The Newseum opens in Washington. Gannett's splashy new monument to journalism, the Newseum, opened in Washington yesterday. For the most part, I think, the reviews are good. (Check out this interactive guide at USA Today. And here's the review.)

(My old friend from Navy days, Thomas A.K. Kai, was there and sent me a link to the pictures he took, one of which is above. Tom has about 40 good photos of the place both inside and out.)

The place, visually, can't be missed, and its size and location will make it a tourist magnet. I certainly plan to try to get there the next time I am in D.C.
More (Posted April 13, 2008)

The center of gravity has shifted. The web has pretty much rendered obsolete the adage that says you should never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel and newsprint by the ton. Today there is less fear and frustration with the news media on the part of those outside the profession, and there is more willingness to take issue with the decisions of reporters and editors. The web has given those who believe they have been mistreated a forum and a voice -- and it is forcing the redefiniton of the relationship between reporter and source. Katharine Seelye has an excellent article about that this week in the New York Times.
More (Posted Jan. 3, 2006)

What wasn’t covered. An interesting article on the Poynter.org web site gathers opinion from a number of journalism experts about the news media’s performance in 2005. One of the fascinating things about such assessments are the stories that these experts feel journalists ignored or provided less than adequate coverage for. Among those mentioned are the Bush administration’s defense of torture, the rise in gasoline and energy costs, the declining position of General Motors in the economy, and the cost of housing. Religion columnist Terry Mattingly had two interesting observations. No top journalist or media organization had paid much attention to the “Sunni vs. Shiite divide in Iraq,” which will have a great effect on efforts to bring democracy to that country. Mattingly said he was also surprised by the overly positive coverage of Pope John Paul II when he died. “When the Pope died, there was little coverage of the strong, strong hatred of John Paul II in the U.S. Catholic establishment and, especially, in higher education. All we got was the positive. We needed more balance, to understand the reality facing Catholicism here in the West.” Commentators were also asked to express their hopes for journalism in 2006. That brought this response from Jill Geisler, Poynter Leadership & Management Group Leader: “Wouldn't it be wonderful if, in 2006, journalism's leaders found the business model or models that underwrite high-quality newsgathering?” (Posted Dec. 29, 2005)

The public is paying attention. A new Harris survey, conducted in conjunction with the Public Relations Society of America, shows that the public pays close attention to the news and that many of the traditional news organizations are held in high regard. The study took a sample of three groups: the general public (N=1,015), Fortune 1,000 executives (150), and Congressional staffers (150); it compared the attitudes of the three groups toward the news and the news media. The study's major findings show that large majorities of each group have a defined set of news organizations they consult on a regular basis; majorities of each group say they like to keep up with the news, and about 15 percent of the general public say they are "news junkies"; majorities of each group look for news that challenges their own political beliefs; and minorities of each group (21 percent of the general public) rely on non-traditional news sources such as web logs and chat room on the Internet. News organizations that score high on the trust scale are public television and National Public Radio, and national newspapers. More results from the survey can be found on the PRNewswire site and a summary of the survey results is at Broadcast and Cable magazine. (Posted Nov. 11, 2001)

Covering Hurricane Katrina. The news coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath raised a number of important questions for the news media: how do you discuss race and poverty; should (and when) should journalists become advocates; why are pictures of looting and devastation so easy and pictures of kindness, courage and generosity so hard? But the best moments for the media came before the hurricane ever hit. Three years ago, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the New York Times and National Public Radio all carried stories about what would happen when -- not if -- a hurrican were to hit the city. They were right on the money. Public officials didn't listen then. They still don't seem to be listening.
More.
See also:
Roy Peter Clark (Poynter Institute), American Leviathan
Tim Rutten (Los Angeles Times), A Warning Sent But Left Unheeded
Jack Shafter (Slate), Lost in the Flood
(Posted Sept. 6, 2005)

Is AP writing its own obit? The Associated Press has announced that it will start charging news organizations for placing its content on their web sites in 2006. The AP -- a cooperative owned by its members -- has softened the financial blow to its customers by promising that it will adjust its rates downward at the same time. This move, apparently, is to establish the principle that AP can lay on an extra charge for the use of its content in online venues. Because AP has no peer in the newsgathering world -- no organization comes close to the coverage that AP can provide -- this is an important and farreaching move, but it has drawn relatively little comment so far. No one seems to know exactly what the implications are. An exception is an Online Journalism Review article by Bob Benz and Mike Phillips of the Scripps corportation, who say AP is "planting the seeds of its own demise." Benz and Phillips go on to propose an alternative to the way AP is viewing news and news distribution. (Posted May 1, 2005)

Slough of Despond. William Safire, conservative columnist for the New York Times, has some excellent advice for the the journalism profession in his column today (Jan. 17, 2005). The news media seem depressed over the growing power of non-journalist bloggers, the indifference of the president, the rantings of religious zealots, the widespread suspicion of political bias in reporting and the increasing tendency of judges to ignore the rights of journalists to operate. The press, he says, should stand up and be counted and stop wringing its hands in despair. There are plenty of reasons why maintstream journalism is important and necessary:

On national or global events, however, the news consumer needs trained reporters on the scene to transmit facts and trustworthy editors to judge significance. In crises, large media gathering-places are needed to respond to a need for national community.

Good reading. (Posted Jan. 17, 2005)

Open society. The concept of the open society is worth spending some time on. What does an open society mean? Students may want to talk about what part of society should be open and what should not. How freely should information be available? There are many situations where an open society might or might not be a good thing. For instance, most of us expect our income taxes to be to kept confidential (and the U.S. Treasury has a very good record in that regard). But what about somebody who runs for public office? Should their tax returns remain confidential?

FOX-News and CNN viewers. This is interesting. The Pew Center (cited earlier) conducted a survey in October 2004 (in the middle of the presidential election campaign) in which it asked viewers of different news shows who they preferred as president. Here's how the center reported its findings:

• Earlier this month, Pew found that the voting intentions of the election news audience were deeply divided according to where voters got their news. The current survey shows that gap remains substantial, with a large majority of the Fox News audience supporting President Bush and a comparable share of the CNN audience favoring Sen. Kerry.
  
  
• Seven-in-ten voters who get most of their election news from Fox News support Bush, while just 21% back Kerry. By contrast, voters who get most of their election news from CNN favor Kerry over Bush, by 67%-26%.
  
  
• Other news audiences are more closely divided. Kerry has a modest advantage among voters who mostly rely on network news and newspapers. Voters who get most of their election news from local TV are split, with 46% supporting Kerry and 42% Bush.
  

Is there a bias -- among the audience, not necessarily among the journalists?

Politics. Much of journalism is about civic life -- in other words, politics. How interested in politics are the students taking this course? Many young people say that politics does not interest them. The presidential election campaign of 2004 seemed to run counter to that trend, however. It would be interesting to know how much the students in the class paid attention to that campaign and whether or not they participated in it.

What everybody talks about. A sidebar in this chapter is titled, "Everybody talks about the weather." In addition to the weather, what are some of the other things everybody talks about? One answer would be sports. If you are located close to a major college or university, you can't help talking about sports -- or hearing a lot about sports. But there are many other subjects that everybody talks about. Take a look at the web site for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (http://people-press.org/). Pew commissions surveys regularly about what news Americans are paying close attention to.

---

About JPROF.com | Who is JPROF? | Contact us
All of the words and images on this site are copyrighted and may not be used without the permission.
Copyright © Jim Stovall 2005
FreeFind.com provides search technology for this website.