evolution of this medium."
CBS News and CBSNews.com remain ineligible, since the Pulitzers continue to be limited to newspapers alone. But one strong candidate would be the New Orleans Times Picayune and nola.com for their Katrina coverage – blogger Rex Hammock, among others, has called for them to receive the award.
As for a Pulitzer for best blog, we're not there yet, but Kevin at Lakeshore Laments says "it could happen." He adds: "Give it time. They seem prime to do it within the next decade."
In September, Jeff Jarvis wrote in the Guardian that he agreed with Hammock, and added the following:
It doesn't matter whether the work came rolling off a press or a blog: it is journalism of the highest calibre and greatest service. The Pulitzer committee would serve journalism well by separating the content from the container, the medium from the message, and recognising great reporting wherever and however and from whomever it comes, with or without a press.
Nous Report. Tu Decide.
The Financial Times brings word that France has given the go-ahead to a 24 hour news network that will serve as a rival to CNN in the region. La chaine francaise d'information internationale (CFII) "will focus on world affairs, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. The government wants it to be beamed around the world in French, Arabic, English and eventually Spanish."
The channel is backed by French president Jacques Chirac, who "said it was necessary to be in the 'front rank in the global battle of images' to project France's world view abroad." So is it going to be propaganda?
Peut-etre:
The channel is backed by French president Jacques Chirac, who "said it was necessary to be in the 'front rank in the global battle of images' to project France's world view abroad." So is it going to be propaganda?
Peut-etre:
Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, culture minister, claimed on Wednesday the new channel would allow France to put forward its own vision of international news, one that was "free, modern and pluralist" but also a bulwark of French "values".Look for CFII to start broadcasting in the second half of next year.
"Who hasn't felt the need that our French idea of news, steeped in the values of democracy, be defended? Who hasn't felt the need that French successes are mentioned in a balanced way as well as the difficulties and the tensions of the world?"
Coming Up, The Year Of Media Experimentation?
If you think the media landscape looks confusing now, Reuters hints that we haven't seen anything yet:
"Media managers will get their hands dirty in 2006, experimenting with new and untested formats to find a better formula of reaching appropriate audiences.
Executives speaking at the Reuters Media and Advertising Summit in New York this week pointed to dozens of new tactics worth trying, and others worth dropping, as growth in new media outlets disrupts the television-dominated model."
Re: Actually Writing Viewers Back
One might not think the fact that a guy answers his email would make for much of a story in the highest circulation newspaper in America. But when that guy is America's only permanent anchorman, well, people take notice.
That's why USA Today devoted some space today to the news that, yes, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams will sometimes hit the reply button when he gets an email.
Speaking of transparency and give and take, let me throw out a post-Thanksgiving reminder: Keep sending us your tips and thoughts on what we should be writing about here at Public Eye. We get some of our best ideas from readers, after all. So don't forget to drop us a line and post your thoughts in comments. And good luck working off all that turkey.
That's why USA Today devoted some space today to the news that, yes, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams will sometimes hit the reply button when he gets an email.
Chances are good that at any given time, some viewer has something to say to him. And the Internet is their courier of choice.Williams also contributes to a blog, The Daily Nightly, and has become one of the media's most outspoken voices on the need for transparency in the news business.
"They fire it off, wanting to blow off steam," says Williams, 46. "They think maybe you read it, but they are not thinking that they are going to engage in a dialogue with you."
So when Williams hits the "reply" button, taking exception when it is suggested — as it often is — that he hates America for one reason or another, most writers are stunned that he has responded. "They'll respond, 'Dear Mr. Williams, I couldn't believe it was you. I didn't mean any offense.'"
Speaking of transparency and give and take, let me throw out a post-Thanksgiving reminder: Keep sending us your tips and thoughts on what we should be writing about here at Public Eye. We get some of our best ideas from readers, after all. So don't forget to drop us a line and post your thoughts in comments. And good luck working off all that turkey.
Revisionist Neo-Postmodern Media Criticism 2.0
Ragging on reporters is turning into a complicated racket.
Case in point: a story in today's edition of The New York Times about Howard Kurtz of the Times' archrival, The Washington Post.
Consider this: you are now reading an item in a media blog about a story in a newspaper about a reporter who writes about the media for another newspaper and talks about the media for another network.
If you care to comment in my entry, you will be commenting about an item in a media blog about a story in a newspaper about a reporter who writes about the media for another newspaper and talks about the media for another network.
If I respond to your post, I will be…. You get the picture.
It is easy and tempting to merely make fun of this kind of gazing at a navel-gazer's navel-gazing. But wait: I may have a point beyond comedy!
As self-involved as the Times' piece on Kurtz and this little piece right here may be, it all adds up, I am beginning to believe, to something like a free market, checking-and-balancing press police system that may -- may -- benefit the reporting business at a time when economic market forces are all scary.
This idea is akin to the war cry of the blog triumphalists: blogging fact-checkers and question-askers, though each alone may be flawed and narrow, together can form an army that will correct and hold accountable the press form more than editors and paid researchers ever could. Bloggers of the word Dissent!
I don't know if the blog triumphalists believe that the traditional press (TTP) needs to willingly participate in the revolution for it to succeed, but I do.
So even tough my instinct as an editor (as opposed to a gossip) is to cringe at the Times' Kurtz piece, I do think it is part of a process where some major news organizations are opening ourselves in untraditional ways that will result in better correction mechanisms, more fairness, tougher professional standards and eventually better stories and happier readers and viewers.
There are, of course, alternate views. Some see stories like the Kurtz profile as part of a maddening trend of reporters becoming celebrities, a trend that makes for bigger paychecks for the few and lousier content for the many. Others may see such stories as symptoms of a hunkering down, insular preoccupation typical of a dying industry. And insiders may see the story as a gilded hatchet job that got two writers from Slate and one from The Nation magazine to take potshots at a competitor.
I prefer to see the article as a text ripe for deconstruction by practioners of Revisionist Neo-Postmodern Media Criticism 2.0.
Case in point: a story in today's edition of The New York Times about Howard Kurtz of the Times' archrival, The Washington Post.
Consider this: you are now reading an item in a media blog about a story in a newspaper about a reporter who writes about the media for another newspaper and talks about the media for another network.
If you care to comment in my entry, you will be commenting about an item in a media blog about a story in a newspaper about a reporter who writes about the media for another newspaper and talks about the media for another network.
If I respond to your post, I will be…. You get the picture.
It is easy and tempting to merely make fun of this kind of gazing at a navel-gazer's navel-gazing. But wait: I may have a point beyond comedy!
As self-involved as the Times' piece on Kurtz and this little piece right here may be, it all adds up, I am beginning to believe, to something like a free market, checking-and-balancing press police system that may -- may -- benefit the reporting business at a time when economic market forces are all scary.
This idea is akin to the war cry of the blog triumphalists: blogging fact-checkers and question-askers, though each alone may be flawed and narrow, together can form an army that will correct and hold accountable the press form more than editors and paid researchers ever could. Bloggers of the word Dissent!
I don't know if the blog triumphalists believe that the traditional press (TTP) needs to willingly participate in the revolution for it to succeed, but I do.
So even tough my instinct as an editor (as opposed to a gossip) is to cringe at the Times' Kurtz piece, I do think it is part of a process where some major news organizations are opening ourselves in untraditional ways that will result in better correction mechanisms, more fairness, tougher professional standards and eventually better stories and happier readers and viewers.
There are, of course, alternate views. Some see stories like the Kurtz profile as part of a maddening trend of reporters becoming celebrities, a trend that makes for bigger paychecks for the few and lousier content for the many. Others may see such stories as symptoms of a hunkering down, insular preoccupation typical of a dying industry. And insiders may see the story as a gilded hatchet job that got two writers from Slate and one from The Nation magazine to take potshots at a competitor.
I prefer to see the article as a text ripe for deconstruction by practioners of Revisionist Neo-Postmodern Media Criticism 2.0.
The Village Voice (Apparently) Hearts Public Eye
From Sidney H. Schanberg's "Press Clips" column in today's Village Voice:
From the mission statement on the Public Eye homepage:
Public Eye still has a long way to go in making all this happen, of course. But as we find our footing and settle in for the long haul – it's hard to believe, but PE hasn't even hit its two-month anniversary yet – it's heartening to see other media outlets arguing that greater transparency is an essential ingredient for healthy journalism. NBC's Daily Nightly and ABC's Blue Sheet are other examples of the move toward transparency in broadcast journalism. (And for even more examples from across the media spectrum, check out our list of Journo-Blogs.)
Of course, we don't claim to be media watching superheroes here, righting journalism's wrongs one segment at a time. We know still have a long way to go. To that end, let me ask: what do you want to see more of on Public Eye? What could we be doing better? Let us know in comments.
Journalism's most serious failure, probably, is its reluctance to explain how reporters go about putting together a news story. A large percentage of news stories, for example, begin with a public relations announcement…Sometimes the finished products that appear in a paper are little more than slightly tweaked rewrites of the original press releases. That is known as bad journalism. But we don't talk about it. Even superior newspapers don't write about such things, out of fear that their critics, or the general public, will use this candor against them.
This lack of openness about our tradecraft—this non-transparency—is really the mother of most of the press's troubles.
From the mission statement on the Public Eye homepage:
Public Eye's fundamental mission is to bring transparency to the editorial operations of CBS News — transparency that is unprecedented for broadcast and online journalism…
Public Eye is an opportunity for our audience to hold CBS News more publicly accountable. It is also an opportunity for CBS News to be more open about how and why it makes editorial decisions that affect what millions of people see, hear and read each news day…
Breaking out of the traditional "ombudsman" role, Public Eye will also try to explain and describe how news is reported and produced at CBS -- a mystery to most viewers.
Public Eye still has a long way to go in making all this happen, of course. But as we find our footing and settle in for the long haul – it's hard to believe, but PE hasn't even hit its two-month anniversary yet – it's heartening to see other media outlets arguing that greater transparency is an essential ingredient for healthy journalism. NBC's Daily Nightly and ABC's Blue Sheet are other examples of the move toward transparency in broadcast journalism. (And for even more examples from across the media spectrum, check out our list of Journo-Blogs.)
Of course, we don't claim to be media watching superheroes here, righting journalism's wrongs one segment at a time. We know still have a long way to go. To that end, let me ask: what do you want to see more of on Public Eye? What could we be doing better? Let us know in comments.
A Guide To The Journo-Blogs
Blogging, as PE readers know, is no longer the province of those outside the media bubble. Journalists in virtually every corner of the media world are now authoring blogs that allow them to say what they don't on the air or in print. In order to make it a bit easier to navigate the rapidly expanding landscape of journo-blogs, we've decided to offer up a handy compendium for your browsing pleasure.
As for who makes the cut, it's going to be a little subjective, since there is some blurring of lines here. In general, if someone is known primarily as a blogger, even if they've published in traditional media outlets, they won't be on the list – which means people like Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan, and Hugh Hewitt are out. (Though Hewitt, who has a radio show, is right on the line.) If someone is known as a blogger but also makes regular contributions to a traditional outlet, however – The American Prospect's Matthew Yglesias is a good example – we'll include him.
What about people who work for traditional outlets, but do so primarily as bloggers? They won't be included, since they get paid to blog, not practice traditional journalism. (That means no Kevin Drum, Mickey Kaus, or James Taranto.) The staff of Public Eye also falls into this category.
We are also going to stick mostly with national publications – a category that includes the Chicago Tribune, but not the Pensacola News Journal – so as to keep the list manageable. This is by no means a definitive list, and if you think we've left out someone particularly worthy, please let us know in comments. (For a more comprehensive accounting, see The Cyberjournalist List here.)
And now, without further ado, the journo-blogs:
Television Journalists:
Manny Medrano, ABC
Ned Potter, ABC
Jake Tapper, ABC
Steve Harrigan, Fox News
Rick Leventhal, Fox News
Greta Van Susteren, Fox News
Brian Wilson, Fox News
Dan Abrams, MSNBC
Alan Boyle, MSNBC
The Daily Nightly (Brian Williams and colleagues), NBC
Hardblogger (Chris Matthews and colleagues), MSNBC
Larry Kudlow, CNBC
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC
The Peacock blog (David Shuster and colleagues), MSNBC
Joe Scarborough, MSNBC
Squakblog, CNBC
Newspaper Journalists:
Joel Achenbach, Washington Post
Brian Chin, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
The Culture Blog (various writers), San Francisco Chronicle
Mark Jurkowitz, Boston Phoenix
Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post Gazette
James Lileks, Minneapolis Star Tribune
Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune
Magazine Journalists:
Altercation (Eric Alterman), The Nation
Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report
David Corn, The Nation
The Corner (various writers), National Review:
Craig Crawford, Congressional Quarterly
Katrina Vanden Huevel, The Nation
Hit and Run (various writers), Reason
Scott Rosenberg, Salon
Noam Scheiber, The New Republic
Tapped (various writers), American Prospect
James Wolcott, Vanity Fair
Matthew Yglesias, American Prospect
NOTE: this post was updated to include additional journo-bloggers on Sept. 30.
As for who makes the cut, it's going to be a little subjective, since there is some blurring of lines here. In general, if someone is known primarily as a blogger, even if they've published in traditional media outlets, they won't be on the list – which means people like Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan, and Hugh Hewitt are out. (Though Hewitt, who has a radio show, is right on the line.) If someone is known as a blogger but also makes regular contributions to a traditional outlet, however – The American Prospect's Matthew Yglesias is a good example – we'll include him.
What about people who work for traditional outlets, but do so primarily as bloggers? They won't be included, since they get paid to blog, not practice traditional journalism. (That means no Kevin Drum, Mickey Kaus, or James Taranto.) The staff of Public Eye also falls into this category.
We are also going to stick mostly with national publications – a category that includes the Chicago Tribune, but not the Pensacola News Journal – so as to keep the list manageable. This is by no means a definitive list, and if you think we've left out someone particularly worthy, please let us know in comments. (For a more comprehensive accounting, see The Cyberjournalist List here.)
And now, without further ado, the journo-blogs:
Television Journalists:
Manny Medrano, ABC
Ned Potter, ABC
Jake Tapper, ABC
Steve Harrigan, Fox News
Rick Leventhal, Fox News
Greta Van Susteren, Fox News
Brian Wilson, Fox News
Dan Abrams, MSNBC
Alan Boyle, MSNBC
The Daily Nightly (Brian Williams and colleagues), NBC
Hardblogger (Chris Matthews and colleagues), MSNBC
Larry Kudlow, CNBC
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC
The Peacock blog (David Shuster and colleagues), MSNBC
Joe Scarborough, MSNBC
Squakblog, CNBC
Newspaper Journalists:
Joel Achenbach, Washington Post
Brian Chin, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
The Culture Blog (various writers), San Francisco Chronicle
Mark Jurkowitz, Boston Phoenix
Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post Gazette
James Lileks, Minneapolis Star Tribune
Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune
Magazine Journalists:
Altercation (Eric Alterman), The Nation
Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report
David Corn, The Nation
The Corner (various writers), National Review:
Craig Crawford, Congressional Quarterly
Katrina Vanden Huevel, The Nation
Hit and Run (various writers), Reason
Scott Rosenberg, Salon
Noam Scheiber, The New Republic
Tapped (various writers), American Prospect
James Wolcott, Vanity Fair
Matthew Yglesias, American Prospect
NOTE: this post was updated to include additional journo-bloggers on Sept. 30.
