House, hunting

Foundation ownership still a good idea

        Excellent collection of letters to the editor in the NYT regarding the recent op-ed piece, "News You Can Endow."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/opinion/l31endow.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

        It's interesting that the idea of foundation ownership of newspapers stirs fears of manipulation of coverage, dark motivation and other questionable influences. The reigning for-profit model doesn't stir concerns? Sure it does. I've talked with too many readers who have such concerns to believe otherwise.

        And I have seen now and then over the years examples of how big advertisers such as real estate moguls, auto dealers and big retailers can influence editorial decisions. Didn't happen often, but it happened. Made me want to head for the nearest shower.

        I've also seen owners block coverage for personal reasons, e.g., no graphics with female organs in them; no coverage of health studies, and the apparent universal order to never run plane-crash stories on a page that's carrying an airline ad. And there are the Travel section issues.

        Concerns about who owns a paper certainly are justified, but any owner who gambles with credibility and upholding core practices is gambling with disaster. Family owners have done that, corporate owners have done that, foundations may follow suit. But I believe foundations would make as good an owner as anyone or group in the private sector. And without the for-profit influences, I'd say odds are foundations would be free to make much better owners firmly, perhaps idealistically, committed to the highest standards and practices.

        -- David  

Reader 1, credibility 0

        Sometimes, readers catch editors in errors that have nothing to do with years of experience, lack of experience or limited institutional knowledge. Some errors are almost inexplicable. Here's an example from my ombuddy archive:

        Reader: "Did you notice in Saturday's paper, I think it was on Page 7B, a photo of two kids playing chess, and the (cutlines) said they were playing checkers? I'm assuming the photographer was under 40 and nobody under 40 knows what checkers or chess or backgammon games are; they've grown up playing only electronic computer games."

        An embarrassing screwup leads to an equally embarrassing and stereotyped assumption. But the reader wins. Score a loss for credibility. You have to wonder about an editor who doesn't know chess when looking at a photo of a chess game. 

        -- David

Quote of the day

"He failed the test of character. He is beneath the dignity of the state of Illinois. He is no longer worthy to be our governor."

         -- Sen. Matt Murphy, a Republican from suburban Chicago, after the Illinois state Senate voted, 59-0, to convict Gov. Rod Blagojevich of abuse of power, throwing him out of office.

        "Failing the test of character," Murphy said of Gov. B in the AP's report. Loss of credibility. Like most journalists, that thought makes my blood run cold.  

        -- David

Endowed newspapers makes sense

        I and a good number of my colleagues have thought for a long time that Nelson Poynter had a great idea when he established a foundation as owner of his St. Petersburg Times, that wonderful newspaper in Pinellas County, Fla. Sure, the St. Pete Times is vulnerable to this brutal economy, but it's about as cushioned financially as a paper can be because of the foundation revenue.

        Many times I've wondered why someone or some group laden with cash and committed to a free and independent press doesn't buy a regional daily.

        Usually, speculation like that immediately draws concerns about such an owner's agenda and how it could be foisted on the public. But in hands like Poynter's, the result could be stunningly effective in preserving newspapers (or perhaps I should say "news outlets" seeing as how the term "newspaper" is viewed in some corners as antiquated) and the role they play in preserving the republic.

        So I rejoiced a bit when I came across an op-ed article in The New York Times this week that was headlined "News You Can Endow." In it, David Swensen and Michael Schmidt wrote:

        "Although the problems that the newspaper industry faces are well known, no one has offered a satisfactory solution. But there is an option that might not only save newspapers but also make them stronger: Turn them into nonprofit, endowed institutions — like colleges and universities. Endowments would enhance newspapers’ autonomy while shielding them from the economic forces that are now tearing them down."

        Hear, hear!

        Swensen and Schmidt also used that classic 1787 Jefferson comment we love so much: "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right. And were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter.”

        Yes, foundations with aggressive political or religious agendas conceivably could color coverage with those agendas, but in doing so their credibility could be fatally compromised or stunted. (Hasn't corporate owners' credibility been dented with the public's accusations of greed?) Foundation owners interested in protecting free speech, free press and all those cornerstone principles in the First Amendment could take journalism's service to higher levels. 

        As the op-ed article noted, laws would prohibit political endorsements in a foundation-owned newspaper, but there's no prohibition on examining public issues and provoking great debate.

        Thanks, Swensen and Schmidt, for advancing a compelling idea that makes great sense.

        -- David

From the archives: Crosshairs on the president's mug?

        Any business that uses electronic design processes knows what newspapers know: that’s a path fraught with peril. And from time to time, screwups in formatting and the like have chipped at media credibility.

        Horrors such as lines from crop and alignment marks can show up accidentally on a published image. That happened in July ’01 when a Star-Telegram designer’s error left lines on a Page One mugshot of President Bush. They looked like crosshairs. Some 18,000 copies of the paper were printed and in the distribution pipeline before the presses were stopped and a corrected Page One plate was put on.

        Of course, many of those copies landed in the yards of media-hatin’ Bush-backers who were outraged when they saw "crosshairs" on the president's picture, resulting in a barrage of complaints like these voicemails that I transcribed for posterity:

        -- From an anonymous man, voice trembling: “The picture of President Bush has been defaced with an X on his face. Is this a threat? What’s that that’s really on his face? Crosshairs? Is this your political statement? Has the Secret Service been notified?”

        A resident of Southlake, a high-income suburb: “Don’t you realize you’re dealing with a picture of the president of the United States? You may not like him, but do you have to treat him this way? All of my neighbors are wondering the same thing. They’re very upset about this. My neighbor’s son is home from Baylor, and do you know what he said to his mother when she showed him this front page? ‘Those commie bastards!’”

        Another Southlake resident: “I want you to tell me why I should not cancel my subscription to the Star-Telegram right here and now. I’d really like for someone to come pick up this copy of this paper right now, because I don’t even want it in my house. I should be kinder about this, but this is very upsetting. It almost looks like crosshairs on the president’s face. (She hears someone walk in.) Oh, no. It’s the neighbor kid. (Calling out to neighbor kid.) ‘Hi, honey. No, he’s not here. Your bag is right there by the door. That’s right, that’s … waitwaitwait. Oh well. Yes, that’s right. Close the door, please. Thank you. Tell your mommy hi. Get your bag. Bye-bye.’ Oh, he just came walking in. He’s a cute little guy, but I’m changing clothes here in the closet, you know? You don’t mind, do you? So anyway, even our dog -- she’s a rottweiler … we have two -- seemed like she didn’t want to bring in the paper this morning. She hesitated. She had it in her mouth but hesitated. I should’ve known something was wrong.”

        -- David

Recession coverage missing a huge opportunity

        The print medium’s recession coverage is failing to employ one of its most effective tools -– informational graphics. Not those spiky charts that track ups and downs but graphics that draw on news artists’ gift for mixing visual metaphor with hard facts to produce highly detailed packages of news and information that pull high readership.

        We know from research that most readers will read 100% of an informational graphic. Readers love those elements. Attaining optimal readership of recession coverage (increasingly important for increasing numbers of people) requires incorporation of informational graphics. And why not try a “charticle” for a change? The better the media inform people, the better the outlook for increased credibility.

        I can’t see every publication, but what I’m noticing is the print medium’s reverting to the old practice of presenting readers with gray slabs of text that many readers, particularly those pressed for time, won’t tackle. Could be that’s a result of short-handed desks working as fast as possible to just fill a page and move it, because layoffs have depleted the ranks of news artists and editors. Whatever the reason, it’s a shame not to give readers the powerhouse tool of informational graphics.

        “OK, House,” I hear someone saying. “How would you cover the recession with a graphic?” My answer: Don’t ask me. Ask the artists. If there are any left.

         -- Daivd

How tweet it is

        OK. Hackneyed hed. Whutevuh. This is raw copy -- a down side to blogging. But the candor's worth it.       

        Heard that Twitter training's on Star-Telegram staffers' skeds this week.

        Already on Twitter are S-Ters Eva-Marie Ayala, Andrea Ahles, Trebor Banstetter, Andrea Jares, and Bud Kennedy. Could be more, but that's the list on the paper's Web site (under Interactive). The paper's also tweeting Texas politics and crime news. Heard that everyone got on Twitter earlier this month when state Rep. Aaron Pena's tweeting was breaking news about developments in the house speaker's race four hours ahead of news reports. Great use of Twitter by the Edinburg Democrat.

        Will be interesting to see the tweeting effects on broader segments of local news. Ought to drive more traffic to the S-T's Web site, one would think, and possibly build a taste for hard news among folks who would otherwise ignore mainstream news and information. Many possibilities as pro journalists' work becomes more and more a part of digital content.

        Twitter has proved its value as a news resource even though messy information shows up. And quicker receipt of information such as Pena's can mobilize quicker reaction. Who knows when that one benefit alone will make a difference in life-or-death situations? Who knows when tweeting from closed-door meetings -- political, corporate or other -- will get journalists inside places that are closed to them. Closed doors have always stunted the potential for an informed public. Maybe Twitter will help change that.

        Good luck to S-Ters at Twitter school.

        -- David

Call for transparency

     For those who may have missed this, here's an item posted yesterday on www.openthegovernment.org:

OpenTheGovernment.org, Coalition Partners, Working to Improve Bailout Transparency

"On January 23rd, OpenTheGovernment.org and several coalition partners signed on to a letter by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) urging the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) to protect whistleblowers that expose waste, fraud and abuse during the IG audits.

"Since first learning of the Treasury Department's proposal to Congress to bailout the financial industry, OpenTheGovernment.org and our coalition partners have worked to increase transparency and oversight of the program. You can learn more about the bailout, and about what we are doing to make sure the program is conducted in the light of day, by visiting OpenTheGovernment.org's bailout  transparency clearinghouse."

Adventures in readerland

        My archives from seven years as an ombudsman contain tons of examples of how the news of the day was playing out there in readerland. It's intriguing reading and fun as well. So now and then, I'll share some of the oddities and amusements I encountered.
        Here's an example from August 2001:
        Page 1 of a Sunday Star-Telegram had carried a big feature on local Wiccans and the prejudices they endure that force them into secrecy. As the story explained: “Wiccans nationwide are expected to attend a convention that starts this week in Irving. The Covenant of the Goddess Merry Meet 2001 Festival will be Thursday to Sunday at a hotel.”
        Great human-interest stuff, I thought. Timely, intriguing. A natural candidate for coverage, because journalism shines light on life's dark places. 
        But I could smell boiling cauldrons out there. As the Wiccan sources noted, fear and hatred of witches persists.
        Sure enough, more than a few readers let a curse fly in our direction when they saw the 1A package. And one caller from a county west of Fort Worth had some news of her own to share:
        “Our preacher really got after y’all for puttin’ that witch on Page 1 of the Star-Telegram. I ain’t sayin’ who I am. I ain’t sayin’ who he is. So quite askin’. I’ll tell you one thing, though. We’re Methodists. Not witches.”

        More stories to come ...

        -- David

NooooooooObama

http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=116&sid=1581601

         What idiot ordered the lockout of news photographers during President Obama's first day in the Oval Office? The people's reps (the photogs) were denied the opportunity to shoot independently, honestly, candidly. Instead, administration photos were pitched to the news media like canned biscuits to the hounds. What an outrage. What an insult to Obama's now-questionable commitment to transparency. The AP, Reuters and AFP tossed the WH pix. Rightfully so. Standing ovation for them. Washington ain't Moscow, you know. Simple thing to manage: Let the photogs in for a while then shoo 'em out. Everybody's OK. Administration's credible; photogs are credible. But, nooo. Lock out the photogs -- "the media." And lock out Americans in the process. How smart is that? A sign of things to come? Let's hope not.