Setting the bar?

On the Journalism.org Web site (FYI: notice Web is capitalized – this is one of those style guidelines I had to tape on my computer to remind myself of as it just doesn't seem necessary!), there is an article about "The Daily Show."

In 2007, according to the article, Americans were asked to name journalists they admired; Jon Stewart placed fourth along with real anchormen Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather.

Note to Americans: Stewart is a comedian, not a journalist.

Note to American journalists and media: This satirical comedy show may have set a new bar for news coverage.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism asked, "What is Stewart doing on his program, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, that might cause people to consider him a journalist?"

Comparing the contents of the show to traditional media, the PEJ's answers were:
1. The show focuses heavily on politics and ignores other news entirely, similarly to cable news
shows and talk radio.
2. They use news footage in a documentary (but often satirical) manner "blending facts and
fantasy in a way that no news program hopefully ever would."
3. The show assumes and requires viewer's have a previous and significant knowledge of news…
in order for viewers to "get the joke."

Hmmmm, just mull those over for a minute. Do the people who credit the show as serious journalism really get the joke?

The article states, "According to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in April 2007, 16% of Americans said they regularly watched The Daily Show or the Comedy Central spin-off, the Colbert Report. Those numbers are comparable to some major news programs. For instance, 17% said they regularly watched Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, and 14% watched PBS’ NewsHour with Jim Lehrer regularly."

Now, before we get too upset about the fact that as many people watch The Daily Show as watch NewsHour, their survey "also suggests Daily Show viewers are highly informed, an indication that The Daily Show is not their lone source of news. Regular viewers of The Daily Show and the Colbert Report were most likely to score in the highest percentile on knowledge of current affairs."

Well, I guess if blending news and comedy does get people watching the news, it can't be all bad – right? Maybe nightly news programs should get the message and make the news more fun.

Where have all the women gone?

Have you noticed the lack of coverage of women in the political arena lately?

Since Hillary dropped out of the presidential race, there are no women to been seen or heard.

Where did they go?

It’s back to “it’s all about the men”, politics-as-usual.

There’s not even any coverage of the candidates’ wives!

I have seen video of an interview with Jacqueline Kennedy – black and white footage of the beautiful, young, breathless First Lady. I remember many women being enthralled with Jackie and her children. They wanted to see what she was wearing and hear her talk about the White House. That was the feminine side of politics back then.

So, what is the feminine side of politics today?

It’s supposed to be more gender-friendly, with women actively involved and serving as senators and even running for president. But what’s the last thing you remember hearing about a woman involved in politics?

Where are Michelle Obama (I think she doubles as Condoleezza Rice!) and Cindy McCain?

Where the heck is Hillary?

Good heavens – is there a Stepford Wives thing going on?

Glass half-full journalism

Several years ago I read a magazine article about Goldie Hawn. In the interview she discussed her positive outlook on life. Although I couldn’t find any information about the interview or the direct quote, she said something to the effect that she prefers to think positive, with a “glass half-full” attitude.

That has become something of a mantra for me, so I’ve been wondering if there’s such a thing as “glass half-full journalism?”

I think “positivity” was part of the appeal of the late Tim Russert. He obviously loved politics and his job. His reporting demonstrated those feelings. Even when he was talking about something a little unpleasant, he seemed to look at a brighter side. He appeared to be the kind of guy you’d love to have a great conversation with, over a couple of beers.

I saw Mad Money’s Jim Cramer on television a few days ago and thought how different he is from Tim Russert. Tim seemed affable even when he was intensely reporting on election returns or interviewing a guest on Meet The Press. Jim seems like a rocket ready to go off into a crowd.

When I was growing up, we had a copy of Norman Vincent Peale’s book, The Power of Positive Thinking. We also had a couple of books published by The Reader’s Digest (if I remember correctly) that were full of positive, can-do, upbeat stories.

I don’t know of any such books today. Oh, sure, there are shelves filled with self-help books and maybe these were the forerunners of that genre. But where the self-help books are aimed at individuals, Peale and Reader’s Digest seemed somehow more aimed at a greater good.

Maybe that’s what I’m looking for…a journalism or media that promotes the greater good and sees the glass as half-full.

CEO Bloggers

On the NBC Nightly News tonight, I caught part of a piece about how executives of large, established companies are blogging. They interviewed Bill Marriott as an example of a CEO who is really into blogging; although, he hand-writes his blog because he says he can’t type.

His blog, Marriott on the Move, has become quite successful. Brad Nelson, vice president and culinary chef also of Marriott International has his own enticing blog, Marriott in the Kitchen (warning: don’t look at this one if you are hungry!).

According to NBC, many high-powered corporate officers have turned to blogging because “it’s the most interactive forum.”

A Hoi Polloi Report quotes Marriott from an appearance he made at the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) International conference in New York in June as saying he “finds it a way to listen to others, and communicate better with the thousands of employees and customers around 68 countries.” Hoi Polloi says, “His advice to other CEOs:
Make it personal
Stay away from out and out advertising
Talk about what you are passionate about.”

He’s pretty good at it; in fact, I found this older gentleman’s excitement about blogging very refreshing. Instead of bemoaning how the world has changed or the “demise of journalism”, he and other top dogs have embraced blogging as that interactive forum; they enjoy the communication shared with their employees and customers.

In my grandparents’ day, President Franklin Roosevelt used radio and his fireside chats as a forum for sharing his thoughts, encouragement and just sounding like he was sitting in your kitchen, having a conversation.These blogs have the same “folksiness” to them. It’s fun to look through them and realize the communication effort is still present in many people…and technology has made it even better.

The Dying Art of Satire

There's been a lot of discussion in the media about the current cover of The New Yorker magazine. Although The New Yorker says it was meant as satire, many people in mainstream media and journalism apparently don't appreciate that form of commentary.

That is disappointing, given the history satire has played in journalism. From its beginnings in plays and oratory in Greece and Rome, through the Middle Ages, into colonial America and crowned by the writings of Mark Twain, satire has served the important purpose of holding up ideas or actions in order to make people laugh… but then to think about them in a different light.
According to The New Yorker, that was exactly their purpose.

New Yorker editor David Remnick said in a statement, "Satire is part of what we do. And it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover."

Perhaps it's because satire combines serious subjects and humor that some people don't like it – satirizing the president might be very funny to someone but that same person could be offended by satirizing racism or feminism or something else dear to their heart.

Maybe it's just that we are more used to seeing satire on Saturday Night Live or movies or video games and we've grown unaccustomed to seeing it in print.

I agree with Kelly McBride of Poynteronline when she states, "Satire is risky business. I'm glad there are plenty of professionals around doing it well and keeping it alive."

I hope we haven't lost our ability to appreciate satire in journalism. It's a powerful communication tool I would hate to see fade away.

Isn't there still a need for satire, even in this age of "political correctness"?

What's new in The Stylebook?

Since we're getting so familiar with the 2007 Associated Press Stylebook, I'm wondering if any of you have taken time to glance through the short section "What's New – In this edition of the AP Stylebook". It's within the first few pages and notes some interesting changes that correlate with the changes in journalism, the world and our daily lives.

New entries include airstrike (note: one word even if your Spell Check disagrees), BlackBerry, carry-on, GPS, hip-hop, homebuyer/homeowner, intefadeh (I had to look that one up) and Swift boat (used as a noun, not a verb referring to dissing someone's character).

Changes and updates include Baha'I (another one I had to look up), European Union, Fatah (one more lookup), RSVP, telephone numbers and U.S. time zone maps.

Interesting deletions were husband (is the word or role an anachronism now?), Internet Search Tips (gosh, it seems like this one would still be beneficial, doesn't it?), Laundromat, pupil/student, Serbia-Montenegro and Woman's Christian Temperance Union.

This quick review of journalistic changes speaks to increasing globalization, especially concerning the Middle East, and modernization. Places far away, geographically and culturally, have the potential to impact America in ways we may not even understand. Likewise, the lifestyles of our parents and grandparents and those of our children seem worlds apart.

Keeping abreast of all of the changes and updating the Stylebook annually must be quite interesting and challenging. I would jump at the chance to sit in on one of their meetings!

A free U.S. press - via India?

An article in Business Week says one more job is going to India: copyediting.

In the on-going effort to make print publications more economical to produce, papers such as the Miami Herald are utilizing an Indian company called Mindworks Global Media to do copyediting and layout.

Company founder, Tony Joseph, cited the changing U.S. media market and said, "For us, the greatest opportunity for creativity and growth is in markets where there's a lot of flux and everything is open for reconfiguration."

Is that the state of American media; everything open to change? Has Internet technology so radically impacted American journalism that we are getting all of our information and news online? Will there be any American newpapers ten years from now? Has American media become so "dumb downed" that all we want to read about is Madonna splitting from her husband?

At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon, it just doesn't seem like journalism, the bedrock of American democracy, should be outsourced. Is our press truly free anymore with fewer companies owning the media outlets and cost efficiency as the driving factor?

In the book The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should know and the Public Should Expect, authors Bill Lovach and Tom Rosenstiel present the basic tenets of journalism as:
1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens,
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.
4. Its practioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It mus provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting fand relevant.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and in proportion.
9. Its practioners have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience.
10. Citizens, too, have rights and responsibilities.

Can "news" being reported via another country fulfill those critical responsibilities?

Can we risk it?

I guess we already are.