Merry Christmas!

Okay, this is my last post before the Christmas break, but I wanted to pass this along as a little Christmas gift to you. Actually I guess you could say I'm "regifting" this since Bill McCloskey at Media Post sent this out in an email labeled "Stocking Stuffers." In any case, check out the great streaming music site below. According to McCloskey,

This fabulous Web site that just might change the way we think about Internet radio: www.pandora.com. Pandora grew out of a concept called the Music Genome Project. Like the Human Genome Project, the Music Genome Project tries to break down any song into unique and discrete units--song type, instrumentation, melody, etc.

Pandora lets you generate up to 100 unique radio stations by picking a favorite artist or song. The software uses the genome of the artist or song to generate a streaming playlist of related songs. Adding new songs or artists to a particular radio, or by giving a thumbs-up or down for individual song choices, immediately changes the stream.

Once you have "programmed" your radio station, songs from up to 10,000 artists begin streaming in, and the whole thing can be shared and e-mailed to friends. Give it a try this holiday, but expect to spend a few hours playing around with it.

Behind the scenes the social software and recommendation algorithm generates a playlist based on your music selection and specific track preferences. Up front the site has a very cool interface and is a lot of fun to program.

Merry Christmas!

Great resource for students of Television

If you have any intentions of working in the TV industry, you'll be happy to know that uncut interviews with many of the founders and current leaders of the television industry are available on the Google Video web site. This is truly an amazing resource. Here's what Steve Mosko, President of Sony Pictures Television had to say about it...

One of the things that absolutely blew me away when I came on board last year as chairman of the Television Academy Foundation was the Archive of American Television, which is an unequaled collection of videotaped interviews with TV legends.

It's a fantastic resource, and so it drove me crazy that the Archive had over 450 interviews -- but no one could view them if they weren’t actually in Southern California. If a student at a school in Cincinnati or Bangkok wanted to learn more about the history of creative or business aspects of the American television industry, these interviews were just not accessible. So I made it a personal goal to find a way to get the Archive online.

And starting today, anyone in the world can go to Google Video and watch complete and uncut Archive interviews and learn directly from the legends and pioneers on how it all happened. How cool is that?

It’s been 30 years since I was in college, but I can honestly say that if I were just starting out in this business, I would be all over the Archive. I’m such a fan of television that I can’t wait to be able to watch some of the interviews on Google Video – with the men and women who inspired me, and continue to inspire me. One of the Archive legends now online is former NBC head Grant Tinker. Grant helped create “Must See TV” on Thursday nights! There’s also Norman Lear, Ted Turner, Steven Bochco, and so many more. The Archive was created to educate, entertain, and inspire future generations. I challenge you to look up your favorite TV show, learn about a favorite star, or discover more about some of the most important news events of the 20th century. I’m thrilled that the Foundation is finally able to introduce some of these interviews to the world, using the world’s most powerful delivery system – Google. Enjoy!

If you find a particularly interesting interview, please reply to this post with your recommendation.

Sex on TV: How high are the stakes?

The Kaiser Family Foundation today released the study "Sex on TV 4," which found that sexual scenes on television have nearly doubled since 1998. (See the foundation's news release on the study at http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia110905nr.cfm.)

"Given how high the stakes are, the messages TV sends teens about sex are important," said Vicki Rideout, the Kaiser Family Foundation vice president who oversaw the study. "Television has the power to bring issues of sexual risk and responsibility to life in a way that no sex ed class or public health brochure really can."

Sure, television has the power to bring these issues to life more than sex ed classes or brochures, but in this age of technological proliferation, are the messages teens get about sex from TV really that important any more?

Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2006?

The FCC has launched a web site that explains their obscenity, indecency and profanity rules – including enforcement actions and complaint procedures. The commission has made several attempts over the last few months to keep the “indecency rules regs” dialogue moving forward.

After Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004 and Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 were kicked around. The Acts (ideas) have lost steam since February 04. H.R 310 is currently on the Senate Legislative Calendar. Make a prediction - will the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2006 pass? Will it take another “mammary gate” to push the public / house / senate over the edge?

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip

Media blind

Today, several journalists covering the Iraq War (including Seymour Hersh, the AP's Tony Castaneda, and Kevin Begos of the Winston-Salem Journal) told those attending an AP Managing Editors conference that the lack of security in Iraq has made it impossible for journalists to get -- and give us -- an accurate report of what is really happening anywhere in that country, especially among the Iraqis, outside the heavily fortified "Green Zone" of Baghdad.

If that's true, is there a way those journalists and the rest of us can use the Internet to find credible sources and accurate information that will give us what we need to assess this war and decide if we should continue to support it?

Pre-Packaged News Stories by Feds Are Now Identified

The U.S. Department of Education was in hot water earlier this year after it was determined they were secretly paying some editorial columnists to promote the Bush education agenda. In addition, the Bush administration came under fire for creating VNRs (video news releases) about public policy issues that were not being identified as coming from the Federal Government.
Fast forward to Oct. 20th, and we now have the "Prepackaged news Store Announcement Act of 2005" requiring any Federal agency to have a "clear notification" within the text or audio of a news story that the VNR was prepared or funded by the "United States Government."
Consumers read and watch prepackaged news stories all the time by way of news releases that are published in newspapers and VNRs which are broadcast on television. Confirming the source of a message should be a basic rule of any communicator, however some PR folks don't want the audience to know exactly who created the message. Regardless of which way you fall on whether the source should always be blatantly clear, the Federal Government should always identify itself on behalf of any message it creates with taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately because of the Department of Education's strategy to promote without full disclosure, we now have a FEDERAL LAW forcing government agencies to disclose.

Listenomics!

The October 10 issue of Advertising Age addresses a topic near and dear to the proverbial heart of 21st Century communicators--the Open Source Revolution. Sam Ebersole, our new media specialist and guest speaker at the Southern Colorado Press Club on October 12, used Bob Garfield's great front page piece as a starter for his timely and salient observations on the changes in new media and the communications revolution. Thank you, Sam!

Bob Garfield titled his piece "Listenomics" (www.adage.com) as he describes the critical changes in the Open Source Revolution--the Chaos Scenario--as marketers and advertisers strive to pull out of mainstream "old media" and move (incredibly slowly and painfully) toward the new reality for consumerism. Allowing that the "herd will be heard," Garfield examines the critical changes necessary for the advertising business to pull ahead, recognize (and corral) the collective wisdom of the masses and make the marketplace an interactive auction of exchanges that it once was.

Most marketers (and their scholarly counterparts) have long argued that marketing and the marketing communications that surround it are really a series of exchanges between buyer and seller, consumer and marketer. These exchanges begin and end with the customer, of course, but these exchanges keep the spiral of consumerism moving. If Garfield is right--and I encourage you to read his entire piece--he is really reverting to the very traditions of the marketplace where exchanges between consumers and sellers are truly one-to-one. This was the dream of one-to-one marketers a decade ago: Let's construct product (and product ideas) directly for each consumer and sell that consumer on a customized product that s/he will learn about, think about, feel good about, and eventually use, purchase or consume in some way. What a concept! That was Ben Franklin's premise in the 1770s and beyond.

Everything old is new again.....

The Times, They are A-Changin

This past week PBS aired a wonderful documentary by Martin Scorsese about Bob Dylan…but I just threw that in as a hip (in a 60s sort of way) cultural/historical touchstone. The title of this blog refers to the venerable New York Times, who announced that they are cutting some 500 positions (45 from the newsroom) in order to reduce costs. The decision comes on top of 200 jobs cut earlier this year. On the same day, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News announced plans to eliminate 100 newsroom positions citing challenges “with slow-growing advertising and a long-term decline in circulation amid changing media habits as more people go to the Internet for news.” But newspapers are not the only “old media” feeling the heat. Since moving from a scarcity (pages/spectrum) model to a surplus (bits) model, media are undergoing radical shifts in their ability to package, promote and charge for their content. The rise of consumer generated media and peer-to-peer sharing of everything from music to TV programs and movies has executives from Hollywood to Madison Avenue scratching their heads and reexamining their business models. Perhaps the most striking change is the advertising industry’s realization that they, like the Emperor of old, are parading down main street with little to cover their backsides.

Media content is just another form of information, and information is power. Perhaps you remember the early days of the Internet, and if so you might also remember a t-shirt slogan that said, “Information Wants to be Free!” Of course it does, but media executives are doing their best to ensure that it won’t get its wish. Time will tell who’s winning this war.

Is teaching intelligent design a First Amendment issue?

A lawsuit begins today (Sept. 26) in Pennsylvania challenging the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in public school science classrooms.

Is this a First Amendment issue? Should teachers be permitted to teach intelligent design as part of their freedom of speech rights? Or is the teaching of intelligent design a breach of the establishment clause of the First Amendment?

VoIP and EBay

The Voice over Internet Protocol market is ready to pop. This new technology will likely surge over the next few years (big profits, many users). EBay is shelling out just over four billion dollars for VoIP leader Skype (their revenue for 2006 could exceed $200 million).

Questions… Is VoIP a death sentence for common carriers? How will phone companies fight the future? How will the FCC deal with 9-1-1 over the next few years?

Check out

http://www.fcc.gov/voip/

First responders

Please go to: http://www.observer.com/media_newsstory2.asp
Read the story of how journalists found themselves in a situation where they were the first, and for awhile, only responders to the aftermath of Katrina.
Then answer this question: If journalists had not been there, had not reported what they witnessed, had relied only on official sources -- how much longer would it have been before the government responded to the plight of the people trapped in New Orleans?

Bush Administration Approves Int'l PR Post

As of July 29th, one of President Bush's key confidantes and public relations experts, Karen Hughes, became the new State Department undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, to improve the U.S. image abroad.
At her confirmation hearing, Hughes told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee she would ask for help from American entertainment personalities to try and improve the U.S. image overseas. According to "The Crisis Counselor" source, Hughes told the committee that the U.S. must "improve our rapid response" to "confront hateful propoganda, dispel dangerous myths and get out of the truth" about U.S. efforts to improve conditions abroad.

There's a basic principle in persuasion theory: Reputation and Image is somewhat/very much based on reality. Can Karen Hughes convince other societies, cultures, governments, that U.S. policy is in their best interests too? When in reality there seems to be great disagreement about whether the U.S. acts in it's own interests or does actually take into account other countries interests, too.

Promotional stategies, whether that is news reports, targeted mailings, television and print advertising, or special events, can't perform miracles. Hughes has a big task in changing perceptions if we don't also change some of the reality of our U.S. governemnt policy regarding how we treat prisoners, work with the United Nations, or gain support to deal with Iraq.

No matter what we do, there will be critics of U.S. policy, for sure. The Bush Administration will never convince 100% of the international critics. However, it seems this administration is particulary rigid in its diplomatic perspective, even with Condi Rice, at the helm. Flexibility is good for any relationship, even international ones.

What would you do if you were Karen Hughes?

Okay, who uses the Internet for social networking?

Just curious...who uses the Internet for social networking? I don't mean online dating--although there's nothing wrong with that and I understand that it's very popular. I'm referring to the many ways of looking up old friends and making new ones. Of course there's always the Google approach to try to locate someone. Or perhaps you've used Yahoo's People Search to track down a high school friend. For the more daring, how about Friendster, MySpace, Orkut, or LinkedIn? Apparently a website called Facebook is garnering a lot of attention on many college campuses...but as you might suspect CSU-Pueblo is a bit behind the curve on that one. My question is...do you use these social networking tools, and if so, how important are they to help you stay in touch with people you know? Perhaps more importantly, do they help you to locate and establish relationships with people of shared interests?

Will journalism professors become 'endangered species'?

In the summer 2005 issue of Wilson Quarterly, reader Keith R. Wood of Salt Lake City (a one-time TV news director) bemoans the current state of journalism training in a letter to the editor. Wood argues that today's journalists are "generally taught by people whose main qualification is a journalism degree" and because of this journalists have become "high-tech migrant laborers" who are "interested primarily in moving to the next station or paper." Gone are the days when journalists worked their way up at the local paper from "foot-in-the-door jobs," Wood says.

In his letter, Wood sees the recruiting of online journalists and bloggers as a promising step in developing more community-invested journalists: "Some paper will see the potential in having a 'farm' of credentialed bloggers working as stringers for the online version of the paper, with the best of them working in the print edition beside traditional reporters." He concludes: "When that day arrives, journalism professors will become an endangered species."

Is this a logical scenario? What role might future journalism educators play if blogging becomes the new training ground for professional journalists? Could journalism educators help play a role in granting "credentials" to these bloggers?

Being a reporter is a complicated matter.

Judy Miller of the NYT has been thrown in a cage because she would not cough up her source. Will this have a chilling effect on government whistle blowers? Are we ready for a national shield law? Was the court simply asking Miller to identify a criminal?

Is less more?

In the latest issue of The Masthead, the quarterly journal of the National Conference of Editorial Writers, Visalia Times-Delta opinion page editor Paul Hurley says his paper now directs columnists to make their points succinctly in 450 words, not the traditional 700-800 words that serve as the standard length for columnists at most papers.

The word-tightening mandate, Hurley says, is designed to attract younger, hipper, more time-conscious readers. So, like the rest of the paper, the traditionally gray editoria pages must use "graphics, photos, lists, digests and ... yes, shorter reads" in presenting the commentary of the day.

"Do we really want to write only for the academics and policy makers?" Hurley asks.

And it's a good question.

Hurley concludes his 439-word take on the topic with: "Less is more (readers)."

Is it?

Will PBS' Alleged Liberal Bias Impact its Federal Funding?

Public television is finding itself on the hotseat for programming that many say has a liberal bias, anti-Bush administration perspective. Whether it's Bill Moyers' obvious liberal commentary about the Irag war, Buster's visits to lesbian parents, or News Hour coverage, Republicans in Washington are speaking out.

Public television is funded by the Corporation for Public Television (CPB) which was created in 1967 by Congress to provide "objectivity and balance in all programs...of a controversial nature." The intent behind the act was to bring more intellectual programming to television to raise it out of its "vaste wasteland" that Newton Minnow talked about. Government leaders were concerned that commercial broadcast television wasn't exactly educating the public on the important issues, during Captain Kangaroo, the Brady Bunch, or Hee Haw.

This year, the CPB will provide $387 million to PBS and NPR to assist with programming. The CPB annual government payment to PBS contributes to about 15% each year of the PBS budget.
Such government funding is causing great concern to the chairman of the CPB, Kenneth Tomlinson, a Bush appointee, who has created the positions of two "ombudsmen", one a conservative and one a liberal. Their charge is to monitor PBS for liberal content. Tomlinson claims in an article on the topic in the May 23rd Washington Post, that "liberalism is too prominent on public TV...while conservative ideas are marginalized."

PBS' concern is that assigning content monitors for liberal bias directly impacts the 1st Amendment, Freedom of Speech. They argue that government should not be monitoring television for its content in any form. An internal PBS memo identified the effort as "government encroachment on and supervision of program content..." Public television advocates say that programming decisions should be made at the local community level.

Tomlinson argues that PBS has been getting away with a liberal bias for too long and the ombudsmen will help provide a more balanced political perspective between liberal and conservative views.

1st Amendment advocates say that no government authority should be monitoring television programming beyond the FCC rules of indecency and obscenity, which are difficult enough to identify, let alone identify political bias. If we can't all agree on what is indecent when the government decides to fine broadcasters, how will these two ombudsmen agree on political perspectives?

And even if they did, what authority do they have over public television to direct its content?

Some agreeing with Tomlinson suggest that government should just get out of public television funding altogether. Spend that $387 million on something else. Public television advocates will say without that $387 million, viewers will lose public television because it can't be solely supported by contributions. (remember, advertising isn't allowed, only underwriting)

Does public televison have a liberal bias? Is its programming not "objective and balanced" as the act which created it requires?
Should the government continue to fund public television? Would a democrat in the White House consider cutting funding for public television? Is Tomlinson's concern more about not being able to promote a Republican agenda?

Another black eye for the news media

Newsweek’s retraction of their story alleging prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay raises new questions about credibility of the press and the use of unnamed sources. This time 14 lives were lost because of a lapse of judgment. From Jayson Blair to Jack Kelley to CBS and now Newsweek, journalism is under fire for not getting it right. The erosion of trust in the media continues to grow as new scandals come to light. A recent survey reported in Editor & Publisher says that 53% of the American public believes that stories with unnamed sources should not be published at all. For those of us who remember Watergate, that is a frightening statistic. However, recent history has revealed abuses of the practice of using unnamed sources…with little “ends” to justify the “means.” In response, major news operations are currently rewriting the rules for unnamed sources in an attempt to restore credibility. Is it too little too late? What do you think?

How long will Nightline last without Ted Koppel?

Ted Koppel recently announced that he will leave Nightline in December when his contact expires.

Although ABC News executives say they plan to continue the late-night news program, how long will Nightline survive in the post-Koppel era? Will ABC continue its commitment to news programming as an alternative to Leno and Lettermen? What do you think ABC will do?

See related link: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=630032

Two, Two, Two Leads in One

The Associated Press recently announced that it would start offering two leads for many news stories.

AP will now provide the traditional straight news leads containing the main facts of the story along with the optional lead, which AP described as "an alternative approach that attempts to draw in the reader through imagery, narrative devices, perspective or other creative means."

An article in Editor & Publisher quoted AP officials as saying the move was designed in part to provide readers with a "fresh" take on the news "so they will want to pick up the newspaper and read a story, even though the facts have been splashed all over the Web and widely broadcast."

According to the AP officials, the optional leads will only be available for print.

Will this move push print newspapers further into becoming strictly feature-oriented publications, perhaps attracting more subscribers from the sometimes-elusive younger demographic? Or is this just the latest attempt to try to revive a dying print newspaper industry?


Related link:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000844185

Mary Parker Follett as a Blogger

It occurred to me sometime back that Mary Parker Follett, the turn-of-the-(20th)-century management maven, author, and activist would make a delightful blogger. Follett (1868-1933), whose work was essentially ignored by a number of organizational theorists in her day, finally gained attention in the 1950s when Peter Drucker called her his "guru". Today, her writings are frequently studied in business schools, in community education, and among organizational communicators for their wisdom and managerial philosophy. That said, Follett was a frequent essayist, speaker, and commentator too. She was a student of organizations and business, certainly, but she also found time to read extensively in education, politics, sociology, ethics, world affairs, psychology, and the arts. Some say she is best known for her work in community development and the idea of community centers in particular. And it is this notion of community that focuses my point.

Were she alive today, I think Follett would be blogger in addition to a speaker, essayist, and scholar. She would find the essence of a weblog both fascinating and essential to developing a community within a global environment. In her article, "Community is a Process," written in 1919, Follett argues that: "...community is a creative process. It is creative because it is a process of integrating....The creative power of the individual appears not when one 'wish dominates others, but when all 'wishes' unite in a working whole....What then is the law of community? From biology, from psychology, from our observation of social groups, we see that community is that intermingling which evokes creative power....As the process of community creates personality and will, freedom appears."

I should like to think that Follett would see the weblog as a community, as a creative process that through individuals creates a whole, and an interchange that strengthens and unifies when other forms of collectivity fails. While Follett expands on larger issues than the essence of community, she always seems to relate it to freedom and the "practice of community."

Is blogging a practice of community?

We should all look so good after serving time

Did Newsweek mislead the public with its recent cover photo illustration of Martha Stewart?

The magazine identified the cover -- which shows a beaming Stewart emerging from gold curtains looking slender and happy -- as a photo illustration on page 3. In a March 2 interview on National Public Radio, Lynn Staley, assistant managing editor for Newsweek, explained that the photo illustration included Martha Stewart’s head placed atop a model’s body. Staley said the image was designed to depict Martha’s emergence from prison, looking ahead to what Martha’s future might be. She said it was not Newsweek’s intention to deceive. But does this photo illustration cross the line of deception? Should Newsweek have identified the image as a photo illustration on the cover rather than on page 3? Does it really matter in this day and age of complex digital enhancement capability?

See related links:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7038081/site/newsweek/
and
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4520166

Eulogy for a master wordsmith

Hunter's dead. His ashes have been blown from a cannon across his sprawling ranch outside of Aspen. Just thought I'd post my favorite Hunter S. Thompson quote, in honor of one of the 20th Century's most-inspired voices.
Hope you'll leave yours, too:

"The music businessis a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."

Protection for Churchill?

No matter what you think about Ward Churchill, any discussion about his right to say what he has said will likely raise the topics of freedom of speech, academic freedom, and the role of tenure for university professors. But first, a little background. In 1991 Churchill, with only a Masters degree and bypassing the normal 6-year probationary process, was promoted from lecturer to Assistant Professor with tenure within the Communication department at CU Boulder. From there he moved on to the Ethnic Studies department where he was promoted to Full Professor in 1997.

As you probably know, an essay published shortly after 9/11, but which only recently came to the attention of the public, has many calling for Churchill’s dismissal from his position on the faculty at CU. The first question that may come to mind is whether Churchill’s speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. All of us who work in or along side the media should be concerned about legitimate 1st Amendment claims--but this is not one of them. Churchill’s constitutional right to say what he wants about victims of 9/11 is clear. However, his right to employment (at a comfortable $94K) is not guaranteed by the same. Just ask any number of federal, state, and local officials and employees who have been dismissed for spoken offenses much less severe than Churchill’s.

However, while not a 1st Amendment issue, Churchill’s speech is afforded an additional level of protection under the notion of academic freedom. A key component of university tenure systems, academic freedom ensures that unpopular ideas and theories will not be dismissed for any reason other than academic merit. If you can make a case that your position has even a chance of being supportable, you can continue to research, publish, and propagate it in the classroom. So while you might take offense that Churchill is blaming the victims of 9/11 for their own deaths, the possibility that the unjust economic system perpetrated by Wall Street was to blame for the tragedy cannot be easily disproved or dismissed. In a similar light, Harvard University president Lawrence H. Summers’ hypothesis that innate ability differences between men and women may be partly to blame for the under representation of women in the upper echelons of science education is controversial, even highly offensive to many, but far from disproved.

So what exactly then are the limits of protection afforded by academic freedom? Even tenured professors are not immune from all repercussions of their speech. According to the Denver Post, a tenured professor at CU can be dismissed for, “incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude, sexual harassment or any conduct falling below minimum standards of professional integrity.” Ironically, it may be the sudden attention focused on Churchill’s inflammatory essay that may in fact uncover behavior leading to his dismissal. For example, one thing that makes Churchill’s career at CU so interesting is the fact that he was hired, in-part, because of his alleged Native American heritage…which we’ve now come to find was fabricated by Churchill. Many years prior to his promotion the Boulder Camera and the Rocky Mountain News questioned the veracity of Churchill’s claim to be Native American. Even the American Indian Movement has claimed for many years that Churchill has, “fraudulently represented himself as an Indian.” In addition, the accusation by Churchill that the US Army perpetrated genocide against American Indians by distributing small-pox laden blankets appears to be a fabrication as well. Thomas Brown, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Lamar University has published an essay critical of Churchill’s scholarship. Brown concludes, “it is difficult to conceive of a social scientist committing a more egregious violation.” Other professors have accused Churchill of plagiarism and misrepresentation.

The academic review committee at CU will issue their report in two weeks. But in the mean time, what do you think?

Universal Service Fund

President Bush has asked for $304.1 million for the FCC during fiscal 2006. Part of the budget includes a $3.2 million cost center to pay for an audit of the agency’s Universal Service Fund. The USF was originally set up to help subsidize telephone service for low income households. Today, a large chunk of the USF helps common carriers pay for the skyrocketing cost of telecommunication infrastructures. The fund is also providing relief for rural heath care providers, schools, and libraries.

Over the years the commission has received numerous complaints related to the USF. Complaints include allegations of “false claims, failure to comply with appropriate procurement regulations and laws, conflict of interest, forgery and securities related offenses.”

My wife and I pay over six dollars per month (into the USF) through our wireline agreement with Qwest and our PCS agreement with Sprint - that’s over $70 per year, almost $400 every five years.

Questions: Is it time to take it back? Should we be paying for telephone poles in rural America? Should we subsidize Native American families (lowest subscribership levels in the U.S) so they can have access to wirelines? Should we help local libraries provide internet access to the public? Is the USF working?

McCain's complaint

The U.S. Senate voted 85 to 13 today to confirm Condolezza Rice as President Bush's new secretary of state. The 13 who voted against her, and who actually held up the confirmation vote for several days, included 12 Democrats and independent James Jeffords of Vermont. They said they held up the confirmation vote and voted no today because Rice shares blame for mistakes and war deaths in Iraq.

In criticizing those dissenters this morning, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said they voted against Rice and held up her confirmation just because they were sore (election) losers, since everyone knew there were more than enough votes to confirm, including those of 30 Democrats.

The AP quotes McCain as saying: "So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion."

My take: This whole nation is founded on the notion of debate, protracted or not, about every conclusion, foregone or not. Non-violent political dissent at any time should be respected, encouraged and welcomed, even if inconvenient to those who know what the outcome will be. Such dissent is the only basis on which foregone conclusions can be changed, on which people of principle can oppose the tyranny of the majority, on which history can judge the wisdom of government action.

How do you see it?

An online ombudsman???

Here's an interesting item from the blog of Scott Rosenberg, columnist for salon.com:
Software development teams have used bug tracking software for ages now -- why not journalists? But keeping it in-house, as the papers the Bee cites seem to do, limits the value of the approach.
I'm spending a lot of time these days around open-source software developers, and they take the logic of this approach one step further: Major open source projects maintain public bug databases. Anyone can come along and post a bug report. It's like opening a trouble ticket: developers will have a look, see if your complaint is new or duplicates an existing problem; over time the database provide a permanent record of the resolution (or non-resolution) of the issue.
The model doesn't map perfectly onto journalism, but it's not too far off: Let people file "bug reports" if they believe your publication has published something in need of correcting. The publication can respond however it seems appropriate: If the complaint is frivolous, you point that out; if it's a minor error of spelling or detail, you fix it; if it's a major error, you deal with it however you traditionally deal with major errors -- but you've left a trail that shows what happened. However you respond, you've opened a channel of communication, so that people who feel you've goofed don't just go off to their corners (or their blogs!) feeling that you're unresponsive and irresponsible.
I know this idea will horrify a lot of editors and reporters, but I think an adventurous newsroom could benefit from the transparency and the accountability. Maybe someone's already doing this out there -- if so, it would be great to see what we can learn.

Student Journalists Not Given Opportunity to Learn

Recently, two student editors at East High School in Pueblo resigned from their posts, claiming censorship by their principal. According to a report in the Pueblo Chieftain, the students said their principal decided not to distribute the Dec. 16 edition of their newspaper because he felt it promoted Christianity and did not include other religious views. The Chieftain reported that the principal said he didn't want the newspaper to be distributed because he was "concerned about the number of errors that were in it."

Regardless of why the principal chose not to distribute the newspaper, the fact is that his decision was wrong. While the issues of censorship and prior restraint are the most significant legal issues in this case, one must also look at the soundness of the reasoning behind the principal's actions. If his reasoning behind preventing distribution of the paper was because of errors--that he didn't want the school's reputation to suffer as the result of a poor-quality publication--he is doing a great disservice to student journalists and to journalism education in general.

We all learn from our mistakes; some would argue that we learn more from our mistakes than from our successes. Based on the news report, the material published in the student newspaper did not appear to be obscene or libelous, it did not portray any private figures inaccurately and it did not promote unlawful behavior. Preventing these students from learning the importance of accountability and taking responsibility for what they choose to publish seems to be an irresponsible--and uninformed--philosophy of journalism education.

Television Pundit Gets Paid to Promote Bush Education Policy, but Keeps the Dollars a Secret

Conservative pundit Armstrong Williams, who's been busy promoting the Education Department's "No Child Left Behind" policy on his own talk show as well as CNN and Fox, forgot to mention he was being paid $241,000 to sell the Bush education agenda.
Williams is a television and newspaper commentator and initially claimed he'd done nothing wrong by failing to disclose that he was being paid to promote the policy under the guise of being an independent and impartial observer who strongly supported the federal program.
After being grilled by CNN and MSNBC, along with print criticism, Armstrong retracted his earlier stance and apologized for not disclosing the financial relationship, saying that the public holds him to journalistic standards and he should not have accepted the money and wouldn't do it again. Unfortunately, perhaps a little too late for Williams. His reputation as a commentator who speaks for himself is now tarnished. There's a major difference between journalists and promoters. Community journalists attempt to limit they're bias and public relations folks often must admit to bias when communicating. Williams was perceived more like a journalist, at least up until now.

Two questions emerge from this incident, frankly, bigger than Armstrong Williams' role in it.

1. Is it ethical for a person to be paid to promote an idea?
Famous people are paid to promote products, services and ideas all the time. What's a key difference? We know they're being paid. Let the audience determine the validity of communication that's coming from a paid source. Williams didn't let his audience know the checks were rolling in. Information that comes from an informed and supposedly unbiased source is often perceived as more credible by the audience. THAT'S WHY WILLIAMS DIDN'T TELL!

For the record, the PRSA Code of Ethics clearly states that it is unethical for a public relations effort to communicate information in which the source isn't identified. No front groups allowed. No secret payments to people as spokespersons without disclosure.

Here's the more interesting question to pose:
2. Should the government use our tax dollars to pay people to promote its programs? Before you answer, how about this? DOES the government do this? Yes. Is it legal? Yes, as long as the government TELLS US the information is promotion and not objective journalism. Think about all the advertising and public relations efforts to promote the post office, military, and IRS. The voter has long determined that government should be allowed to have hired communicators to educate and inform citizens because of the complexity and mass impact of government policy.
However, the Bush administration is stretching "information" into "promotion" by twice producing promotional efforts relating to drug policy and medicare without disclosing they were paying for it.

Blogger fallout at CBS

2004 was the year of the blog, and the biggest blog story of the year was the "uncovering" of the shoddy reporting by Dan Rather and 60 Minutes in their segment on the President's National Guard service. Today the Washington Post is reporting that four executives, including Rather's producer Mary Mapes and 60 Minutes Wednesday executive producer Josh Howard, will be fired. According to the independent panel, the story was pursued with a "myopic zeal" which led to a story that failed to meet the network's standard of fairness. In response to the panel's findings, CBS President Leslie Moonves was quoted by the Post as saying that, "there were lapses every step of the way--in the reporting and the vetting of the segment and in the reaction of CBS News in the aftermath of the report." The "aftermath of the report" refers to the bloggers' dismantling of the facts reported by Rather. And if it wasn't for his announced retirement, Rather himself might be in a very difficult position.

This admission of failure by CBS should result in additional support for the notion of The Wisdom of Crowds (see the book by James Surowiecki), however there are still many questions to be answered. For instance, what is the role of bloggers and what should be their relationship to traditional newsgathering organizations? We still need reporters, fact-checkers, editors and publishers...but can the blogsphere be all that and more?