‘The bow tie is out’

Tucker Carlson is off the MSNBC roster.

He’ll be replaced by a hour-long Campaign 2008 program hosted by David Gregory.

The MSNBC afternoon lineup of Tucker, Hardball and Countdown was a little heavy on the ‘op/ed’ side – this move is solid because it brings a focused (and relevant) news program to MSNBC’s lineup.

The move to bring an Andrea Mitchell hosted news program to the midday is probably the best (and understated) change mentioned. She’s a straight-forward newscaster who delivers the nuts and bolts better than most of the anchors in the market.

Report Shocker: People don’t trust the media

The Harris results reflect the findings of a recent Harvard University study conducted last year, which found “nearly two-thirds of Americans do not trust campaign coverage by the news media.” A few other recent surveys offer some explanation for the distrust:

– Two thirds of Americans – 67 percent – believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.

– The harshest indictments of the press come from the growing segment that relies on the internet as its main source for news. The internet news audience is particularly likely to criticize news organizations for their lack of empathy, their failure to “stand up for America,” and political bias.

– Democrats, Republicans and independents have decreased confidence in the accuracy of media reports on the war.

The study also broke the amount of trust the public had in the various forms of media – radio did the best job of winning the trust of Americans (44%), followed by the Internet (44%), television (36%)  and print media (30%).

As a member of the radio medium, I can fully understand why 44 percent of Americans surveyed said they ‘tend to trust’ the radio compared to other media – and it has little to do with radio’s credibility.

Radio’s strength is immediacy – it can report breaking news to more people (consumers in their cars, working out, listening at work, etc) faster than most other types of media. But that immediacy comes at the expense of detail – radio is incredibly limited in its ability to explore stories in any great detail or depth.

But c’mon – there are no real winners in the ‘which medium is the most trusted’ contest … NONE of the media types won over more than 50 percent of the public.

Of course it’s important to analyze WHY the public prefers one media type over another, it’s a good thing that less than half of those surveyed tended to trust.

These numbers will always force the media to look at itself, always strive to overcome its medium’s inherent limitations and become a trusted source to the public.

More on ‘Prince Harry-Afghanistan’ media embargo

Here’s some more points of view on the ‘Prince Harry in Afghanistan’ embargo:

“Prince Harry blackout sets a bad media precedent” – Marketwatch’s Jon Friedman: “The argument goes that it was in Britain’s national interest to keep Prince Harry’s whereabouts hidden. What bollocks! Sorry, but this doesn’t seem like a case of national security. I don’t believe the enemy would have tried harder to kill Harry and the soldiers near him if they knew where he was positioned.”

“Harry’s Game” – Guardian columnist Peter Wilby: “Sometimes, the media is right to accept requests to suppress news: where lives are at risk in kidnappings, for example, or when national security is obviously endangered. But it should be aware that, every time it agrees to a blackout, it feeds public suspicion that there’s a giant conspiracy on a whole range of issues to keep the truth from the people. The device should be used sparingly and only when there will be almost universal agreement that the public interest demands it. Harry’s deployment to a war zone was not such a case. Newspapers and broadcasters have been suckered by the Ministry of Defence.”

“Why did the Prince Harry media deal really fall apart?” – Guardian columnist and media critic Roy Greenslade: “I don’t see how the British media’s decision to maintain a discreet silence on his Afghan mission threatens press freedom in any way.”

“Prince Harry’s deployment” – Windsor Star editorial (Canada): “Canadian reporters embedded with the military, for example, receive access to soldiers and sensitive information with the stipulation they not report details that might imperil operational security. These embargoes have no bearing on freedom of the press as the press is under no obligation to enter into them.”

“A Conspiracy Fit for a Prince” – Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson: “I realize that Harry didn’t ask to be born a prince. But he doesn’t reject the idea of hereditary monarchy. If you accept the notion that some people are princes and some are not, you also acknowledge that the accident of birth has consequences, both positive and negative.”

FCC considers probe into possible ‘60 Minutes’ blackout

Technical glitch, or an orchestrated blackout of a politically-charged story in Alabama?

‘60 Minutes’ ran a piece that examined the bribery prosecution of a democratic Alabama governor. The report presents a possible plot to take down ex-Gov. Don Siegelman, a democrat, spearheaded by republicans – and Bush’s former adviser Karl Rove.

‘The Prosecution of Governor Siegelman’ segment from ‘60 Minutes’:

The segment aired on February 24 – and it aired in its entirety in every U.S. market except in Huntsville, Alabama – Siegelman’s home state.

CBS affiliate WHNT says it started having technical trouble at 6pm local time – when ‘60 Minutes’ starts. The glitches continued – resulting in a blackout of the news program – for 12 minutes. The Siegelman segment started at 6:05pm local time and ran for 13 minutes in total – meaning the technical problems would have cut off the first 5 minutes of the segment.

And what was in those first five moments? An interview with former Arizona attorney general Grant Woods – a republican – who told CBS News: “I haven’t seen a case with this many red flags on it that pointed towards a real injustice being done.” The lost 5 minutes also mentioned that 52 other former state attorney generals have asked Congress to look into the Siegelman conviction, that some believe the former democratic governor was targeted by the GOP – including involvement from Karl Rove. The former Bush adviser allegedly asked an Alabama lawyer to dig up dirt on Siegelman, as part of long-term plan to ruin the governor. The lawyer, who says she spied on Rove’s behalf, was told she didn’t have to watch Siegelman anymore because two federal prosecutors would ‘take care’ of Siegelman. (Note: Karl Rove had worked to elect a number of Alabama Republicans to the state supreme court in the mid 1990s.)

But those pieces of information – accurate or not – were not broadcast in Huntsville, lost to a technical glitch.

Now an FCC official is pushing the commission to investigate whether WHNT went dark because of some mundane technical gremlin – or it if was by design.

The New York Times has also published a recent editorial on the station’s ill-timed glitch, which concludes:

“In this case, if the blackout was intentional, it may also have been counterproductive. Rather than take attention away from allegations that Mr. Siegelman was the victim of a partisan campaign, WHNT’s technical glitch seems to lend support to the charge.”

(The NYT had a somewhat vested interested in WHNT’s situation as the former owner of the Huntsville CBS affiliate. The NYT Company sold all of its TV stations – including WHNT – in 2006.)

As a news producer in the broadcast media, I’ve seen my fair share of technical problems – some of them minor, while others were far more catastrophic in terms of programming.

But the FCC should officially start a probe into the matter if for no other reason because the WHNT incident appears, on its face, incriminating. Whether the blackout was intentional or accidental, establishing a firm reason for the blackout can either vindicate an innocent CBS affiliate or force action into the possible suppression of information.

WHNT is either the victim of an inopportune tech bobble or the instigator of an intentional blackout – the FCC must determine what caused ‘60 Minutes’ to go off the air for 12 minutes.

Media attempts cover up – fails miserably

Front and center of the Web site for The Society of Editors – a membership of British journalists – is the following pledge:

“The Society of Editors works to protect the freedom of all sectors of the media to report on behalf of the public.”

Among the Society’s four ‘values that matter’: “The promotion of press and broadcasting freedom and the public’s right to know.”

This pledge to the public seems at odds with a recent news embargo – brokered by the Society – that resulted in the calculated supression of news. Ostensibly the deal was made for noble reasons, but ultimately it was for far more disturbing reasons.

The British Press Association, CNN, BBC, ITV, Sky News and the Associated Press all bought into the plan to stay quiet about Prince Harry’s deployment to Afghanistan. And they would’ve gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t been for that meddling ‘moron with a modem’ Matt Drudge.

The Drudge Report broke a story that a several prominent news agencies had managed to bury for 10 weeks – but surprisingly an Australian gossip rag, New Idea, uncovered the storyseveral weeks ago. (The ‘Prince Harry Goes to War in Afghanistan’ article, published earlier this year, has since been pulled from the New Idea Web site.)

The Society of Editor’s director, Bob Satchwell, says several editors debated the merit of ‘restraining’ themselves when Prince Harry’s deployment appeared inevitable. But the decision to withhold the ‘Prince Harry in Afghanistan’ story was made with only the best intentions.

“The consensus was that as army chiefs had decided the prince would go to war it would be wrong to put him and his soldier colleagues at extra risk by publicising his deployment in advance,” Satchwell said in a recent SoE release.

That noble argument, however, is completely undermined by the other reason editors agreed to the media blackout: exclusive access to Prince Harry during his deployment.

The reason why viewers the world over were able to see Prince Harry decked out in full combat gear – within hours of Drudge’s announcement – was because the footage was shot weeks ago. Sky TV had been sitting on the footage for weeks. The agreement between the British Ministry of Defense and international media was that reporters would have unrestrained access to the royal prince during his tour – as long as the media wait on the story until either a) Harry’s tour was done in April or b) another media outlet broke the story.

Prince Harry’s subsequent withdrawal from Afghanistan has ignited harsh criticism against the media for what some have called tantamount to placing a bullseye not only on the royal prince, but also his brave comrades in arms. BBC’s world news editor Jon Williams wrote a defense of the BBC’s decision to take part in the news black-out. Even Sky TV – one of the embargo participants, asks whether the network merely cooperated with the Ministry or willfully colluded in a media blackout.

But Bob Steele, with the Poynter Institute, has an another point of view – and probably the most principled perspective. Steele does not take aim at pseudo-journalist Matt Drudge, but rather, he targets the news agencies that agreed to the embargo in the first place – and rightly so.

Steele recently wrote in his ‘Everday Ethics’ article: “It would have been one thing if the news organizations had discovered Harry’s whereabouts after he was already there — and simply delayed their reports long enough for him to be removed from the front lines. It’s their long-term collusion with the government that so seriously undermines the media’s credibility in this case.

The reasons for withholding the news were not justifiable. The time period was inappropriately long. The collaborative agreement among many news agencies was counter to the spirit of an independent press. … Hiding behind false logic, the news organizations involved in this deal failed their readers and viewers and delivered a serious hit to the principle of journalistic independence.”

The journalists who colluded in this media blackout did NOT have the safety of Prince Harry, his comrades or the British Army at the forefront of their mind when they agreed to keep their mouths shut. Had the Ministry just said ‘please don’t tell the public – but no exclusive access for you’ then it’s not too much to assume that the British media would have just allowed the Ministry enough time to pull Harry out before hitting the big-red ‘breaking news’ button.

Those outlets that took part in the media blackout were bought off with access to the royal prince, who was simply trying to serve his country in the bravest way a citizen can serve their nation.

The problem with the embargo agreement is that it was made knowing full well that parasites and bottom-feeders like Matt Drudge exist. The story was BOUND to get out. There’s simply no way the blackout would have lasted until April – it’s shocking that the plot lasted an entire 10 weeks.

Given enough time and opportunity, even the worst journalist can break even the best kept secret. And since that’s exactly what the Drudge Report specializes in, well, it was only a matter of time before the embargo collapsed upon itself.

The entire blackout implosion is infuriating. The embargo cooperators were bought off by some good video of a combat ready prince. (Good footage or killer quotes are more precious than gold to the media – it’s the basis for the best headlines and eye-catching ‘tonight on the 11pm news’ teases.) That same media is trying to establish a moral high ground position, where the prince’s welfare was at stake – nevermind the kickbacks several outlets received. Then there’s Drudge – who undermined the welfare of patriots in exchange for a few extra clicks to his mockery of a ‘news’ Web site.

But Drudge is simply a product of the journalism world we live in – immediate news NOW. If the Drudge Report didn’t break it, then someone else would have stumbled upon it.

The media sits on its hands when U.S. officials make surprise visits to the Middle East – and it should. But those media embargoes last HOURS -and they’re usually reported when government officials finally land at their destination or when they leave – but the news gets out.

But there was simply no good reason for this embargo to happen in the first place.

Pres. Bush live on ABC, CBS – but not NBC

ABC and CBS broke into their regularly scheduled Thursday morning programming to broadcast President Bush’s news conference.

NBC, however, did not follow suit. Instead, it diverted conference coverage to NBC’s cable network MSNBC.

NBC News senior vice president Phil Griffin said it was part of a decision to make MSNBC a more prominent news destination.

(For what it’s worth, the President didn’t use the press conference to make any earth-shattering announcements. He said this successor should make every attempt to work with Russia’s new president and Bush chastised Democrats who were distancing themselves from NAFTA.)

Apparently the TV networks have an agreement to run the President’s press conferences live when the White House ask the networks to broadcast the conference.

It’s not surprising at all that MSNBC ran the press conference live – the NBC cable news network has a pretty solid record of broadcasting most newsworthy press conferences.

And what ran on NBC?: on the east coast, the fourth and final hour of ‘Today’ … which included segments on Animal Planet’s “Rhino Nights” and tips for saving money. On the west coast, Ann Curry broke in with live updates from the Bush conference – but the ‘Today’ show went on with its first-hour programming.

Generally speaking, the last hour of ‘Today’ tends to be ’soft’ news/feature-heavy. The first and second hours involve more ‘hard’ news, including live segments from correspondents and interviews with news makers. (This probably has a lot to do with a new demographic to cater to – which also has ‘Live w/ Regis & Kelly,’ ‘The View’ and ‘The Price is Right’ to choose from.)

NBC News made the right decision to defer the broadcast to MSNBC.

MSNBC is a resource the other two major networks just don’t have. Plus, most viewers who go out of their way to follow ‘hard’ news after the morning shows likely migrate to the cable news networks during the late morning and afternoon. CNN, Fox News, CNBC and MSNBC offer wall-to-wall news coverage during the midday – it just makes sense to keep hard news where viewers know they can find it rather than keeping it on NBC during a time when most viewers probably DON’T expect to find a White House press conference.

This is an odd, new world where news outlets have several channels at their disposal to spread news to the public. And news judgment isn’t just about exploiting every resource just because you can – it also means using those resources (Internet, radio and TV) wisely.

Hopefully NBC News can follow through with this policy, setting a precedent in its news broadcast SOP, leveraging MSNBC’s resourcing and establishing the cable news network as not just a sort of estranged step-sibling – but as a competitive outlet and solid alternative to the established news network.

SHARK ATTACK!!

Yahoo, MSN and other Web portals are not exactly established, respected and revered news outlets – but boy-o-boy a lot of people click through those sites on a daily basis.

That’s what makes a recent headlining story on Yahoo so discouraging. Its headline read: ‘Shark Attacks on the Rise.’

This was the featured story that prominently ran on a Web site that thousands upon thousands of casual Web surfers. People passing through the popular Web portal, as they check their e-mail or wander through for a search, would be left with the impression that Yahoo’s top story was about legitimately significant leaps in shark attacks.

The story is actually about the sharp declines in shark populations worldwide.

Oh, and that huge increase in shark attacks: attacks in 2007 were up 8 attacks from 2006 … worldwide. That’s right, a grand total of 71 shark attacks worldwide over the entire course of 2007 – or roughly one attack every five days.

Yahoo’s presentation is ridiculous. First of all, ’shark attacks are up’ stories are almost NEVER legitimate stories. The number of attacks the world over is so low it’s embarrassing to run stories touting shark attacks as the news hook. Secondly, it’s over-the-top headline is misleading – not just because of the low number of attacks, but because the bulk of the story actually concerns the dwindling number of sharks worldwide.

The Today Show presented the same story – but they managed to pull the story off in an honest and intriguing manner. NBC reporter Michelle Kosinski was live with a report from Florida that focused heavily on the reasons why shark populations are at risk. (Sidenote: Kosinski is on the right side of giving a story appropriate coverage here – but she took a lot of heat for her coverage of a flood story. She reported live while riding in a canoe … in apparently ankle-deep water. )

Whether Yahoo likes it, the Web portal is a voice in the journalism realm. It might not be as prominent as CNN or Fox News – but it assumes all the liability and responsibility of being a news source.

Part of that journalism-public pact means keeping stories in context. While the ‘Shark Attacks on the Rise’ is factually correct, it presents an inflated sense of fear that is not proportional to the actual danger.

By the way, lightning kills an average of 67 people per year in the U.S. … While Yahoo is picking up on largely irrelevant stories, maybe that one warrants a feature story spot.

Was the McCain-lobbist story ‘fit to print’?

The New York Times recently published an intriguing story, ‘For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk,’ that alleges a romantic relationship developed between the Arizona senator and a telecom lobbyist prior to John McCain’s presidential bid in 2000.

The Times-McCain story is one of a respected legislator who has been accused in a most serious way of marital infidelity and legislative hypocrisy.

Ultimately, the NYT story is packed with innuendo and does not detail any specific instances of improprieties (personal, professional or otherwise) on McCain’s part.

The story doesn’t say McCain extended favors to the telecom lobbyist that he wouldn’t have to other groups. The article was based heavy with anonymous sources – a weight that can give a story credit … or possibly weigh the story down.

It’s worth noting that the New York Times has a policy of explaining why anonymous sources were used: “when anonymity is unavoidable editors must press for adequate disclosure.” The McCain-Lobbyist story does not follow this policy. (Side note: And everything mentioned in the story occured 8 years ago. The 3,000-word story also rehashes McCain’s involvement with the ‘Keating Five’ at great length – a scandal from 20 years ago from which the Arizona senator was exonerated.

Now the McCain campaign says the NYT was pressured to publish the article now because the New Republic was preparing to publish a piece documenting the internal strife within the NYT regarding the McCain-Lobbyist story. (Note: TNR did in fact publish the aforementioned article – ‘The Story Behind the McCain-Times Story’ – hours after the NYT published its provocative article.)

Some have questioned the motivation of the New York Times – especially given that the Times endorsed John McCain just before Super Tuesday. The Times claims that it had been researching the McCain-lobbyist story for months – since last autumn. But if this claim is true – then the New York Times endorsed a candidate, in McCain, while its reporters were rooting around for evidence to corroborate claims that McCain had an extramarital affair and – perhaps even damning – he was a legislator who could be bought and sold.

In the end: the Times makes claims of despicable conduct … that happened nearly 10 years ago … precariously propped up by anonymous sources.

Scandals and politics go hand-in-hand – this one will pass along only for the next one to come along.

The New York Times, however, is arguably America’s newspaper – an established and revered publication of public record in the U.S.

The Times took aim at McCain and took its shot with an article that basically says where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

Senator McCain has certainly opened himself to criticism and examination – especially given his stance on corruption in the legislative branch and his past with the ‘Keating Five.’

But the New York Times has also opened itself to justified criticism and examination – regarding the article’s timing and use of anonymous sources. The Times published a questionable article, that made incredible accusations, without any solid foundation.

Fidel Castro: Cuban President … Dictator?

The Miami Herald’s ombudsman has written a piece that notes how rarely the Herald refers to Castro as a ‘dictator’ as opposed to a ‘president’ or ‘leader.’

Apparently the Herald has taken some heat for being ‘naive and soft’ on the Cuban leader who recently announced he will not accept a new term as President. The main criticism – the Herald hedges when referring to Castro as a dictator. By their own admission, the Herald has only used ‘dictator’ in relation to Castro a total of 68 times since 2000 – compared to 518 times as leader or 445 times as president.

It goes without saying that Castro should only be referred to as a president or leader because that’s what his official title his – dictator is not an official term and should be left to the pundits and left out of news copy or A-1 headlines.

The real interesting aspect of this situation is that it perfectly highlights the differences between what editors and news consumers believe news is and should be.

The public wants straight forward and honest. The media strives to be informative and catchy – but in the end, fair.

The ‘Joe Friday’ approach to journalism is ultimately impossible and it may not be what the public wants anymore – even though one of the main criticisms against the media is that it’s sensational.

Race, gender & the White House

So Hillary Clinton is a woman and Barack Obama is a Black man.

The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson wrote a column today regarding that bit of detail surrounding the 2008 Democratic race for the White House.

Clinton’s gender and Obama’s race are, unfortunately, aspects of their personas that are intrinsically part of their campaigns’ foundations. Neither is running on an ‘elect me because I’m______’ campaign slogan, but both seem hampered by that aspect of the political conversation – if only occassionally.

Thankfully, the overt conversation has remained political experience and their voting records regarding the Iraq war. Despite however historic the Obama-Clinton campaigns are, it’s critical not to let the candidates’ genetic backgrounds become the focal point of the presidential discussion.

That said, this grand republic is too few years separate from women’s sufferage and the civil rights movement to just assume that the political press is reporting with blinders to all things race and gender.

The occassional column, such as the one from Mr. Eugene Robinson today, is a gentle reminder to all media reporters of the ‘elephant in the room’ so to speak.

A question, that can only be answered down the road, is ‘how will history look back and analyze this campaign coverage?’

And is each journalist doing his or her part such that tomorrow, when that question must be answered, they can look back and honestly say: ‘yep, we got it right back then.’

It’s important to consider tomorrow’s question today because ‘what is news’ today (and how it is reported) says everything about how we, as news consumers and producers, executed the principles of journalism through the lens of our own contemporary and subtle prejudices.

A few years ago The Onion released ‘Our Dumb Century’ – a satricial look back at the 20th century through The Onion’s warped view. One of its headlines, regarding the contribution of African Americans and women during World War II, read ‘Ladies, Negroes Momentarily Useful.’

It’s an over-the-top parody of a headline, but when looking back at the 40s, that’s the view we have of that generation.

Consider this: Some decades from today The Onion, or some entity like it, will likely put together a satricial retrospective.

They will write about 2008 – what will they have to say?

And the ‘projected’ winner is …

Primary/caucus season has made it pretty difficult to update the old blog as much as I would like – especially when it seems like focus of the media has been locked on the Obama-McCain-Clinton-Huckabee clusterf*ck to the White House.

And there’s just a mere 9 months left …

This leads into today’s topic – the media ‘projecting’ winners of any contest before official results: the bastard child of competitive urgency and election prognostication.

Apparently we haven’t learned anything after Florida in 2000.

The networks and AP were busy during last week’s Super Tuesday madness. Contests were declared for one candidate or another in a mad frenzy of announcements that lasted the entire evening. This state goes to her. That state goes to him. Another state goes to the other guy. Then the polls in Missouri closed.

At 11pm ET, the Associated Press declared Hillary Clinton winner of the Missouri Democratic Primary.

Four hours later, the AP was forced to reverse itself and declared Barack Obama as the victor in Missouri.

Now the Associated Press is doing some soul searching when it comes to its manual on calling elections.

Mistakes happen. Ideally they wouldn’t happen in the realm of journalism – but ‘ideally’ doctors wouldn’t leave tools inside bodies from time to time and ‘ideally’ police wouldn’t accidentally shoot unarmed innocents.

The troubling aspect of the Missouri situation is that it was a based on – and get this – a ‘hunch’ … calling it an ‘assumption’ would give it more credit than the wild guess it ended up being.

Barack Obama actually lead Hillary Clinton by 10 points before the AP called the Missouri primary, but the St. Louis votes still had to be counted. The AP simply figured that there was no way Obama could beat Clinton in St. Louis – then extrapolated that guess into a misguided decision.

Exit polls are dubious at best – but at least there’s some statistical basis there. But calling a primary based upon an ‘analysis’ (which is just a fancy word for ‘guess’) is just flat out ridiculous.

But – in this highly competitive business – waiting for the final, official results is equally ridiculous.

That said, however, I have worked for several news outlets (including local, regional and national) and there has always been a consistent theme: be first and be accurate.

Hesitating to pull the trigger on a race that is ‘too close to call’ is the way to go 10 times out of 10.

Holy crap! Natalee Holloway case ’solved’!

There’s word that prosecutors in Aruba are standing by as authorities pursue a tip from a reporter that may blow open the Natalee Holloway case …

Journalist Peter DeVries says, on his Web site, that the Holloway case will be ’solved’ … as soon as Sunday rolls around … so he can solve the case on Dutch television …

ABC News will air a 90-minute special, “The Final Hours of Natalee Holloway,” Monday evening. A NINETY-minute special.

Holloway is NOT news. Any type of ‘confession’ from van der Sloot is NOT news.

And devoting an hour-and-a-half to an irrelevant issue is just ridiculous and shows incredibly poor news judgment. It should be said, however, that it shows incredibly keen entertainment judgment.

Bill O’Reilly: “I’ve never seen in my 30-year career, a crime story covered this way, ever. It’s a mystery. It’s a soap opera. It’s a reality show and each night, people come in for the latest. I thought it would dissipate. I thought it would go away. It has not.”

Anderson Cooper (from 2005): “We did a number of stories after the American teen went missing and her family’s anguish is and hard to imagine and we understand why they want the story to remain in the news, but we’ve been kind of stunned, because every night, our cable competitors devote hours and hours to this story, even though, sadly, nothing new is happening. We decided to start tracking their coverage, because to be honest, it’s getting downright ridiculous.”

Now the argument can be made that Holloway coverage is justified because it’s part of a larger story. It’s a stance that the may point to a problem related to missing and exploited people. If this is the case, then her disappearance should only have been pro actively used as a way to humanize a problem – then the focus of the problem becomes the issue and not one woman.

And if the issue really is missing and exploited people, then Holloway’s ultimate fate is still irrelevant.

Terry Schiavo. The runaway bride Jennifer Wilbanks. JonBenet Ramsey. And Natalee Holloway.

The Holloway story should be left to the Birmingham, Alabama and Aruba markets – every single other market has a mountain of other stories far more important, relevant and interesting than the disappearance of one woman.

Denver editors to reporters: Please don’t caucus

Colorado will be one of more than 20 taking part in ‘Super Tuesday’ this year – the closest thing the U.S. has to a national primary election. And if Denver-area newspaper management has its way, then NONE of their reporters will be taking part in what could be the most pivotal ‘Super Tuesdays’ in recent memory …

The Denver Post’s editor Greg Moore recently issued an internal memo to the Post staff requesting that they not participate in the state’s caucuses. He also outright banned political reporters from such activity. In addressing what he called a “difficult issue,” Moore said that he realizes “it is a right to participate in our democratic process. So, with certain exceptions, we will not prohibit folks from attending caucuses. However, I would prefer you didn’t.”

Rocky Mountain News editor John Temple did Moore one better – Temple outright banned all RMN journalists from attending the Colorado caucuses. “Because caucuses are party activities that involve expressing your political position in public,” Temple said to his employees, “you should not attend them, unless you’re covering them for the Rocky.”

The Post and the Rocky are absolutely justified in their positions regarding caucus-staff policy.

Reporters, editors and newspaper decision makers at all levels are subject to a different set of rules than your everyday Joe Schmoe. Rocky editor Temple said journalists “must abide by a more restrictive standard (than non-journalist employees), given the disinterested neutrality from which news organizations must work.”

Once again, this goes back to the ideal of ‘objectivity.’ It’s inherently impossible to attain. The public may have come to the point where they expect and assume each story and piece is tainted by reporter bias. Newsroom policies, such as the ones the Post and Rocky have adopted, may be as intrusive on the lives of journalists as they are futile to dispel the public’s skepticism.

All that said, one of the principles that this writer has always believed in is that the mere perception of bias is as damaging as actual bias.

A reporter’s credibility is often tied to who they work for, what stories they’ve covered, and their record for journalistic integrity. Reporters are privy to information that everyday people can’t get out of elected officials, business leaders and celebrities. That privilege, however, comes with several conditions. One such condition is that they, whether they like it or not, are representatives of the media outlet that signs their checks. Their names, faces, words or voices are associated with a greater organization.

Sure, maybe certain reporters – like the ‘Champ Kinds’ in the field – have less to do with politics, but they are still representatives of a news organization.

Policies barring journalists from taking part in caucuses or primaries will not cut down on reporter bias – but the industry should do what it can to curb actual bias (such as the outright support for one political candidate over another) where it can.

News roundup – 01.30.08

———————————————————————
Here’s the lowdown on what the three major networks thought was news on January 30th, 2008 … (listed in the order stories were presented):

NBC Nightly News: John Edwards is out, Rudy Giuliani quits and support John McCain, Snow slams China, Fed reserve drop’s fund rate for the second time in a week, feature on real estate players changing careers as housing slumps, report: U.S. troop with minor head injuries linked with PTSD & suicide attempts, feature on businesses growing strong bamboo.

ABC World News Tonight: Edwards ends presidential bid, Giuliani drops out of GOP race, Fed reserve drops interest rate again, report: housing slump & slowed consumer spending led economic growth stalled in late 2007, Kenya’s government vows to crackdown on violence, snow storms paralyze China travel before Chinese New Year, anniversaries of Ghandi’s assassination & Hitler’s rise to power, U.S. spy satellite to fall to Earth, Calif. vending machine dispenses medical marijuana, Sean Young checks into rehab, writer’s strike three month strike in the winter, Ill. town issues new ‘funny’ stop signs.

CBS Evening News: McCain gains momentum with Florida primary win & Giuliani endorsement, who will Edward’s supporters back now?, fed cuts rates to avoid a recession, snow storms slams western U.S., feature on U.S. court martialed after suicide attempt, undercover video reveals animal cruelty at slaughterhouse, NASA space walk, feature on company willing to decode you DNA for $1,000.

Tonight’s winner: The NBC Nightly News was able to focus on all the day’s top U.S. stories, kept an eye on the economy with a new angle, didn’t overlook the report on troop head injuries while addressing the ‘snow in China’ story. The Nightly News, however, just barely edged out the World News Tonight, which had started out strong with campaign 2008, economy and Kenya violence stories. The back half of the show, however, stalled out with fluffy stories about ‘funny’ stop signs, medical marijuana vending machines and Sean Young checking into rehab. Of course there’s a place for lighter feature or fluffy stories, but it shouldn’t come at the cost of all the other hard news of the day. ABC News does deserve special credit for being the ONLY program to address the Kenyan violence that has killed more than 800 and has been described as ‘clear ethnic cleansing.’

And tonight’s loser: The CBS Evening News did a reliable job of touching base with all the major stories of the day, but the show did not pursue any of the day’s international news (Kenya or how the snow affected hundreds of thousands in China). Either of those stories could have taken the place of the NASA space or even cut into the ‘animal cruelty’ story. It’s obvious that there’s just not enough time to address all of the day’s news in a half-hour national newscast, but ignoring all international news is a quick way to lose the daily news roundup.

Does the suspect have a name?

Naming suspects.

It’s a dicey game.

Some brutal crime occurs somewhere in the city. A person (or persons) is found dead. Police had few leads and witnesses can only give a rough description of the person believed to have committed the aforementioned crime – but that suspect or ‘person of interest’ is nowhere to be found.

Eventually, word gets out of an arrest connected to the crime in question. For whatever reason, the public is very interested in this story – news of an arrest would get the public attention. The name of the suspect (or suspects) is leaked – no charges have been filed … the public wants to put a name/face to this brutal crime.

It bears repeating: naming suspects is a dicey game – but there are several ways to lose that game … One affiliate or newspaper could hedge their bets too long and get ‘beat’ by a competitor who chose to name the suspect. That’s a loss defined by readership stats. But, as always, this blog’s agenda is skewed toward avoiding another type of defeat: a loss in the war of press ethics.

Seattle Times editor at large Mike Fancher recently addressed the topic in his recent blog, and finding that ”balance between aggressive reporting and responsibility.”

(Background: On New Year’s Eve, a woman (Shannon Harps) was found stabbed to death outside her apartment on New Year’s Eve. Details were scarce, but eventually Seattle police focused their search for a man. Two weeks after the murder, a 29-year-old man was arrested. KIRO-TV reported that ’the man does share many features with the (police) sketch’ and had threatened a woman with a knife before. This man was perfectly set to be tried and convicted by the court of public opinion – he had a ‘hard life’ that included an assault conviction, parole violation and possessing meth during an arrest – among other incriminating parts of this man’s background. Of course the obvious punch line is that this ‘person of interest’ was cleared when DNA testing failed to link the 29-year-old man to the crime. About a week later DNA testing lead to the arrest of  a 49-year-old man who also confessed to the fatal stabbing.)

Fancher’s blog lifts the curtain on newsroom judgment for all the public to see. And as Fancher puts it, “The case offers a good glimpse behind the scenes of news judgment and the pressures of news competition, which is more intense than ever because of the Internet.”

Media outlets are burdened with the decision whether to release information (regardless of how sketchy, unofficial or unconfirmed) before the next guy runs with it front page.

The only minor issue I have with Fancher’s blog is its headline: ‘The person of interest who wasn’t, and another chance for the press.’

As always, the press can ONLY mess up a story – that’s the only ‘chance’ the media has ever had. And the fact that the media pats itself on the back for NOT pulling the trigger early is insulting. It’s the media’s responsibility to use accurate, confirmed information rather than hearsay or rumor. You DON’T get brownie points for NOT running the name of a man who was not charged with a crime.

Comedian Chris Rock has some thoughts that may be appropriate now. He talks about people who “always want some credit for some sh*t they supposed to do.” Rock goes on to talk about those people who “brag about some sh*t a normal man just does,” such as making claims like “I take care of my kids” or “I ain’t never been to jail.”

To that, Rock replies: “What do you want, a cookie?”

What about Richard Jewell, the hero whose like was turned upside down by an UNATTRIBUTED story in the Atlanta Constitution Journal that named him the focus of the Olympic Park bombing. He was NEVER arrested and NEVER charged. The Seattle Times did not err on the side of what’s right and good – it just ran articles that pointed to Jewell (another ‘person of interest) as the suspect. The Times simply ran what others had reported.

You’re NOT supposed to run the names of those not charged with a crime, you ”low expectation having” fools. As Chris Rock might say: “What are you braggin’ about? What kind of ignorant sh*t is that?”

So, in the words of Chris Rock, I ask all the media who ‘wisely’ chose not the run the name of the 29-year-old ‘person of interest’ … “What do you want, a cookie?”