Why Journalism Won't Die--No Matter What You Read on the Internet

This morning I awoke to learn that the "big city" newspaper that gave me some of my finest training and greatest challenges, one of the dearest memories of my career, is slashing a large portion of its staff.  The first response was visceral and acutely personal--with vibrant, vivid recollections  of the rickety old building we worked in, copy boys, manual typewriters (yes, manual typewriters), pneumatic tubes used to send copy from the editors' desk down to the printers, those marvelous magicians who set type manually, and the memories, always green, of hard-driving, over-stressed reporters and editors who cared, who believed in getting it right.

Who believed in journalism, up close, personal, real--the thing that many today would have you believe is a dinosaur, a laughable old creaking monstrosity replaced by the internet. But does copying and pasting others' work, or snarking around, actually replace say, a good investigative reporter with a huge reach in readership, or an excellent, real editor who edits objectively, for actual news value, rather than for personal or political agendas?

There are some who think that journalism is well dead, Banquo's ghost, fluttering about ineffectually. But, as one commentator points out in the discussion accompanying this article--"Newspapers are a vital source of literacy."

Yes, they are. Perhaps at some point, historians in a later era will point to a time when texting became conversation, and when anyone who could manage to type in woefully mis-spelled words and clattering non-grammatical phrases, without either substance or facts, could fancy themselves journalists, movers and shakers, makers of this brave new world.

It's a fad, you see, this poseur belief that real journalism is no longer needed, because (strike a pose, modeled, cyberly, after an Edwardian fop)you see, all the truly au courant simply chat on the internet. If you know what's up at Huff or any of many other websites, then, my dear, you are in among the latest of fashions.

Once upon a time, the fad for beaver hats for men and feathered hats for ladies led to the carnage of animals and birds, literally wiping out species. Is journalism the latest feather to pluck from a dying carcass, to wear proudly in a new age?

I think not. It will, no doubt, be a contrarian view, but long-term, I have this belief that one day, people will look up and discover two things. The first is that there's a huge population out there that doesn't live on the internet and simply doesn't care what en vogue chatty websites have to say.

The second is that when real crisis is at hand, as witnessed in the Iowa floods, nobody does it better than a real, committed, trained newspaper staff. You can fly in sleekly shining TV reporters for the stand-up. You can talk about it on the web.

But the real news comes from the dirty, tired reporter from that area, the one who knows how to interview, how to get the news and present it quickly and in a readable format. The real news comes from photographers who are trained to consistently, day after day, get good shots, and who know how to frame the shots to go with the story. The real news comes from editors, sometimes at odds with the reporters and photographers in the dynamic tension that builds a great newsroom, who carefully edit and select the stories and the photos.

Real journalism isn't yet dead, although there are many who would have you think so. There are business models out there for getting rich quick on the internet, without investing the time and money in building well, a solid journalistic package. And the existing newspapers that transition to the web are often scoffed at by the new gold rush kids.

As Timothy Egan points out in his poignant piece: "But on its best days, a newspaper is a marvel of style and wit, of small-type discoveries and large-type overstatements, a diary of our deeds.

We may still prove Jefferson’s preference wrong: perhaps a nation can function without newspapers. But it would be a confederacy of dunces."

Miss Egan's column at your peril. It should be required reading for classrooms, homes, and boardrooms of the media decision-makers causing newspapers to bleed bright red blood, the lifeblood of real journalism, the kind that helps keep you not only informed, but free.

Examining the Media: Has the Press Deliberately KO'd Hillary? (Opinion)

Sen. Hillary Clinton's camp is emphatically denying an AP story announcing her resignation from her campaign for the Democratic Party nomination for president.

Regardless of what the Clinton campaign says, AP has announced the anointing of Barack Obama as well as announced that Clinton is dropping out of the race. Isn't it Clinton's job to announce what she's doing?

And isn't it the Democratic Party's job to officially nominate Sen. Barack Obama? Apparently not.

Here's what the Clinton campaign has to say, via Fox News:

"“The AP story is incorrect. Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening,” the campaign said in a statement.

Clinton aides told FOX News that the only concession she will make Tuesday night is that Obama “has a slight lead in the delegate count.”

They said Clinton plans to claim she has won the popular vote, and is working up a victory-type speech for her address in New York City.

“She is in this race until we have a nominee. We do not expect there to be one tonight,” Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said."

Still, media are following the AP's lead and accepting the AP announcement as though it came from Clinton herself. Apparently, there is no longer any reason to have a convention, because AP has just announced the nominee.

The intrusion of the media as propagandists and active PR agents for Sen. Barack Obama has been appalling, and something that I hope serious journalists take a long and hard look at. For weeks, indeed months, even before people voted, we've been told, by the media, that Clinton had already lost.

In the frantic rush to ordain Obama, the media seems to have forgotten that its job is to report factually, and not be part of the political system, but an objective  lenses on the process. These days, I think that a definition of the term "objective" needs to be given to most media.

There's a place for opinion: in the editorial section of a newspaper, or in the commentary segments of TV shows. There's an endless stream of newly-appointed pundits who drone on for hours about the slightest thing.

Their shows should have a message on the screen at the start and all commercial breaks: editorial and commentary only; this is not breaking news. Too harsh? I think not.

The media has told Hillary to quit many times--in a way they wouldn't have done with a man. They've announced her defeat so often that were this a prize fight, there'd be more announced knock-outs than rounds.

They've consistently used the least attractive photos of Clinton they could find, while finding attractive photos of Obama. One day, a supposedly objective news story gushed on about the "glamorous" Mrs. Obama, when the supposed subject was Obama policy as presented in speeches.

Watching today as the sheep stampede to follow AP's lead, I'm left wondering: when did the media get the idea that reporting news isn't good enough, and that making news is their job? 

Today, media outlets are rushing to carol the good news: AP has announced Clinton's quitting, tonight, and Obama is the nominee.

No, he's not the nominee. Even if Clinton concedes tonight, he's only the presumptive nominee.

Unless, of course, the media has now decided to take over democratic processes. In which case, everyone can save a lot of money by calling off the Democratic convention.

Personally, although Clinton hasn't been my candidate, I hope she stays in it as long as she chooses, not the media. I'd like to see her take her issues to the convention. I'd like to see Clinton supporters have the chance for some good, old-fashioned floor fights.

Above all else, I hope she doesn't accept the AP announcement as her own.

Our First SPANK THE MEDIA Honoree: WMAQ NBC 5

We're so excited! We have a winner in the Peanut crew's new "Spank the Media" competition to find the stupidest, most overblown, most time-wasting, or downright unfactual bit of media out there. (Really, though, we have to limit it to the most blatant examples; we don't have room or time enough to list the daily Hefty bags of eligible competitors.)

Admittedly, the Barack Obama-Rev. Jeremiah Wright linkage is a hot, hot, hot topic. The fires are repeatedly stoked by Wright's particular-and often downright weird--skill in hopping back out in front of the media sideshow tent. Still and all, a newscast trumpeting an "exclusive, one on one" interview with Obama about his reaction to Wright's latest pronouncements outdid even Little Egypt in teasing the midway but delivering little.

WMAQ NBC-5 repeatedly referenced their "exclusive one on one" interview with Obama, "the first" since the sneak peek release of Wright's interview with Bill Moyers. Was it an "exclusive one on one" interview?

Only if you're so hard up for dubious glory to claim that an awkward, poorly-photographed, poorly-structured, and even-more-poorly questioned standard "shove mike in face" is an "exclusive one on one interview." An example of a true exclusive, personal interview is the upcoming Moyers piece.

But a tease in a short, less than three-minute clip isn't the same thing. Nor is a second clip, which has only a short reference to the Wright controversy, an exclusive interview as in Moyer's piece.

We'll save you the time of learning just what it is that Obama had to say about Wright's piece in that oh-so-exclusive interview (which is hinted at, in the first clip, as focusing on the Wright issue). Here's the exclusive news: Obama hasn't seen Wright's interview yet, so he isn't able to comment.

Wow! We hope you were sitting down for that huge bit of exclusive, breaking news.

The second clip offers a few surface gloss-overs of other topics, served up by a softball reporter with basic "I'm so impressed you're talking to me" questions.

The piece is only otherwise remarkable in the shots over the reporter's stooped back, the nifty sustained shot of her cellphone (looks like a Palm Treo), and, occasionally, a bit of the reporter's face bobbing up and down, darting, at the side.

It wasn't an exclusive one-on-one interview, it wasn't even a quick mike-in-face chat of substance, it was poorly presented, and it had nothing more to offer than basic Obama public relations pablum. Bend over, NBC 5 WMAQ, it's your turn in the SPANK THE MEDIA spotlight.



And what about a thoughtful look at the Obama-Wright issue? Analyst & campaign expert Ned Barnett weighed in on that.




At Wright's church, Easter celebrations included a from-the-pulpit admonition to not give interviews. There's a lot of blame going around for the "God damn America" mess, and both the Obama and Wright camps are busy trying to make sure the blame doesn't stick to either of the two men.

Video: How The New York Times Set Up John McCain, McCain Replies

Did the New York Times knowingly and willfully set John McCain up for a kick to the groin when they endorsed him as their choice for the Republican nomination for president?When the New York Times backed John McCain, they knew about the rumors of McCain's involvement with a lobbyist, and had discussed it with the McCain campaign.

Shortly thereafter, the Times went below the belt with allegations about McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. So far, the Times has no real evidence--just gossip, and unnamed sources purported to be some angry staffers who were either fired or laid off.

Although former McCain staffer John Weaver denies having a finger in the rumor pie, where apparently four and twenty un-identified blackbirds were singing to the Times, some are now pointing at him. Weaver's issued his own denial to John Cillizza at the Washington Post:

"The New York Times asked for a formal interview and I said no and asked for written questions. The Times knew of my meeting with Ms. Iseman, from sources they didn't identify to me, and asked me about that meeting. I did not inform Senator McCain that I asked for a meeting with Ms. Iseman.

Her comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less.

I responded to the Times on the record about a meeting they already knew about. The campaign received a copy of my response to the Times the same day, which was in late December.

From the day I first approached John about running for President in 1997 and through today, I have always wanted John to be president. The country needs him at this perilous time. From the moment I left the campaign until today, not one day -- not one --has gone by that I haven't reactively or pro-actively talked with the campaign leadership, with state leadership about how the campaign and how to win. To suggest anything else is wrong, a lie and meant to do nothing but harm."


The New York Times asked for a formal interview and I said no and asked for written questions. The Times knew of my meeting with Ms. Iseman, from sources they didn't identify to me, and asked me about that meeting. I did not inform Senator McCain that I asked for a meeting with Ms. Iseman.

Her comments, which had gotten back to some of us, that she had strong ties to the Commerce Committee and his staff were wrong and harmful and I so informed her and asked her to stop with these comments and to not be involved in the campaign. Nothing more and nothing less.

I responded to the Times on the record about a meeting they already knew about. The campaign received a copy of my response to the Times the same day, which was in late December.

From the day I first approached John about running for President in 1997 and through today, I have always wanted John to be president. The country needs him at this perilous time. From the moment I left the campaign until today, not one day -- not one --has gone by that I haven't reactively or pro-actively talked with the campaign leadership, with state leadership about how the campaign and how to win. To suggest anything else is wrong, a lie and meant to do nothing but harm."

Missing Woman Case: The True Crimes of Bad Journalism

Get out the milk cartons, folks. Here's the poster children for missing journalism in a case that's at least a scandal, and may be a deadly crime.

Wife #4 disappears. Police re-open investigation into the death of wife #3, found dead in a bathtub after filing an order of protection against her husband.

The husband, 53-year-old Drew Peterson, is a veteran Chicago police officer. Not only do we now have a cop investigation of a cop, the 23-year-old missing woman's name is Stacy Peterson, eerily close to the infamous Laci and Scott Peterson case. That definitely makes it "made for a TV movie" fodder.

And, there's also a 30-year-difference in age that seemingly only matters at the start of the romance, when she was dangerously close to being under age. Maybe. In fact, the math of the case when you add up some numbers that this Fox News story doesn't tell you.

To get those numbers, a reader has to also find the Chicago Tribune article, which fairly screams in purple prose and lounges in lavender shades of Mickey Spillane. The Trib tells us that Peterson and wife #4 (the 17-year-old, not the dead 40-year-old in the bathtub) "met six years ago."

That would be 2001, roughly. In 2004, wife #3, Kathleen Savio, dies in bathtub incident. And, according to the Trib again, the current Peterson couple has two children, one of whom is four years old. That's a birthdate of 2003. You do the math.

But we aren't done yet. The Fox story, high up, includes a statement that Peterson isn't considered a suspect. Really? Then why trumpet the possible connections between dead wife #3 and missing wife #4?

OK, we'll grant that the combination is a natural for news coverage--unless you're writing for the Trib. Or unless you then muddy the waters with a hinted-at link to two other missing wives.

Fox News suddenly veers and slogs into a swamp: "But Stacy Peterson is the third wife to vanish in the last six months in the Chicago area, the latest in a series of mothers whose families say they would never leave their children behind.

Chicago police found a body believed to be that of missing 39-year-old Alma Mendez, a mother of three, who disappeared Sunday on a jog near a forest preserve."

So now Peterson is #3 in a series of women who've disappeared, and whose connection may be: they're wives and mothers. One of them is Lisa Stebic of Plainsville, Ill who disappeared six months ago. However, the Fox story tells us, her husband, Craig, has been named as a "person of interest" by police.

Then why drag her case, and that of Mendez, into the Peterson (Stacy) case, Fox? You creak open a door to a "wives gone missing!" macabre exhibit and then immediately slam it. That's called over-reaching to tie into other news stories, at the cost of clarity for readers.

Back to the Chicago Tribune though, which is long on sentiment, and short on up-front facts. "...
Sitting at a desk in his house Wednesday afternoon, unshaven and with bags under his eyes, Drew Peterson, 53, said his wife, Stacy, 23, called him about 9 p.m. Sunday and told him she was leaving....."Sorry, I get choked up about it," Peterson said, his voice cracking....
As the couple's two children, ages 2 and 4, scampered around the house, he talked about celebrating the couple's fourth wedding anniversary Oct. 18. "

Bring out the tissues. This is sob sister journalism.

The Trib story does have some facts, including Stacy's age and the notation that the couple married two years after they started dating. But wait! That would be (counting on fingers) in 2003, if they met six years ago.

Back to Fox, who identified wife #3 (dead in bathtub) as still Peterson's wife in 2004. Is your head spinning yet? Mine is. So was #3 his ex-wife at the time of her death? Buried deep, deep in the Trib story is some more insight into the whole numbers game. Why is the Trib more concerned with the baggy-eyed, cracking-voiced husband who also is found "chuckling softly" than with a straight-up accounting of facts?

Darned if I know. But I do know this: a woman is missing under suspicious circumstances, and between two major news sources, you still can't get the whole story.

And I call that missing journalism. Are we sure there isn't a milk carton category for that?

Note: Have you seen Stacy Peterson? If so, contact the Illinois State Police immediately.