Tim Porter has come to believe that the traditional newsroom is obsolete and "cannot respond to the challenges of changing readership, new journalistic forms and professional stagnation that threaten the relevancy of newspapers." Porter lists six ways that newsrooms can save themselves from obsolescence.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
'Tivoing' Turns Industry to On-Demand Model
Simon Waldman makes the point that the growth of ad blocking technology will simply mean that users will have to pay for their content directly. This is already beginning to take shape with cable TV, where networks are looking at ways to circumvent the "Tivoing" public’s tendency to fast-forward through ads.
According to a report in Monday’s LA Times, at least 70% of today’s estimated 6.5 million digital video recorders are routinely used for skipping over ads, a practice that has become known as "commercial avoidance:"
The cable industry has spent nearly $95 billion since 1996 to lay one of these new paths to consumers -- a system that allows audiences to select and pay (say $0.30 to $1) for each show they wish to watch; it's called content-on-demand. Now more than 91% of cable-ready homes in the U.S. have access to interactive television services that make this service possible -- with more than a third of U.S. cable customers now subscribing to digital cable.
It's precisely here where cable providers are seeking to gain an edge over satellite vendors who cannot provide seamless back and forth between provider and consumer. With that in mind, content-on-demand is becoming the distinguishing service on the new cable menu. Users will be able to self program their viewing from a startling array of video contet -- from movies to sporting events and niche news and information -- all at the click of their remotes. It's a part of the transition from mass- to micro-audiences that was much of the buzz coming out of the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show earlier this month.
About 20 million U.S. homes subscribe to video-on-demand services already, according to media business analysis firm Kagan Research. The number is expected to increase apace as cable providers roll out more interactive technology.
Chris Anderson writes that this decentralized distribution platform for video content will break the broadcast monopoly on TV. But is a system that frees viewers from the top-down programming of the networks a good thing? Anderson thinks so, but with some conditions:
According to a report in Monday’s LA Times, at least 70% of today’s estimated 6.5 million digital video recorders are routinely used for skipping over ads, a practice that has become known as "commercial avoidance:"
With [digital video recorder] use expected to grow tenfold over the next five years, the devices are threatening to bring the $60-billion-a-year TV advertising business to its knees. . . . Many executives believe the networks' very survival depends on viewers accepting that some might see as a radical idea: that the audience, not just advertisers, must subsidize the high cost of producing the shows that so many Americans love to watch. If they don't, executives say, the networks won't have the money to produce expensive shows.Moreover, by 2010, half of U.S. households with TV sets, or 58 million homes, are expected to have digital recorders, according to a recent Smith Barney report. The tipping point could come as early as 2007, the report said, when the television industry may lose as much as $7.6 billion -- or about 10 percent of its annual ad revenue -- as companies seek other ways of reaching consumers.
The cable industry has spent nearly $95 billion since 1996 to lay one of these new paths to consumers -- a system that allows audiences to select and pay (say $0.30 to $1) for each show they wish to watch; it's called content-on-demand. Now more than 91% of cable-ready homes in the U.S. have access to interactive television services that make this service possible -- with more than a third of U.S. cable customers now subscribing to digital cable.
It's precisely here where cable providers are seeking to gain an edge over satellite vendors who cannot provide seamless back and forth between provider and consumer. With that in mind, content-on-demand is becoming the distinguishing service on the new cable menu. Users will be able to self program their viewing from a startling array of video contet -- from movies to sporting events and niche news and information -- all at the click of their remotes. It's a part of the transition from mass- to micro-audiences that was much of the buzz coming out of the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show earlier this month.
About 20 million U.S. homes subscribe to video-on-demand services already, according to media business analysis firm Kagan Research. The number is expected to increase apace as cable providers roll out more interactive technology.
Chris Anderson writes that this decentralized distribution platform for video content will break the broadcast monopoly on TV. But is a system that frees viewers from the top-down programming of the networks a good thing? Anderson thinks so, but with some conditions:
And Jeff Jarvis shares Anderson's view but also throws user created and uploaded content into the mix (more on this to come):. . . it's more likely to lead to an open marketplace in which anyone can play. I don't, however, think that an entirely bottoms-up self-service market such as eBay will dominate. Programming is not a commodity and the quality of the shows, which is the most important thing, is not easy to ascertain without trusted advice and recommendations. Instead, what seems to work best for entertainment media is a somewhat more structured environment, such as Amazon and iTunes, where critics' reviews, customer comments and expert taxonomies can all combine to help people find great stuff fast.
In the future of exploding TV, a few months away, anybody can create video programming and do it inexpensively with new equipment and tools; they can distribute it online and they can "market" it (that is, it can be found) thanks to metadata and search and links. All this levels the playing field.The challenge before consumer groups is to ensure that the costs for a content-on-demand future are kept low by an open, fair and diverse marketplace.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Welcome to the Post Janet Jackson Era
Jon Rintels catalogues the latest in broadcaster prudishness and dispels any doubts that self-censorship of television, thanks to the FCC, has gotten wildly out of control: 1. Fox covers up the naked rear end of a cartoon character; 2. Super Bowl advertisers, burned by criticism of past racy spots, either censor themselves or pass on advertising during the 2005 game; 3. PBS scrubs two HBO documentaries out of fear of costly repercussions.
Citizens Journalism 1.0
Greensboro News & Record Editor John Robinson plans to overhaul the paper's Web site to allow far more interaction between readers and the newsroom. Some observers say the plans break new ground in journalism and the daily newspaper business, taking the region's largest paper into virgin territory in an attempt to transform its relationship with the community.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Coming Soon to a Mob Near You
Andy Carvin discusses mobcasting -- combining mobile phone-enabled podcasting with smart mob-like group action to cover events simultaneously and from a variety of perspectives. Mobcasting would also allow groups of citizens to distribute their coverage instantaneously to a centralized website via RSS. “This leads to coverage by bloggers throughout the blogosphere,” writes Carvin, “which leads to coverage by the mainstream media, which leads to demands of accountability by the general public. That’s mobcasting.”
UPDATE: Carvin launches an experimental blog to ring in age of citizens podcasting, or “mobcasting” as Carvin describes it. Now he just need some volunteers to contribute to the site.
UPDATE: Carvin launches an experimental blog to ring in age of citizens podcasting, or “mobcasting” as Carvin describes it. Now he just need some volunteers to contribute to the site.
Citizens Journalism or Mob Advocacy?
The latest contender in the debate over citizens journalism, Take Back the News, goes one further by actually launching a website that puts to the test the ongoing, and frequently ponderous, speculation over participatory journalism. Calling itself a news sharing community, Take Back the News allows citizen members to act as editors, reporters commentators and editorialists by posting news items for others to rate and respond to.
But to be successful, the “news sharing community” needs a critical mass of citizens sharing news. I wish them luck, but past experience has shown that it’s difficult to engage a broad community in an effort to objectively cover the world. Many have tried; most have failed. Two recent instances -- the grassroots investigation of the authenticity of the “60 Minutes II” memos on Bush’s military service and the online information mobilization in response to Sinclair Broadcasting’s plan to air a blatantly anti-Kerry documentary prior to the election -- were driven not by a desire to get at the truth of the story but by partisan zeal to get back at the opposition.
If scoring political points is the sole motivation of such participatory news communities, then citizen journalism is nothing more than mob advocacy. Perhaps this latest initiative will break that mold.
But to be successful, the “news sharing community” needs a critical mass of citizens sharing news. I wish them luck, but past experience has shown that it’s difficult to engage a broad community in an effort to objectively cover the world. Many have tried; most have failed. Two recent instances -- the grassroots investigation of the authenticity of the “60 Minutes II” memos on Bush’s military service and the online information mobilization in response to Sinclair Broadcasting’s plan to air a blatantly anti-Kerry documentary prior to the election -- were driven not by a desire to get at the truth of the story but by partisan zeal to get back at the opposition.
If scoring political points is the sole motivation of such participatory news communities, then citizen journalism is nothing more than mob advocacy. Perhaps this latest initiative will break that mold.
Battle Lines 2005: Community Internet
A wireless turf battle is brewing over community internet, as initiatives by municipalities (from New York to Austin, Seattle and Philadelphia) to provide citizens with affordable over-the-air broadband access are drawing heavy fire from a powerful telecom lobby seeking to eliminate competition in the lucrative market for providers.
Many cities are moving forward on plans to implement home-grown municipal wireless networks -- even funding them through successful bond measures. In some cases they're proving a popular ballot initiative, as citizens vote in favor of inexpensive or free access. Moreover, the networks are proving a win-win for city politicians: they're relatively cheap to build and local officials gain points from bringing technology -- and resulting economic opportunity -- to neighborhoods that are often passed over by commercial providers.
Municipal wireless networks were thought to benefit everybody. That was until major telecoms -- eager to dominate the multi-billion-dollar wireless providers market -- began to stake out territory wherever municipal broadband had begun to take root. Verizon, in particular, has been agressive in snubbing civic WiFi efforts wherever they emerge. But the company is not alone. Other large commercial telecom services such as Comcast and SBC -- whose tentacles reach well into the pockets of legislators in all 50 states -- are arguing that municipalities have no business serving as ISP's, that such initiatives present unfair competition to the private sector, and that telcos should be granted the first right to refuse municipal WiFi projects that overlap areas where their commercial services are available.
For the moment, the telecom industry is gaining the upper hand, working with pliant legislators in statehouses from Pennsylvania to Nebraska, and Indiana to draft opaque legislation that quashes municipal efforts to provide underserved neighborhoods and businesses with access. Anti-muni legislation is already on the books in 15 states with more in the works. But, argues Dave Mock, “legislation is only a temporary reprieve from technological advancement -- eventually, the economic and performance advantages of any technology will force down erected barriers.” Regardles, a powerful telecom lobby will continue to forestall this process using considerable resources to lobby state by state against wired municipalities.
Opposing forces are emerging from other corners of the private sector as wireless hardware and software providers such as Intel, IBM and Tropos seek to gain advantage in a future of ubiquitous and affordable wireless access. The financial benefits are plenty. Government spending worldwide on wireless solutions will grow at a compound annual rate of 42 percent from $5.1 billion in 2005 to $6.9 billion in 2006, Riz Khaliq of IBM Corp told Washington Technology. The growth will provide opportunities for a wide range of technology companies from systems integrators and network providers to wireless device manufacturers and geographic information systems providers, he said.
These pro-muni members of the private sector will soon be joined by a coalition of public advocacy and media rights organizations (of which MediaChannel.org is a member) working in concert to mobilize grassroots and policy support for bottom-up efforts to build affordable broadband networks. Many of these groups argue that Internet access should be treated like a public utility and not fall under the sole authority of a large-scale commercial provider.
The stage is set for several players to engage in fierce debate and action over our wireless destiny. While the general public tends to come to these types of issues late – turned off, perhaps, by the technical verbiage of wireless developers and the wonkish legislating of their elected officials -- this is an issue that strikes at the core of the movement to return control of the media to citizens like you and me. Too much is at stake to remain silent.
Many cities are moving forward on plans to implement home-grown municipal wireless networks -- even funding them through successful bond measures. In some cases they're proving a popular ballot initiative, as citizens vote in favor of inexpensive or free access. Moreover, the networks are proving a win-win for city politicians: they're relatively cheap to build and local officials gain points from bringing technology -- and resulting economic opportunity -- to neighborhoods that are often passed over by commercial providers.
Municipal wireless networks were thought to benefit everybody. That was until major telecoms -- eager to dominate the multi-billion-dollar wireless providers market -- began to stake out territory wherever municipal broadband had begun to take root. Verizon, in particular, has been agressive in snubbing civic WiFi efforts wherever they emerge. But the company is not alone. Other large commercial telecom services such as Comcast and SBC -- whose tentacles reach well into the pockets of legislators in all 50 states -- are arguing that municipalities have no business serving as ISP's, that such initiatives present unfair competition to the private sector, and that telcos should be granted the first right to refuse municipal WiFi projects that overlap areas where their commercial services are available.
For the moment, the telecom industry is gaining the upper hand, working with pliant legislators in statehouses from Pennsylvania to Nebraska, and Indiana to draft opaque legislation that quashes municipal efforts to provide underserved neighborhoods and businesses with access. Anti-muni legislation is already on the books in 15 states with more in the works. But, argues Dave Mock, “legislation is only a temporary reprieve from technological advancement -- eventually, the economic and performance advantages of any technology will force down erected barriers.” Regardles, a powerful telecom lobby will continue to forestall this process using considerable resources to lobby state by state against wired municipalities.
Opposing forces are emerging from other corners of the private sector as wireless hardware and software providers such as Intel, IBM and Tropos seek to gain advantage in a future of ubiquitous and affordable wireless access. The financial benefits are plenty. Government spending worldwide on wireless solutions will grow at a compound annual rate of 42 percent from $5.1 billion in 2005 to $6.9 billion in 2006, Riz Khaliq of IBM Corp told Washington Technology. The growth will provide opportunities for a wide range of technology companies from systems integrators and network providers to wireless device manufacturers and geographic information systems providers, he said.
These pro-muni members of the private sector will soon be joined by a coalition of public advocacy and media rights organizations (of which MediaChannel.org is a member) working in concert to mobilize grassroots and policy support for bottom-up efforts to build affordable broadband networks. Many of these groups argue that Internet access should be treated like a public utility and not fall under the sole authority of a large-scale commercial provider.
The stage is set for several players to engage in fierce debate and action over our wireless destiny. While the general public tends to come to these types of issues late – turned off, perhaps, by the technical verbiage of wireless developers and the wonkish legislating of their elected officials -- this is an issue that strikes at the core of the movement to return control of the media to citizens like you and me. Too much is at stake to remain silent.
Silicon Brass
Gloria Pan discusses a New Yorker article about military communications in Iraq. In the piece, Dan Baum, argues that younger officers in Iraq are serving more effectively because of their Internet upbringing. That is, they “have created for themselves, in their spare time, a means of sharing with one another, online, information that the Army does not control.”
Baum concludes that these Web-resourceful junior officers are turning out to be just what the Army needs to better manage the chaos of Iraq. “Instead of looking up to the Army for instructions, they are teaching themselves how to fight the war.” It’s a sort of Google approach to military tactics, and runs contrary to the top-down information taxonomy drilled into the minds of older brass.
Pan, over at the Media Center extrapolates that this is exactly what’s happening in the media today: “Replace key words like ‘Military Brass’ with ‘Big Media’ and ‘junior officers’ with ‘audiences,’ [or better yet ‘bloggers’] and you get basically the same story. This is a pattern that must be repeating itself over and over again as society transitions to the age of We Media.” Baun reports on companycommand.com and platoonleader.org, two sites begun by present and former West Point cadets, as examples of effective soldier-to-soldier (S2S anyone?) information sharing. On both sites junior officers trade battle stories and advice that makes for better military sense on the battlefield.
Pan points out the parallel media phenomenon of bloggers, and especially those who came out of more traditional journalism backgrounds, challenging the old news hierarchies installed at newspapers and creating information sharing networks that can investigate and break stories in ways that MSM can not.
Baum concludes that these Web-resourceful junior officers are turning out to be just what the Army needs to better manage the chaos of Iraq. “Instead of looking up to the Army for instructions, they are teaching themselves how to fight the war.” It’s a sort of Google approach to military tactics, and runs contrary to the top-down information taxonomy drilled into the minds of older brass.
Pan, over at the Media Center extrapolates that this is exactly what’s happening in the media today: “Replace key words like ‘Military Brass’ with ‘Big Media’ and ‘junior officers’ with ‘audiences,’ [or better yet ‘bloggers’] and you get basically the same story. This is a pattern that must be repeating itself over and over again as society transitions to the age of We Media.” Baun reports on companycommand.com and platoonleader.org, two sites begun by present and former West Point cadets, as examples of effective soldier-to-soldier (S2S anyone?) information sharing. On both sites junior officers trade battle stories and advice that makes for better military sense on the battlefield.
Pan points out the parallel media phenomenon of bloggers, and especially those who came out of more traditional journalism backgrounds, challenging the old news hierarchies installed at newspapers and creating information sharing networks that can investigate and break stories in ways that MSM can not.
The Depolarizing Power of the Blogosphere
James D Miller believes that although the Blogosphere can politically polarize audiences, in the end it will reduce political differences among Americans. Why? Because the web is replete with blogs that bypass traditional ideological divides and, like the best Internet dating services, engage individuals who share opinions on certain issues but vary on others. This is the best way to open up more democratic discourse, Miller argues, and to test one's own political views. In doing so, blogs can begin to disassemble traditional media's bi-partisan divide, which often sees everyone as following one or the other party line.
Miller's own line contradicts that of Cass R. Sunstein, who argues that the process of web "filtering" segregates people into more isolated niche communities -- where they're exposed to very few other opinions and become ever more entrenched with their narrow beliefs.
Miller's own line contradicts that of Cass R. Sunstein, who argues that the process of web "filtering" segregates people into more isolated niche communities -- where they're exposed to very few other opinions and become ever more entrenched with their narrow beliefs.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Pyongyang on the Potomac: IV
Also yesterday, an apparently still confused Education Secretary Rod Paige announced an internal review of his department’s practices on paying pundits to flog Bush Administration initiatives. Speaking about the matter for the first time, Paige apologized for “perceptions and allegations of ethical lapses.” He also said that “all of this has been reviewed and is legal.” Reviewed by whom? Remember, this is the same Rod Paige who defended the Williams payments as a standard "outreach effort" to minority groups. This is the same Rod Paige who appeared opposite Williams on Sinclair Brodacasting's news program, "News Central," to flack for the White House plan.
The department had also paid for a video that was produced to look like a real news story. Congressional investigators said that this approach amounted to "covert propaganda." The action recalls the work of faux-journalist Karen Ryan who in 2004 fronted a series of "video news releases" that promoted Bush’s Medicare drug plan and were broadcast by duped local television newscasters.
And there are other instances of government abuse. Shortly after 9/11, reports emerged that the administration's Office of Strategic Influence was planning to plant false news stories in the international media. While the initiative was halted by the ensuing controversy, OSI's use of information as a tool of war has been assumed by other offices throughout government, according to David Shaw.
Surprisingly, Steve Chapman thinks that the Williams case is unique, that few other journalists are on the take -- selling favorable coverage for taxpayer dollars. "The bigger problem for journalism is that so many pundits have effectively become apologists for one political agenda or the other. What readers often get is not their independent judgment, but their version of the party line." Hopefully, time, and the ongoing investigation by the FCC and others, will determine whether Williams acted alone. Wouldn't it be nice if the White House just told us about the "others?" Are any within the White House press gaggle brave enough to ask?
Williams, for his part, told the AP that he was "concerned about this witch-hunt because I know that I've done nothing wrong, nothing illegal." The fallen pundit, however, did acknowledge that it was an “obvious conflict of interests” to accept the White House’s $240,000 and then support their education policy in his weekly newspaper column. So why hasn’t Williams returned the money to taxpayers? Helen Thomas reports that he has no intention of doing so: When asked about returning the money, Williams responded: "Why would I do that?"
'Structural Changes' You Say
The question of media credibility made for some welcome discussion on last night's Lehrer News Hour. The featured pundits of punditry were the New Yorker's Ken Auletta; President of the Pew Research Center Andrew Kohut; and media analysts Michael Massing and Nancy Maynard. Here are some of the highlights:
Is it me, or is the conversation about structural changes to the media system finally crossing over into the mainstream?Kohut: When we first started our People in the Press series, we asked people . . . Does the media usually get the facts straight, or do they often get it wrong? And we found, I think we have a slide on this, we found 55 percent then saying that media usually gets the story right. . . over the years, that number has gotten lower and lower. And at this point in time, we have a majority of people saying the media usually gets it wrong, and only 36 percent saying the media usually gets it -- the facts straight.
Auletta: . . . if you watch, say cable television, you see reporters moving out of their normal job as reporters to become what I would call bloviators, and so what you have is people watching them and saying, wait a second, they're not reporters, they're just expressing opinions, so how can I trust them?
Massing: I think the fact that the media are an elite -- that they are a very - a group of reporters, as Ken Auletta is saying, they - now they bloviate, they seem like they're very self-important, and they're not getting out I think enough into the country. This election, I think, came as a huge blow to the media's credibility, as well. They were taken tremendously by surprise, and I've really been surprised at how thin the analysis since then is. . . I really think the media have got to deal with this issue that they are perceived as an elite. That's not just a political charge. I think that that is a problem that is structural that needs to be contended with.
Black, White and Racist All Over: II
A series of events involving outright racism in the media have pushed the issue back into the limelight in 2005. First, of course, is the controversy now swirling in the wake of a MediaChannel.org report earlier this week, which revealed a culture of racism within the offices of Metro International, a company that is now in the midst of a deal to sell 49% of its free Boston daily to The New York Times. Metro is scrambling to repair damage done while the racist remarks have added gasoline to the “newspaper war” already raging between the Times-owned Boston Globe and cross-town rival Boston Herald.
The second report comes from Philadelphia where radio shock jocks "Star" and "Buc Wild" at Clear Channel-owned WUSL called an Indian customer service representative "a filthy rat eater" and threatened to "come out there and choke the ‘F’ out of you." Nice. This clip aired without incident last month. It was only after an employee posted it on the station’s Web site, that a public backlash began.
The next report comes from Chicago where radio talent Joel Murphy, aka "Java Joel" was fired from Clear Channel-owned WKSC after he talked on air about adopting "three black kids" and "taking them to the zoo to see where they came from."
My question for you is particularly relevant in the last two cases: How does the consolidation of outlets under a single owner contribute to this caliber of media content?
The second report comes from Philadelphia where radio shock jocks "Star" and "Buc Wild" at Clear Channel-owned WUSL called an Indian customer service representative "a filthy rat eater" and threatened to "come out there and choke the ‘F’ out of you." Nice. This clip aired without incident last month. It was only after an employee posted it on the station’s Web site, that a public backlash began.
The next report comes from Chicago where radio talent Joel Murphy, aka "Java Joel" was fired from Clear Channel-owned WKSC after he talked on air about adopting "three black kids" and "taking them to the zoo to see where they came from."
My question for you is particularly relevant in the last two cases: How does the consolidation of outlets under a single owner contribute to this caliber of media content?
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Exclusive, Inclusive and Impatient
Getting the scoop is a valuable part of journalistic competition and will survive the shift from Big Media dominance to a "more synergistic system including the rest of us," Dan Gillmor writes. "Scoops will continue to occur -- though they'll take different forms, and the scoop will last for about five minutes before it spreads widely . . . Meanwhile, the involvement of more people in the conversation is the big, and most important, shift of all."
All right Dan, I visit your blog each day for the latest sermon on citizen journalism, and I've enjoyed most of what I've read. But when are you going to put preaching into practice? Impatient in New York.
All right Dan, I visit your blog each day for the latest sermon on citizen journalism, and I've enjoyed most of what I've read. But when are you going to put preaching into practice? Impatient in New York.
Tuckered Out
Or perhaps the program fell victim to the "Bush administration propaganda machine, lax and sometimes corrupt journalistic practices, and a celebrity culture," which have merged to form an infotainment industry that, according to Frank Rich, separates the public from "anything that might resemble the truth."
Or maybe it's because, more and more of those viewers have turned to Fox News Channel to be pummeled into submission by pundits who have elevated the craft of bloviating to lucrative heights. Or could it be that Crossfire's hosts just didn't shout loud enough. Cheer up Tucker, there's always PBS.
Pyongyang on the Potomac: III
Cliff Schecter, the "liberal half" of Sinclair Broadcasting’s on-air pundit duo, is “pretty pissed” that his conservative counterpart, Armstrong Williams, got to take a limo to Sinclair HQ on election night “while I drove there with my wife in our dirt-caked Subaru.” Now, Schecter knows why. "Armstrong and [Sinclair CEO] David Smith are very close," a former Sinclair employee tells Eric Boehlert. "He's a huge Armstrong fan and he made him a priority at News Central.”
The Williams case -- combined with the Monday release of the CBS "Memogate" report and, to a lesser extent, MediaChannel's revelation that the New York Times is buying into a racist corporate culture in its dealings with Boston Metro -- makes this one of mainstream media's bloodiest weeks, with its stock in the public trust falling to an all-time low. Still, Kathleen Parker writes, this proves that journalists are held to a higher standard than bloggers, politicians, businesspeople and the like:
The Williams case -- combined with the Monday release of the CBS "Memogate" report and, to a lesser extent, MediaChannel's revelation that the New York Times is buying into a racist corporate culture in its dealings with Boston Metro -- makes this one of mainstream media's bloodiest weeks, with its stock in the public trust falling to an all-time low. Still, Kathleen Parker writes, this proves that journalists are held to a higher standard than bloggers, politicians, businesspeople and the like:
For all their flaws, mainstream (institutional) journalists are accountable where others are not. When they mess up, consequences are real and ruthless, as Williams and the CBS folks can attest. That much consumers can rely upon.Joanne Hostrow echoes Parker's view. In her Thursady Denver Post column, Hostrow warns that this low point for media could be just the ammunition the White House needs to further blast what President Bush has called "the filter" of American journalism. Still, Hostrow concludes:
How striking the difference in ethical standards: When Bush administration honchos failed to produce weapons of mass destruction, they left office with medals.For David Harsanyi, it's the bloggers who are helping keep journalists in line. Harsanyi welcomes the emergence of the fact-checking wing of the blogosphere:
. . .the rise of new media give the public more options. That's always positive. It doesn't diminish the work of journalists - unless they're sloppy or on the take.
Death of the Nets: Coffin Nail 1
As the number of channels available in the average home goes from 80 (analog cable) to 200 (digital cable) to infinity (Internet TV), it’s easy to see the shift towards less concentrated audiences continuing and more people migrating to truly niche content or "nanocasting" as writes Chris Anderson:
"Prime Time" is already meaningless to a TiVo user. So is "channel." Soon "available in my area" will be, too. As the instruments of scarcity dissolve, audiences are flowing more naturally across the spectrum of available content.In a similar vein, Simon Waldman sums up recent reporting on the supposed "explosion" of network television in particular and MSM in general with mention to Orville Schell's feudal media age comment.
Noonan: Truth Emerges from the New Cacophany
Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan writes that the Rather debaucle marks the end of “liberal” mainstream media's monopoly on information:
We live in an environment where media moguls and marquee journalists have joined the political and moneyed elite that they, as the Fourth Estate, are supposed to challenge. The real question, then, is who are the elite in America? Right wing ranters like to think that the "liberal establishment" -- represented by Hollywood on the left coast and New York media and Ivy Leaguers on the right coast -- is all powerful. And that they, the conservatives, are the underdogs in a system that is hard-wired to favor a "liberal agenda."
Last time I checked, though, most real power (Fortune 500 corporations, branches of gov't -- legislative, judicial and executive) rests in the hands of those that hold a center right to far right perspective. And that a commercial media system, which depends on favorable rule making and friendly corporate advertisers to protect its elevated status and bottom line, is leaning rightwards -- towards the powerful -- as a result.
And compliant media is a crime regardless of which party holds the reins.
The Wall Street Journal editorialist is steadfast in her belief that for decades liberals have held mainstream media in a headlock. But the tides are shifting, Noonan writes:That is, the monopoly enjoyed by three big networks, a half dozen big newspapers and a handful of weekly magazines from roughly 1950 to 2000 is done and gone, and something else is taking its place. That would be a media cacophony. But a cacophony in which the truth has a greater chance of making itself clearly heard.
. . .in the past decade the liberals lost their monopoly. What broke it? We all know. Rush Limbaugh did, cable news did, the antimonolith journalists who rose with Reagan did, the internet did, technology did, talk radio did, Fox News did, the Washington Times did. When the people of America got options, they took them. Conservative arguments rose, and liberal hegemony fell.Really? Isn't all this back and forth about a partisan media missing the point? This should be less an argument about political bias and more an investigation of big media as they cozy up to the powerful.
We live in an environment where media moguls and marquee journalists have joined the political and moneyed elite that they, as the Fourth Estate, are supposed to challenge. The real question, then, is who are the elite in America? Right wing ranters like to think that the "liberal establishment" -- represented by Hollywood on the left coast and New York media and Ivy Leaguers on the right coast -- is all powerful. And that they, the conservatives, are the underdogs in a system that is hard-wired to favor a "liberal agenda."
Last time I checked, though, most real power (Fortune 500 corporations, branches of gov't -- legislative, judicial and executive) rests in the hands of those that hold a center right to far right perspective. And that a commercial media system, which depends on favorable rule making and friendly corporate advertisers to protect its elevated status and bottom line, is leaning rightwards -- towards the powerful -- as a result.
And compliant media is a crime regardless of which party holds the reins.
Mary Mapes a CBS Scapegoat?
Little publicized in the "Memogate" mediastorm is CBS producer Mary Mapes response to the independent panel report that precipitated her firing. In it, Mapes presents an honorable defense of her journalism at "60 Minutes" and suggests that the higher ups at CBS may have colluded with the authors of the report to engineer her demise. She points out that "the panel did not conclude that these documents are false. . . all that the panel did conclude was that there were many red flags that counseled against going to air quickly." And Mapes had nothing to do with deciding when to air the "60 Minutes" story. That was a decision made by her superiors, including CBS News President Andrew Heyward, one of the survivors of this week's purge.
UPDATE: The three staffers who CBS asked to resign -- executive producer Josh Howard, his top deputy Mary Murphy, and CBS News senior vice president Betsy West -- have declined to actually tender their resignations. Meanwhile, top executive Andrew Heyward takes heat for not taking more heat.
UPDATE: The three staffers who CBS asked to resign -- executive producer Josh Howard, his top deputy Mary Murphy, and CBS News senior vice president Betsy West -- have declined to actually tender their resignations. Meanwhile, top executive Andrew Heyward takes heat for not taking more heat.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Pyongyang on the Potomac: Part II
Following revelations that the Bush White House paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to tout the president’s “No Child Left Behind” program, Melanie Sloan at the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed Freedom of Information Act requests with 22 agencies seeking similar arrangements with PR firms and pundits. Let the Washington witch hunt begin.
SIDEBAR: The White House is not alone in efforts to buy "the filter." This from the banks of the Tigris.
FOLLOW THROUGH: MediaChannel coalition partners at Free Press are calling on Americans to urge Congress and the FCC to launch a "thorough investigation and introduce legislation to outlaw 'payola punditry.'" Writes Ben Scott, "Among the first questions investigators must answer is how many other pseudo-journalists are on the take?"
SIDEBAR: The White House is not alone in efforts to buy "the filter." This from the banks of the Tigris.
FOLLOW THROUGH: MediaChannel coalition partners at Free Press are calling on Americans to urge Congress and the FCC to launch a "thorough investigation and introduce legislation to outlaw 'payola punditry.'" Writes Ben Scott, "Among the first questions investigators must answer is how many other pseudo-journalists are on the take?"
Intel Supports Broadband Role for Cities
Intel Executive Vice President Sean Maloney on Wednesday encouraged commercial service providers and public agencies such as city governments and municipalities to work together in building out new broadband infrastructure. "Sole responsibility, either from government or a single carrier, of a city's wireless network is not the best solution for growing the market," said a source familiar with the chipmaker's position in wireless broadband policy. "A sharing of responsibilities is what will encourage broadband adoption, and that will be a key point in Intel's policy proposal." I and many others involved with Community Internet are still waiting on the transcript of Maloney's presentation. If you find it send it along. See related post. Read recent story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)