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.

Video Voyeurism

L.A. Times.com just announced that MySpace.com will be expanded to those who don’t register on the original MySpace site. As a spin-off of the main site, this site will have videos made by professionals and amateurs, grouped by categories of subject or interest.

In the article, Jeff Berman, MySpace general manager for video, said users can establish their own channels to show off their own videos or those they have found elsewhere, saying, “It's just going to get easier and easier for everyone from the soccer mom to the garage band to create video."

And, guess what! Those channels will be sponsored by advertisers or developed jointly with mainstream producers. Why? “Video is increasingly important at the top social-networking site because users want it and because it keeps them around to watch more ads.”

So, just some random thoughts here:

Per our discussion in class tonight, would any (or all?) of these video-streamers be considered journalists? They are certainly practising mass communications.

Are there citations rules for these videos? If I use a video I found somewhere else, do I have to mention that fact?

Is everything and anything put out on these sites "fair game"? We know employers have begun to check such sites - what if some psychopathic stalker zones in on you? Does any of it become a source for professional journalists, looking for those sensational stories? Couldn't something out there be used against someone by perhaps becoming part of the evidence in a court case? What would you do if you saw something about illegal activity - would you bring it to the attention of the proper authorities? Could a "vlogger" (how do I copyright that term?) claim First Amendment rights, not just for freedom of speech but for freedom of the press?

As we learned from the text, newspapers are usually produced at a loss – the real income comes from the advertisers. Smart marketing move by the advertisers to take advantage of this new venue.

Who are all of these people who put stuff out on MySpace and YouTube? Berman stated in the article that 50 million viewers watch streaming video on MySpace each month – but that number puts them in second place behind YouTube. Is this contributing to the “information” overload of today's world? Please tell me people aren't watching this instead of any real news!

How do 50 million video voyeurs find the time to watch these videos, much less have time to produce and/or post them? They must not be working full-time and attending college!

I’m probably “old-fashioned”, but is nothing private anymore? Why do people have this need or desire to put themselves and their lives on display? Why do other people have the need or desire to watch? Maybe it's the new equivalent of people-watching, without going to the mall or the State Fair.

I guess with no classes next week, I’ll have some time to go check it out!

(PS: sorry I was wrong about having 10 blogs done, Brian – the total of 10 I saw included the little one I did the first night when we set up our blog spots. Hope to talk with you and Craig next week. Thanks for a really good class!)

What's news?

The Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) News Coverage Index listing of the top ten news stories (by percent) for June 10 – 15 is worth a quick look.


This is a ranking of news topics for newspapers, online, network TV, cable TV and radio. Here is the overall ranking, for all five sectors.

Rank Story Percent of Newshole
1 Immigration 10%
2 Palestinian Conflict 9
3 Events in Iraq 7
4 2008 Campaign 7
5 Fired US Attorneys 3
6 Iraq Policy Debate 3
7 US Domestic Terrorism 2
8 Space Station 2
9 Iran 2
10 CIA Leak/Libby Sentence 2

Three topics were covered in each media: Immigration, Palestinian conflict and events in Iraq.

Beyond those three, it’s interesting to see what each covered that did not make the list above:

Newspapers: U.S. economic numbers, Sopranos TV show, same-sex marriage

Online: TB traveler, Afghanistan, U.S./Russia relations, Beirut bombing, U.S. economic
numbers

Network TV: Duke Lacrosse scandal

Cable TV: Paris Hilton, Duke Lacrosse scandal, LA hospital death case

Radio: Global warming, Sopranos TV show, hurricane season

In the chapter entitled “What is Journalism For?” in The Elements of Journalism,
the authors say, “The increasingly interactive relationship between journalist and
citizen has raised questions in newsrooms about whether journalists still have a role as agenda setters - trying to signal to the audience what news is important, the top stories.”

I was feeling pretty bummed out about the quality of the news available to us, but it was somewhat comforting to find this information.

It looks like journalists are doing a pretty good job, after all. It also points out how important it is that we, as critically thinking citizens, fulfill our responsibility to look through this smorgasbord of news.