The Obama press corps: Letting the little man speak

If you’re in the White House press corps and you’re from the AP, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox or CNN, you were given the chance to take a jab at the president during his press conference last night. (And, in the case of CNN’s Ed Henry, getting jabbed back at.)

But if you were from The Washington Post, The New York Times, or The Wall Street Journal, you weren’t so lucky. (Why you gotta hate on newspapers, Mr. President?)

Instead of letting everyone from the MSM have their usual say, reporters from Politico, Univision and Ebony Magazine (they have a WH correspondent?) were given their time in the spotlight. While I wouldn’t call this a sea change in terms of media attention from the White House, I would say it’s interesting to see representatives from other media outlets given a chance to speak. And in the case of last night, it was nice to see someone ask a question about something other than AIG/the economy/the bailout/etc.

There was a big hubbub about giving a voice to “illegitimate” news sources a few weeks ago when the president took a question from Sam Stein of the Huffington Post, but with bloggers and online news sources becoming more legitimate and trusted, this could be the start of reshaping what “mainstream media” really is.

NYPD changes tune, issues bloggers press credentials

An update to a post I wrote a couple months ago:

A while back, three bloggers sued the NYPD after the department refused to reissue press credentials, citing the fact that the bloggers worked for nontraditional news sources. The men argued that their work was just as legitimate as any reporter and they should be treated as equals.

Well, seems that the police had a change of heart and decided to reinstate the men’s credentials. Though they weren’t given unlimited access, which under New York law would require a “working press card,” they were given “press identification cards” that recognize the men as being “employed by a legitimate news organization.”

While this didn’t make a huge blip on the radar, I do think it will help set a precedent for future cases such as this. I don’t think Joe Blogger should be given as much freedom and access as a real reporter, but if a blogger does serious reporting, I think it’s only fair to grant them a little more leeway. I’m sure this decision will be debated between bloggers and traditional journalists as to whether or not it was a fair decision, but I think this just helps serious bloggers and the like take another step toward legitimacy.

Print ain’t dead!

Hearing people proclaim the death of print journalism is a common occurrence these days, and for someone about to be in the business, it’s disheartening to hear about newspaper closings and downsizing. It seems every day there’s some news about a local paper shortening circulation days and buying out newsroom staff. For someone about to go into the business, it’s hard to hear how tough times are for the newspaper industry.

But when I come across posts like this, I always manage to see a little light at the end of the tunnel. Jeff Perline, former writer for the San Francisco Chronicle and Time magazine, and current writer for TheUnion.com, has been in the business quite a while and says the reports of newspapers death have been greatly exaggerated. Perline echoes a lot of the feelings I have about the state of the business, mainly that this is a time of transition and adaptation, which leads to tough times for newspapers. The evolution of new media and the Internet as it pertains to newspapers is still a relatively new occurrence and as time goes along, the industry will better adapt to these changes.

Perline also points out that while circulation is down, readership is up. I’ve maintained the idea that I’m a journalist, sans prefix. I don’t care who or what I report for just as long as I get to report and people learn because of my writing. If you label yourself strictly “print” or “broadcast” I think you’re limiting yourself mentally, whereas if you think of yourself as a broad-based “journalist,” you keep an open mind. So while fewer people are reading newspapers, an increasing number of people are turning to new media sources, and for someone who remains open to reporting for anyone, that’s good news.

But one of Perline’s points I find the most encouraging is this: “Newspapers have been around longer than most any business, weathering many downturns worse than this one.” When I started interning at The State last semester, I sat down with managing editor Mark Lett. I told him that after graduating, I was just hoping to find any job given the current state of the industry. He told me that he’s been in the business for a long time, and newspapers went through a lot of problems in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and they made it through all right. As he put it, “If we could make it through those problems, we can certainly make it through these problems.” This industry has seen it’s fair share of trouble in the past, but just like before, I think we’ll make it out. We may be slightly crippled, but the business will still be able to stand on its own two feet.

I could be naive or way too optimistic, but reading something like this is always encouraging. It makes me proud to have picked the profession I did and know there are still people out there who know we’ve seen worse and can still hold out hope.

Twitter and the citizen journalism argument (again)

I’ve posted about my thoughts considering Twitter’s evolving role in the world of professional and citizen journalism, and it seems as if the issue has come up yet again.

Last week, a man named Mike Wilson, who was one of the passengers aboard the plane that skidded off the runway in Denver, used Twitter to provide updates about what had just happened and what the scene was like following the accident. (He had evacuated the plane before sending tweets, so don’t image him sitting in an engulfed plane typing away on his iPhone.)  His first tweet cut to the chase: “Holy f****** s*** I wasbjust in a plane crash!” Much like the tweets covering recent earthquakes and terrorist attacks, this was a first-hand account of what was happening from someone on the scene.

But Journalism.co.uk asks if those tweets should be considered citizen journalism or just glorified instant messages. Was he actually reporting on what was happening or simply providing updated information about his status? The site presents the question pretty bluntly: “Is this really an example of ‘citizen journalism?’ Or a public eye-witness account? Or is there no difference?”

My opinion? In this particular situation, I’d say it really straddles the line between the two, but I don’t think this qualifies as citizen journalism. In this instance, Wilson only gave a few updates on what had happened and the immediate aftermath. He wasn’t providing analysis or insight, just updates on how he was doing. However, this argument could be applied to all of the Twitter uses who provided updates during the recent attacks in Mumbai: Were they intending to spread the word about what they saw happening, or simply providing insight into what they were experiencing?

I have a feeling this argument will go in circles, much like the debate over whether or not blogging is a serious form of journalism, but this is just another side to look at. Wilson’s use of Twitter to supply direct updates from the scene of the accident definitely provided more insight into the mind of someone who had just made it out, but I don’t think he had the intent of providing much substance or anything more than a message of “I’m OK.” It’s interesting to see Twitter’s use in situations like this and others, but in this case, it’s more like checking in than reporting.

Side note: Not to belittle the accident, but every time this kind of debate comes up, I always think back to this comic (NSFW language).

The ticker goes boom

The headline “ticker” that most cable news organizations have adopted is something I find a bit annoying. Not only is the screen usually clouded with an abundance of pointless graphics and a massive bar which takes up at least half of the screen, but there’s a constant crawl of news flashing across the bottom. Between the intros that would break any graphics budget, massive waving American flags and the ants-go-marching headlines, it’s amazing more people don’t suffer seizures while watching CNN, MSNBC or Fox News.

Fortunately, CNN has decided to buck the trend and do away with the “ticker” in favor of the “flipper,” a more minimalistic and straightforward, albeit dumber sounding, way to get your more information. Instead of a constant stream of headlines, the “flipper” will present information relevant to the topic at hand instead of all the news of the day. Additionally, they’ve revamped their on-screen appearance to be much more simplistic and, in my opinion, cleaner. They’ve done away with the flash in favor of the calmer style CNN International has been using for some time.

I really enjoy the simplistic and clean look of CNN International, and I’m happy to see CNN do away with the “ticker” and adopt International’s style. It’s crisp, modern, minimal and focuses slightly more on substance than style. Today’s cable news has devolved into a battle over graphics, colors and pizazz in place of real journalism and substance. I’m not saying the death of the “ticker” will usher in a new heyday of journalism for CNN in comparison to its competitors, but it’s nice to see they’re taking steps toward a calmer and less hectic viewing experience.

The Chicago Tribune, Blagojevich, the U.S. government and ethics

Since I just finished taking the final for my journalism ethics course, I figured it would be appropriate to make a post on some late-breaking ethics-related news in the journalism world.

The main story today is that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has been charged with attempting to sell the Senate seat recently vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. Since Blagojevich realized the vacant seat was, in his own words, “a f****** valuable thing,” it seems as if he wanted to start a bidding war among many potential candidates.

Mixed in with all the breaking news was a bit about how the Chicago Tribune, who had been conducting their own investigation into misconduct within the governor’s office, withheld publishing stories relating to the investigation at the behest of the U.S. attorney’s office. This information came about in a statement issued by Tribune editor Gerould Kern.

Seeing that ethics is on my brain, I’ve been tossing around a question: Was the paper’s decision to withhold stories relating to the investigation ethical?

In my mind, yes, it was. For the U.S. attorney to ask the Tribune to hold on to stories until the government had finished their investigation could be seen as a power play. How beneficial would it be to the paper to publish a centerpiece on the misconduct and alleged activities of the governor’s office? Publishing a story of that magnitude would bring in a flood of people to the struggling  paper.

Instead, they put the integrity and security of the government probe ahead of their own needs, and in turn potentially saved the investigation. If the paper published a piece on the issue before the government had concluded their investigation, it could have drastically changed how this whole thing went about. Plus, the fact that the paper’s editor came out and disclosed this information so quickly is commendable.

In a situation like this, do you put the integrity and respect of your publication first? Or is it more important to sacrifice a huge story for the sake of a continuing investigation? In this case, the paper put the best interest of the people ahead of their own, and in doing so succeeded in adhering to one of the most basic tenets of journalism.

Pulitzer 2.0

In a sign of the old keeping up with the new, the board in charge of issuing Pulitzer Prizes has expanded submittable material to include online-only publications. Now, online-based publications and journalists will eligible to receive a Pulitzer for their work. They still must adhere to rules put forth by the group (publish at least once weekly, cover original and ongoing stories, etc.) but will now not be looked over simply because their content does not exist in a printed medium.

A couple quotes in the article sum it up perfectly:

“This is an important step forward, reflecting our continued commitment to American newspapers as well as our willingness to adapt to the remarkable growth of online journalism,” said Sig Gissler, administrator of the Prizes. “The new rules enlarge the Pulitzer tent and recognize more fully the role of the Web, while underscoring the enduring value of words and of serious reporting.”

I think this is an amazing step in the right direction and gives even more legitimacy to strictly online publications. Allowing online content to be considered for something as prestigious as a Pulitzer gives online journalists even more credibility and helps make the medium even more acceptable. I know a lot of people will decry this as just another nail in the coffin of traditional journalism, but as a student knee-deep in new media and a journalist who will rely more and more on online content to get my name out there, I think this is a great way to embrace the ever-changing times.

Fox News is to the right as MSNBC is to _____

Over the past eight years, Fox News has risen to become the dominant force in broadcast news. With the Bush administration on their side, the network has acted as haven for the right and a broad-appealing moutpiece for Bush’s policies. If Fox News were given a test of nonpartisanship, I believe they would fail miserably, and I would hope most level-headed journalists would agree. (As one of my former journalism professors put it, “Every intelligent journalist knows Fox News is bullshit.”) But with the end of the Bush presidency rapidly approaching, what media outlet will be there to champion every step the Obama administration makes?

That’s where MSNBC comes into play. Over the past few years, the network has become the voice of the underdog and a safe haven for Democrats and liberals who want to hear the news the way their way. Now that the underdog has become the top dog, I’m afraid that MSNBC will become the Fox News of the left. This video from last night’s “The Daily Show” points that out in perfect detail. For every character on Fox News, there is an identical character on MSNBC. It’s as if the network are mirror images of each other.

Now, as much as I have enjoyed watching MSNBC, I’m not afraid to call them out on their partisanship. While no network is completely unbaised, having a network lean so far toward one side of the political spectrum makes their allegiances much more noticeable and discredits the network. Fox News panders to the right; MSNBC panders to the left. That is undeniable, and unless they even themselves out, they will become no better than the network they so famously feud with.

Twitter: An aid to serious and citizen journalists

The micro-blogging site Twitter is becoming more popular not only for average people and those looking for something on the bleeding edge of blogging, but it is slowly becoming a tool utilized by news organizations and individual journalist. Organizations like CNN and The New York Times use it to get headlines and breaking news to users quickly and individual journalists use it to throw out ideas and get opinions from followers. I guess it’s a sign of the times, but it’s encouraging to see major news organizations using and accepting these new mediums of news delivery.

However, as major organizations are just being introduced to the product, citizen journalists have been using Twitter for quite some time. While “citizen journalist” might not be the term used to describe everybody who blogs a current event, it is certainly another tool that allows average people to get the news out to others more quickly than traditional news mediums. The first time I ever heard about something like this was following the earthquake in China earlier this year. Twitter users in China had updates as simple as “earthquake” posted within seconds of the event happening. While these “tweets” weren’t serious journalism, they were a way of getting the news out to other much faster than traditional sources. (I believe I saw somewhere that it took CNN about 15 or 20 minutes to get the story on air, which is the average time for a breaking story like that.)

The same thing happened again yesterday with the events in Mumbai. Twitter users in the area were using the site to provide first-hand accounts and updates of what they saw. Again, with a breaking story like this, CNN was all over the place trying to gather, credit and present news about what was going on. While accounts like these should be taken with a grain of salt and major news networks should be trusted over individual accounts, it’s just another step in giving more power to ordinary people.

If I had to pick a medium to get all my late-breaking news from, I would definitely go to someone like CNN first, and I think most people would agree. But that’s not to say the power and influence of Twitter and programs like it should not be taken into consideration. Tools like this, which can get news directly to users faster than TV or print mediums, should be given a lot of attention and more utilization if journalists want to stay on that bleeding edge.

The times, they are a-changin’

The world of journalism and the definition of a “journalist” is evolving at a rapid pace, moreso now than ever before. With the boom in blogs and digital technologies, more and more people are taking over the role of the “traditional” journalist. Citizen journalism is on the rise and with more people throwing their hat into the ring, the line between who is and is not a journalist get blurrier all the time.

One of the more recent incidents that calls this into question is a case filed by three men against the NYPD alleging that the police refused to give them proper press credentials because they represent nontraditional news organizations. While there are varying degrees of press credentials issued by the NYPD, both grant the kind of access members of the media expect to have. But these three men were denied renewed press credentials even though they had them previously.

I don’t know the personal background of these three individuals or if they had done anything previously that may have disqualified them from receiving proper press passes, but I think the case they’ve filed calls into question whether or not members of nontraditional media organizations should be granted the same access of someone from a traditional media source. Should someone who runs a legitimate blog with a serious following be given as much access to sources and material as a senior reporter from The New York Times? Ten years ago, the answer would be an unequivocal “no,” but are nontraditional forms of media becoming so accepted that they’ll eventually lose the “non” prefix? And if these mediums are becoming more and more respected and legitimate, should we still grant a blogger the same access and privileges as a weathered reporter?