Katharine Lackey

Journalist Shield Bill Blocked

Senate Republicans blocked a vote today on a bill that would protect journalists from having to reveal their confidential sources, The Washington Post reports. The Associated Press reports that the legislation would apply to “some” federal courts. The Republicans want to vote on an energy bill dealing with domestic oil and gas production instead.

The legislation, if passed, would require a federal judge to determine whether the harm done to national security by the news story was more serious than the harm done to the public’s interest in having such information published when considering ordering a reporter to disclose a source, the Post says.

However, the law also includes provisions making it easier for the government to force reporters to disclose their sources in cases involving a leak of classified information, while at the same time making it more difficult for a reporter to challenge an order by questioning whether the information is “properly classified.”

In October, the House passed its version of the legislation, which is different from the Senates.

Confidential sources, while frowned upon when used in excess, are a fundamental part of journalism and journalists are right to refuse to give up their sources. Take Deep Throat for example. Furthermore, the repeated prosecutions of journalists and their sources dampens the relationship the two share — will confidential sources be willing to speak to journalists if their know their name could later be released? I would guess not.

“Reporters have been intimidated — a chilling effect — by the subpoenas which have been issued,” said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the lead Republican sponsor.

More Comments on Comments about Comments

Another interesting post about comments has popped up on the blogosphere by Derek Powazek. It details, rather accurately, ways for newspapers to improve comments. I’ve blogged about comments several times now, in Where Do Comments Belong, The Commentocracy, and Blogging v. News article comments.

As I’ve said before, I think comments at the end of blogs are essential and I believe the post’s author should be able to also comment in response to reader’s questions and comments. However, when we get to comments at the end of newspaper articles — that’s when it gets iffy. Just take a look at any given USA Today article and you will see that comments run rampant and don’t really add any value to the article — nothing is discussed at great length and its mostly readers spewing their political views.

I think USA Today is one of the unique cases since it is national and has more problems with comments than a small local paper would.

In his post, Powazek lays out a list of 10 things newspapers can do right now to improve their comment sections.No. 1 on the list is to require accounts — this should eliminate spammers who just want to post anonymous comments. (I will point out that USA Today requires accounts, but still has a problem — although they don’t do everything on Powazek’s list.)

Among other suggestions, Powazek recommends moderating comments and providing potential commentors with a guide detailing community guidelines. He also says sites should have a way to report abusive comments (see: USA Today unique case).

One of the best recommendations that Powazek makes is to allow writers to participate in the conversation. People are likely to be nicer if they know a real person is reading and responding to their questions or concerns.

All of these suggestions are great — but they all have one fatal flaw — they take time. Time is precious in newsrooms when deadlines must be met, and especially considering the downsizing of staffs lately. So, while it would be great if all papers followed these recommendations — I doubt many actually will.

Bias against liberal bias

We’ve repeatedly heard in the last couple weeks that the news media is in love with Obama, but according to a recent study – the bias is that people are biased against the perceived liberal bias.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University … found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

According to the study, when network news anchors gave their opinions in recent weeks 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative; for McCain, 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative.

I wrote earlier about the alleged Obama love fest.

Subscriber drops suit against paper

The subscriber who sued the News & Observer after it cut its staff and newspaper size, withdrew his suit yesterday because he had proven his point, the Observer reports.

In June, Keith Hempstead, a lawyer himself, filed a suit with the Wakefield Superior Court after the paper announced layoffs of 70 staff members and cuts in its news pages. Hempstead had already renewed his subscription in May before the layoffs were announced and said that as a result, the paper was no longer worth what he signed up for — meaning that paper had breached its contract with him.

Hempstead told the N&O that he could have just canceled his subscription, but opted to file a lawsuit to make a point.

“I wanted to get the newspaper’s attention and the news industry’s attention.”

Even after Hempstead withdrew his lawsuit, he repeated his point.

“By getting rid of staff, you’re producing an inferior product that is dooming the newspaper industry into obsolescence.”

“Attempts to fill the news hole with syndicated columnists, wire stories and cheap filler instead of writing from local staff makes the paper like any other news source. It doesn’t have a distinctive voice, and readers can go anywhere else to get their news fix.”

Hempstead also makes his case by saying:

“If I didn’t bring this up, those people arguing about (the cuts) may not have been given a voice,” he said. “They may not have heard that most of the news generated is from newspapers, even though they go to the Web for it.”

But, if more people are going to the Web to read news generated from newspapers — then shouldn’t the papers respond in kind by placing more content online and less in the actual printed version?

Hempstead is right to criticize the newspaper industry for continuing to cut staff and reduce pages in order to make ends meet — the industry does need to innovate and find new ways to generate revenue — but I wonder if he could have gone about it in a different way. While he wouldn’t have gotten notice from the likes of the New Yorker and Wall Street Journal, he also wouldn’t have cost the paper lawyers expenses (I’m assuming they had to pay some lawyers fees before the suit was dropped).

Hempstead pays 36 cents for his paper each day, the Observer notes.

More options for ‘the dying newspaper’

The New York Times has an interesting piece about Verve Wireless, a company that believes it can save the ‘dying newspaper’ by making it mobile. While many large papers such as the Times, the Post and USA Today already have these features readily avaiable, Verve is focusing on local newspapers, helping the smaller, but essential papers create Websites viewable on cell phones.

Readers are already moving toward cell phones as not only a medium to receive telephone calls and txt messages, but also a place where they can get any and all information at their fingertips. Just think about the popular phones — Blackberrys, iPhones — and even “regular” cell phones are more often coming equipped with full querty keyboards, making internet browsing and messaging even easier.

While the Times or Post may be able to dedicate some of its staff to create cellphone-accessible web sites, smaller papers aren’t going to necessarily have the means to do that, especially when they’re already struggling — which is where Verve comes in.

Verve’s chief executive, Art Howe points out that while people will always want local news and information — they will repeatedly turn towards other sources besides the local print newspaper. But readers don’t want watered-down versions of Web sites and papers, they want local papers in Times mobile or USA Today mobile format.

In exchange for its services, Verve does get a cut of the ad revenue, uploaded from publishers who can select to run national or local ads — Verve even allows publishers to deliver certain ages to a specific age group or demographic.

While this is all promising, few companies are customizing ads for cellphones — “Advertisers will spend only $1.6 billion on mobile ads this year, while spending $26 billion online, predicts eMarketer, a marketing research firm.”

One thing we can all agree on:

Newspapers cannot afford to be late to cellphones, said Greg Sterling, who studies the mobile Internet for Opus Research, a consulting firm. “It’s important and smart for newspapers to get out in front on the mobile phenomenon and not make the mistake they made in waiting too long to embrace the Internet.”

Blogging v. News article comments

So I’ve blogged about the Commentocracy and where comments belong on a newsite, but an interesting post came up today over at beat blogging –

Kent Fischer, a beat blogger covering education for The Dallas Morning News, routinely gets illuminating and thought provoking comments from his users. In fact, some comments have spurred him to write posts and cover topics that he wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

I see many of points Patrick Thornton makes, but at the end of the day I think there’s a significant difference between comments at the end of blogs, or beat blogs, and comments at the end of stories in USA Today or New York Times.

While comments at the end of blogs and lead to further discussion of a situation — and should, as Thornton suggests, include the post author — I don’t think the 500+ comments at the end of any given USA Today story are really of any distinct “value.” No one will go through and read them all and because the comments aren’t exactly moderated, most of them are laughable at best.

Update: 3:13pm

Proof… look at how many comments the article got for only having been posted for one hour.

‘The One’

As Obama’s Middle East trip comes to a close, many are wondering whether the media is having a love fest with Barack, who McCain aides sarcastically call ‘The One.‘ Today, while McCain visited a German restaurant, Obama was in Berlin, giving a rousing speech where he said the greatest danger “is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.”

Here’s the problem — regardless of political affiliation — Obama is the more interesting candidate in this race. He is the first African-American to secure the Democratic nomination. He has an amazing speaking ability. He is one of the youngest to run in many years. He has controversy brewing around him at all times because of his race and background.

In addition, Obama sells — and if journalism is about giving readers material they want, then who are we to deny Obama the cover of major magazines. In the same sense, who are we to deny the reader who wants to know every miniscule detail of Obama’s life.

Glenn Beck ponders, “I’m surprised they didn’t report how much he bench pressed, the incline level he used on the treadmill or what songs were on his iPod.” Sorry, Glenn, we already know what’s on his iPod.

It must be disheartening for McCain to see Obama use the surge as a reason to begin troop withdrawal. al-Maliki practically endorsed Obama while he was there. So while McCain may start crying “I just find it curious if anybody saw “Saturday Night Live,” maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow,” maybe he should rethink having his aides call Obama ‘The One’ because it just might be a name that fits.

Is the Internet a substitute for newspapers?

Chris Hedges had an interesting post a couple days ago where he argued that the Internet is no substitute for newspapers.

The decline of newspapers is not about the replacement of the antiquated technology of news print with the lightning speed of the Internet.

I’d beg to differ. I think the Internet is the primary driving force behind the decline of newspapers because now, instead of waiting for the paper to appear on the front stoop each morning, readers can quickly and easily access breaking news through the Internet, many times before it even appears on local evening broadcasts. At the same time, I don’t think the Internet will replace newspapers, but rather that newspapers will have to integrate into the Internet, as they basically already have. Stories are now repeatedly broken first on the Web, before moving to TV and print.

The Internet will not save newspapers. Although all major newspapers, and most smaller ones, have Web sites, and have had for a while, newspaper Web sites make up less than 10 percent of newspaper ad revenue.

I see the point, but I think as newspapers continue to move online, we will see advertising increase. Unlike print, you can’t  have moving image advertisements with a link where a reader can quickly access information on the ad. The reason for advertising revenue through Web sites being low right now, I would think, would have to deal with competition from television networks who can display similar moving images and longer ones at that. As TV continues to move into the online world, though, that could change if advertisers want to focus on the area where they will have the most access to the greatest number of people.

The majority of bloggers and Internet addicts, like the endless rows of talking heads on television, do not report. They are largely parasites who cling to traditional news outlets. They can produce stinging and insightful commentary, which has happily seen the monopoly on opinion pieces by large papers shattered, but they rarely pick up the phone, much less go out and find a story. Nearly all reporting — I would guess at least 80 percent — is done by newspapers and the wire services.

Valid. But this does not necessarily mean that we have to continue seeing print papers — instead they will move online where they will continue to do reporting. I don’t think the print newspaper itself will ever be completely eliminated, but I do believe it will continue to go smaller and smaller with more refers to online content. As for bloggers being parasites — we do glean from news sites, but we add our own twist, our own opinion. I do think that has value in the journalism world, and I agree that traditional reporting methods and news services cannot be dismissed or destroyed.

Bloggers, unlike most established reporters, rarely admit errors. They cannot get fired. Facts, for many bloggers, are interchangeable with opinions.

Should add … unless they’re part of an established news organization. How many newspapers now have dedicated blogs set to covering everything from politics to local government? These blogs are still part of the paper itself and must retain some sort of accuracy and unbiased-ness. As for the rest of the bloggers, I think the whole point of blogging is to inject your opinion, to make quirky comments that newspapers can’t and to point out the funny and absurd.

When the traditional news organizations go belly up we will lose a vast well of expertise and information. Our democracy will suffer a body blow. Not that many will notice. The average time a reader of The New York Times spends with the printed paper is about 45 minutes. The average time a viewer spends on The New York Times Web site is about seven minutes.

I think these numbers will change and perhaps reverse over time. I’m a journalist myself so I’m biased but I spend a great deal more time on the Internet reading (actually reading, not browsing) stories than I do reading a physical paper.

In the same light, I don’t believe that citizen journalists will replace professional ones. While citizen journalists are great for commentary and video footage that news organizations would not be able to possibly get, when a story needs digging, such as the Walter Reed expose — you need a trained reporter who can research information and gain a source’s trust.

So is the Internet a substitute for newspapers?

Well, yes and no.

While print papers will continue to shrink, the Internet will continue to grow, serving the “newspaper” online.

The Commentocracy

I talked about where comments belong in the world of online news stories yesterday, and found an interesting Politico piece on “The Commentocracy,” Politico defines commentocracy — “where big ideas and rough remarks sit shoulder to shoulder, altogether transforming the nature of the Web and of journalism.”

The New York Times, alongside other publications that place their stories online, are struggling with how to balance the demand for readers to be able to comment and the ever amassing amount of spam and “bomb-throwers.”

One problem is that not everyone realizes that comments aren’t part of the story and that they don’t hold the same standards for print as a news story would.

“I think that for our current Web user generation,” says Wonkette Editor Ken Layne, “there is very little difference between the content and the comments. To this day, I get e-mails [from readers who] don’t know comments left by someone aren’t actually the story.”

And, these comments require moderators at many sites including The New York Times, The Caucus and the Huffington Post

“Do you just let some of this up online so people understand that there are a lot of prejudices are out there?” asks Kate Phillips, the Times’ online politics editor. “It is a struggle for all of us to figure out how much do you permit to permeate the space you’ve created that is supposed to be respectful, but not dominated by the PC police.”

The Huffington Post, which moderates its comments around the clock, says that just having potential commentators know that their comments will be moderate makes “a lot of trolls disappear.”

The LAtimes.com executive editor makes a valid point:

“I’m not sure what good hundreds of thousands of comments or message boards do for anybody,” says Artley. “I have never known anybody to just read through all of that and think it’s worth revisiting. It’s our job as editors to find a better solution.”

The only time I’ve ever read comments was when they were personally attached to my story — and I didn’t learn anything from it except that some people need to get a life.

Even journalists make mistakes

Maybe it’s because newspapers pride themselves on being accurate sources of information, but journalists always get heckled at for making minor misspelling and grammatical errors. This happened to myself just yesterday when I misspelled “their” as “hteir,” because I’m brilliant like that. Someone pointed it out in the comments section, without really commenting on the overall content of the post.

Universal rule: Everyone makes mistakes and it’s a little hypocritical to point out spelling errors that you, yourself, have made in the past and will make in the future. Myself, I have issues with the word “thieves.” In using spell checker on a recent article I spelled the word, incorrectly, as “theives” more than three times in an article. I guess my brain just doesn’t get the ” ‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’ ” rule.

Luckily, I’m not the only person to have ever committed the atrocity that is spelling errors in journalism (only comparable to mass murder). On Monday’s edition of the New Hampshire-based Valley News, the masthead read “Valley Newss” instead (although I do wonder how the masthead got messed up since that’s usually a template file in my experience).

Interestingly enough, Regret the Error produced two errors in its original posting on the site… oh, irony.

And now, I return myself to the world of LOLcats, where grammar and spelling errors are praised and correctness is frowned upon.