All Blog Posts from Public Eye

In cyberspace, no one can hear you scream. Unless you’re a magazine publisher, apparently.

When it comes to ‘the media,’ is there a certain genre that’s more vulnerable to blog competition than others? Blogs have long been seen as a threat to ‘traditional media’ for quite awhile now. But as much as we like to use the word ‘media,’ it’s a rather large concept. There’s TV, obviously. And papers. And what about books? Do they count?

But as far as what media genre is sweating the most, the San Francisco Chronicle chimes in today, with a word of warning to magazines.

The blogging industry is coming to resemble the magazine world, with multiple sites for every taste in politics, entertainment, business, technology and any other imaginable field.

"The ones that have become very strong small businesses have a niche market that's big enough to attract advertisers," [think tanker Steve] King said. "In most categories, a few blogs tend to dominate."

Read full post…

We’ve now gotten to the point where a columnist at BusinessWeek has dared to ask the question: Which major American newspaper should be the first to throw up its hands and stop publishing a print product?

Not “if,” mind you, but “which.”

As Jon Fine writes:

Killing print requires acknowledging not just that the old mode is dead but also that the future means less revenue and shrunken staffs. This is why it makes sense soonest at a money-losing newspaper already grappling with those realities, and one in a major city that generates enough local ad dollars to support a sizable online business.

So he believes that “the old mode is dead?” What does that mean, anyway? Mode meaning ‘financial model?’ Mode meaning ‘people don’t read papers anymore?’ It’s unclear. But since we’re talking about the beginning of the end of one of America’s most revered traditions, it's worth trying to nail that down.

Read full post…

While we're on the subject of controversies surrounding leaks and anonymous sources, there's a substantial update in the story of two reporters (not located in Washington) who faced jail for failing to comply with a subpoena and reveal their source for several stories.

They're not facing jail anymore.

Troy Ellerman has admitted to leaking secret grand jury testimony from baseball players in the BALCO steroids case to San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams. The Department of Justice says the reporters' subpoenas will be withdrawn and their testimony is expected to be rendered moot by the judge in the leak investigation case.

Ellerman represented BALCO in the original case and he is pleading guilty to violating a judge's order not to disclose the transcripts. He could be sentenced to up to two years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines.

Adding insult to injury, the Chronicle reports that "while he was secretly leaking the transcripts, Ellerman acknowledged Wednesday, he was publicly complaining to a federal judge about the leaks, and even filed a motion in October 2004 to dismiss charges, arguing that the disclosures made a fair trial 'practically impossible.'"

It's obviously a good outcome for the reporters involved (jail would have been kind of a downer.) But one media watcher reveals a glitch.

Mark Feldstein, a George Washington University professor and journalism historian who is often procured to comment on such issues, had this to say to the Chronicle: "Someone who may be thinking about leaking information to the press may think twice if he knows he's going to go to jail."

If you are a reader of the Public Eye comments section, you might have noted that some commenters tend to get very … fired up, let's say, about certain issues. That type of enthusiasm (and typically colorful use of the English language) sometimes tends to be the case when it comes to communication between news outlets and their audiences.

In the interest of such interactivity, The San Francisco Chronicle has unveiled a new feature in which the paper highlights some of the comments that readers make – via voicemail – that don't make it into the paper as letters to the editor. It's called, "Correct Me If I'm Wrong...".

And in one of the feature's first editions, the paper has a little fun.

One recent submission was an example of such a fired up commenter, who took issue with the paper's use of the phrase "pilotless drones" in a photo caption. He's quite miffed about it, actually. You can listen to it here.

Someone else, upon hearing that reader's complaint, took issue with the complaint itself in another voicemail.

Then someone went to YouTube and slapped together a music video looping some choice phrases from the original complaint. Someone else chose clips from the complaint and turned them into ring tones. And now, we're blogging about it.

As you'll see, politicians are not the only ones whose virally distributed inappropriate statements can come back to haunt them.

Adventures In Cuban Broadcasting: Remember Radio and TV Marti, the U.S. funded stations that broadcast anti-Castro propaganda into Cuba (which most people in Cuba don't actually see or hear because the Cuban government regularly jams the signals)?

Well, in the wake of rumors that Fidel Castro may be on his deathbed, $377,500 is now being spent "to air select programs on South Florida broadcast stations over the next six months, using loopholes in a law that prohibits the propaganda channels from distribution within the United States." While the stations have primarily U.S. audiences, experts told the Miami Herald that signals from a South Florida AM radio station can reach Cuba "very clearly at night." While the U.S. Office of Cuba Broadcasting argues the move is "another method to get our signal in," critics argue the move is political. Joe García, executive vice president of the New Democratic Network, called the investment "a fraud." He told the Herald: "This is using taxpayer dollars for a political payoff to benefit the most Republican and politically charged radio station in Miami. They know well that the station isn't heard in Cuba, because Cuba transmits Radio Rebelde over the exact same frequency."

More Drama In Santa Barbara: In case you don't follow the journalistic drama that's been plaguing Santa Barbara's community, let us fill you in. This past July, nearly every top editor and several employees of the Santa Barbara News-Press abruptly left the paper. American Journalism Review reporter Susan Paterno wrote an article in AJR's recent issue about the melee, called "Santa Barbara Smackdown," in which she "talked with former staffers, some of whom accused News-Press owner and publisher Wendy McCaw of meddling in the newsroom." Now the company that publishes the News-Press is suing Paterno for "libel and product disparagement," according to the AP. In a court filing, the company calls the article "nothing but a biased, false and misleading diatribe against plaintiff." AJR's Senior Vice President told the AP that "the article was carefully reported and News-Press management had 'ample' opportunity to respond to questions but refused."

Read full post…

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White’s decision to sentence San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada to 18 months in prison is, predictably, generating a lot of noise from newspaper editorial boards. The San Francisco Chronicle, obviously, is calling for a federal shield law and denouncing White’s decision.

The Oregonian calls the decision an act in the “criminalizing of investigative journalism.” “…As has become distressingly common in investigations and lawsuits around the country, the journalists are facing jail time for doing their jobs,” wrote the Washington Post’s editorial board on Friday, also heeding the call for a federal shield law for journalists. Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky argued along the same lines for a federal law in the Orlando Sentinel: “Putting these reporters in jail serves no purpose other than to chill investigative reporting that informs the public about important social and political issues.”

Those calls for a federal shield law come as the Senate recently decided to postpone consideration of such a measure following Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, during which he strongly opposed the adoption of such a law. "In imposing a burden of proof on the government, it places a thumb on the scale in favor of the reporter's privilege and tips the balance against executive branch judgments about the nature and scope of damage or potential damage to our nation's security," he said. (You can read his prepared statement here.)

At least one journalist, however, has a different sort of headline about this story: “Reporters doing what they have to -- and so is judge.” While he sympathizes with the plight of Fainaru-Wada and Williams,CBSSportsline national columnist Greg Doyel isn’t rallying for a shield law or denouncing White’s decision:

Orders are orders, and laws are laws. And whether you like it or not, whoever leaked that testimony broke the law. And now, by refusing a judge's orders to identify their source, Fainaru-Wada and Williams are in contempt of court. That, too, is the law...

Read full post…