House, hunting

I'm away until May 5 ...

        Could have something interesting things to talk about when I return.

        Meanwhile, check out Romensko's site that's followed religiously and daily by journalists around the world.

        And check out the Newseum's site for a look at every day's front pages from newspapers everywhere. Fascinating view of news judgment and newspaper layout and design.

        Have a great week. Relish your right to be skeptical.  

 

Hyperlocal: A good thing?

        Richie asks my opinion of hyperlocal sites. I don’t spend much time reading them -– yet -– because I haven’t found any that focus on where I live, but they’re a growing part of journalism and they’re a welcomed addition to local coverage.

        We can hope that professionalism guides the growth. There are questions about funding and the extent to which staffers can effectively keep such sites updated with relevant, substantive content, but there’s no question that hyperlocal sites conceivably can deliver great service in nurturing an informed public. More power to them, amateurs included. In fact, amateurs encouraged. No reason why they can't be just as effective as a pro. Amateur musicians, for instance, certainly demonstrate that possibility. Amateur journalists can, too. Go get 'em, amateurs. (But study libel and slander law.)

         Is hyperlocal for real? Consider that eight hyperlocal media initiatives across the country have won New Voices grants and will get an infusion of as much as $25,000 in startup money over the next two years, according to a New Voices announcement yesterday. Read about it here. You’ll find a full list of recipients as well. Exciting stuff.

        New Voices, according to its self-description, “is an initiative of J-Lab: The Institute for Interactive Journalism. J-Lab is an incubator for innovative, participatory news experiments and is a center of American University’s School of Communication in Washington, D.C. New Voices is funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.” That’s heavy-duty support for tapping the Web’s potential as a source for credible news and information and the free flow of same that's essential for the republic to continue.

Remembering my (indian) grandfather

        While NPR's "We Shall Remain" throws much-needed and appreciated focus on Native American history and issues, watching the series causes me to reflect even more on my shrouded heritage and mysterious paternal grandfather, Roy House (there at left). He was from Oklahoma but died in 1925 in El Paso in a train accident. Neither my dad (his son) nor I or my brother ever heard much about Roy.  

          He claimed he was French-Canadian. How many of those did one find in Hugo, Okla., back around 1917? My great-grandfather, Dr. Hale of nearby Boswell, Okla., simply referred to Roy as an "indian," I learned from oral family history. There was no other way to know Roy's family history. Not many documents exist, and that's the way they wanted it. That was safely distanced from the dangers of being identified as Native American.  

        My mother's side of the family, at least in terms of my Jackson County, Ala.-born maternal grandmother, was just as evasive about Cherokee heritage. I don't know whether Grandfather Roy was Cherokee, but that was the unspoken genealogy on my mom's side. And my maternal grandmother used to grab me when I was little and try to shake a "reality" into me whenever I asked about our "Indian blood." "We are black Dutch," she would hiss. Portuguese? Right. I had a friend, a full-blood Choctaw from the Choctaw rez, who laughed when I told him that. "My grandfather used to tell us that we were black Dutch. Never knew what that meant," he said, "until I read your article about it."

        I wish I could sit with my Grandfather Roy and my great-great grandparents in North Carolina and talk about our grandmothers long past and our grandfathers and hear their stories. "We Shall Remain" stirs those longings. Too bad the mainstream news media only care about Native Americans now and then.

     

'We shall remain' -- a new old story

        If PBS' wonderful series, "We Shall Remain," has intrigued you regarding the long-ignored details of Native American history, please continue watching. You probably won't learn the darkest details of what Native Americans suffered at the hands of foreigners. That's really nasty history (can you say "ethnic cleansing" without choking?) and hard for today's Americans to admit. But you will learn much.

    And, if you want a contemporary look at Native American affairs, here are some perfectly credible online Native American news outlets that you can read for yourself:

Cherokee Phoenix, first and oldest Native newspaper in the western hemisphere:

News from Indian Country

And more.

TV? You bet. Here.

And here are Native American Images.

Native American Public Telecommunications.

Comprehensive daily news roundup.

Take a look at Native Peoples Magazine.

Sorry to be away so long ...

Allergies, sinus infection, the need for sleep, helluva crick in my neck (from sleeping on the couch in a futile search for respite) and the neverending blessings of a lot of freelance work to do took their toll on me this week. But I'm nearly back up to speed.

Lots of media mess to talk about. What's on your mind?

What can be so bad about advertorials?

        A couple of situations invite heavy criticism: (1.) running advertorials in sacred space such as Page One where readers want and expect news and (2.) neglecting to label advertorials as advertising.

        Readers answer the question well -- at least the 50% of readers who either subscribe to or regularly read a newspaper for its news content as opposed to the 50% who rank advertising content as the No. 1 reason why they buy a paper.

        Reader reaction rolled in like hurricane breakers when the Star-Telegram inadvertently published an unlabeled full-page advertorial on Page 3A -- a right-hand page long since discarded as "the second Page One" and reserved for news, not the advertising we see these days -- in July 2003. The ad slipped through without full bordering and "Advertisement" labeling. It looked enough like a news page to momentarily fool many readers. They were outraged. Here, from my Onotes ("ombudsman notes) is a sampling of the complaints:

        'Hypocrites.' Tom: Have you lost all your journalistic integrity? Page 3A ... is an advertisement disguised as a news article ("Special Report"). I'm sure that it is tempting to accept the big money that goes with Page 3 ads. However, it makes your recent fingerpointing at the local DJs' ads for diet supplements appear completely hypocritical. Your editors should return their degrees to the website where they bought them! I can't believe I pay for this crap!" 

        'Shame.' Brian: Special Report by Carrot or a full page paid advertisement on page 3A...? No notification that it was a paid advertisement. I was aware before reading because of the typeface but casual readers may have been misled. Shame. You need to be guarding your credibility.

        'You distort news.' Older gentleman: I'm just wonderin' about this article on 3A. Is that an advertisement or infomercial or what? The media has no ethics. This is just another example of how you distort news. You run (advertising) and make it appear as news.

        'Trashy.' Robin: This just looks like all you care about is advertising and not putting news and information in the paper for people. It just looks trashy. It's awful. Is that "By Juan Carrot" supposed to be witty? Trashy stuff.

        Breakfast cussin'. Sounded like Deanna of Weatherford was drinking black coffee while turning the air blue.: "That Page 3 (slurrrp) is the damndest thing I've ever seen. That's awful. (slurrrp ... expletive deleted) There must be real news you can put on that page."

        Clearly, as Los Angeles Times reader reaction demonstrated, advertorials can damage credibility if not handled well.

        After the July 2003 incident, the Star-Telegram's advertising department, to its credit, reviewed and reenforced advertorial policy. And from then on, whenever there was a question about whether an advertoril was sufficiently labeled and designed, ad reps would ask me. That's respect for readers -- and advertiser credibility as well. I hope it's the type of respect for readers that will result at the Los Angeles Times.

  

Advertorials and credibility: Round 2 at the LA Times

        As if last Thursday's uproar over a Page One advertorial for NBC wasn't enough, the paper invited a second round of criticism when it was learned -- the next day -- that Sunday's Calendar entertainment section would carry a 4-page advertorial spread for a movie. “The Soloist."

        But this time, I say so what? As a Times spokeswoman explained, the advertorial section was labeled as advertising, set in a font that's different than the news fonts, and carried bylines that made it clear to readers that they were reading an advertising section, not a news section.

        Plus, it's back there in the Calendar section -- not like the L-shaped advertorial that disgraced Page One in the view of many staffers and readers (and me) and foolishly gambled the paper's credibility.

        I'd say the "Soloist" pkg is nothing to worry about. Take the money and run. But I hope that whippin' last Thursday won't be forgotten.

Apalling abuse of Page One

            Nowhere is a newspaper's credibility more at stake than on its front page. You would think publishers would be acutely aware of that. Surely, most are, but one has to question the extent to which that view's in place at the Los Angeles Times considering yesterday's controversial front page.

            Over the objections of Editor Russ Stanton and many news staffers, Publisher Eddy Hartenstein put a huge, L-shaped ad on Page One that promoted an NBC cop show. Part of the ad looked like a real news story even though it was labeled as an ad and carried the NBC logo. It was a mind-boggling betrayal and abandonment of sacred space and a problematic gamble with credibility to play such games with readers, many of whom are resentful of advertorial content to begin with because they resent the element of deception that's part of advertising that tries to look like news.

            Hartenstein said he was just trying to rake in much-needed revenue. NBC marketing guys said they thought it was a good idea. At least 70 readers disagreed, lodging complaints with the LAT. What a mess. True, papers are scrambling for money, but if they sell their credibility, they're goners.

            Bob Steele of Poynter had some excellent thoughts on the matter, noting "this is an example of a news organization cutting ethical corners. The Times' execs are chopping away at the journalistic foundation. They are selling pieces of the paper's journalistic soul. And this may be only the beginning."

            He also applauded -- as do I -- Times staffers' reaction that was shared with Hartenstein in a petition that complained: "This action violates a 128-year pact with our readers that the front page is reserved for the most meaningful stories of the day. Placing a fake news article on A-1 makes a mockery of our integrity and our journalistic standards."

            All in the name of money. Maybe here at the end of Holy Week, it would be worth reflecting a bit on a couple of other instances in which hunger for money resulted in some bad ideas -- those things called "indulgences" that provoked the protestant Reformation and those 30 pieces of silver that sent a model of love, peace and mercy to the cross. 

Will sex sell?

        For a long time many colleagues and I have joked that sex and superstition would sell more newspapers than government coverage and sports. Something way beyond lingerie ads and horoscopes would have that bottom line sizzling.

         Sex has raked in piles of cash for how many millenia now? Is it time for cash-starved mainstream media to chomp into that apple and freshen that staid old image of principled propriety and "family"-mindedness that we've tried to maintain for decades? Maybe so from the online looks of a new entertainment-focused print product -- DFW.com Ink Edition.

        Consider this graf in the product announcement: "At DFW.com Ink Edition, we’re sophisticated and shallow. Observe this week’s cover story: a crash course for ladies on how to find the one-night Lothario of their dreams — the kind of guy who likes to 'hit it and quit it.' But you’ll also find romantic advice, style commentary, sports nuggets, and tips on how (and why) to make use of yourself through volunteerism. (This is the Era of Responsibility, after all.)"

        OK, so I'm rubbing my eyes and wondering, "Am I really reading real-sex stuff from a mainstream daily?" Stuff like tips on one-night stands? And other rowdy topics like "who we'd like to eff..." And that's an ad there online for a "gentlemen's club" replete with a topless fox with arms crossed just so ...

       And the print version's available, as it says, "in bars and bathroom stalls throughout DFW."

        First reaction: Gutsy. Except for something called "untrue horoscopes" (dud idea without a sexy label), this will probably sell. Hits the public squarely in its hypocritically secret appetite. Like one view of casinos, the product stoops to feed off baser drives. But when starvation's the alternative, skin looks pretty tasty. 

        What's next? Well, why not a nude calendar of sources, staffers and readers? Easy idea to develop, and there's plenty of guidance, like, from Ireland, on dropping one's modesty for charity and other revenue needs. What's next? What do you think?

American-Statesman editors blog a laudable step

        Out of Austin comes news that makes my heart soar like a hawk.

        American-Statesman editor Fred Zipp has restarted the editors blog, throwing open a means for readers to learn about what the paper does and why. 

        The saints teach that no prayer,  however trivial, is wasted. As a former ombudsman for the Star-Telegram, I say no dialogue with readers, however trivial, is wasted. Dialogue forges bonds. And don't we need bonds with readers and transparency in the worst way?

        Somehow, journalism must regain its lost credibility and stature (not that there was ever that much of either, but that was before the meltdown a few years ago when journalism). That can't happen without dialogue. Zipp and managing editor Debbie Hiott will make that possible. I wish all U.S. newspapers would follow their lead.

        Got a question or concern about the American-Statesman or journalism in general? Carry it to the editors' blog. Don't worry about coming off as trivial or shallow. A small question is like a spark. Flammable stuff. The blog's there to handle big fires. Flame the heck out of 'em. Zipp and Hiott are seasoned editors and perfectly capable of withstanding the heat. Not only that, you know going in that the care about what you think and want to hear from you.

        In re-launching the blog, Zipp noted that he and former editor Rich Oppel (now retired) had hoped for "robust discussion, and we got the occasional squabble" so the blog was folded.

        But I want to encourage him and Hiott. Keep that blog going, darlin's. Endure the little issues, and the big issues will come. Just please do not give up on readers. Beware of that effete intellectual crap. Don't ignore them. That's one reason we're in the mess we face.

        Like one reader, Rachel Turnbow, wrote to the blog: "Thanks for starting this blog ... . It can be a great tool to inform your readers about journalism in America today!"