January 15, 2009

The media ecosphere & the government

Posted by johnmcquaid under government, media | Tags: , , , |
1 Comment 

Once, the media could unilaterally shape the political debate – a legacy of the (short-lived) postwar political consensus and the media’s monolithic dominance of airwaves, newsprint, etc. Jay Rosen has mapped out the arbitrary ways this consensus-generating machine worked, and why it’s now breaking down:

Now we can see why blogging and the Net matter so greatly in political journalism. In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized— meaning they were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other. But today one of the biggest factors changing our world is the falling cost for like-minded people to locate each other, share information, trade impressions and realize their number. Among the first things they may do is establish that the “sphere of legitimate debate” as defined by journalists doesn’t match up with their own definition.

It’s good to have a million voices calling BS on big media’s persistent, strange, Reagan-era take on American politics. I wonder, though, what effects the combination of declining cultural relevance and the implosion of the media business will have on the relationship between media and government. One virtue of having big media institutions is that, sometimes, their clout and claim to represent a consensus view could be brought to bear on serious government transgressions – the classic examples being Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, and more recently, the New York Times’s exposure of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program.

Obviously, you can’t turn back the clock. You can’t leverage authority that no longer exists. A new configuration of old/new media is still taking shape. So: will a vastly more diverse but also more diffuse media ecosystem still have the ability (via individual media outlet, or via a swarm) to bring pressure to bear on the upper levels of government?

 

December 18, 2008

The DC bureau’s disappearance, continued

Posted by johnmcquaid under media | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

A little late to the party, today’s New York Times bemoans the mass closings of Washington news bureaus. There’s not much new here, except updated numbers. And not much insight into the underlying problems afflicting Washington journalism, or speculation on what might fill the information breach left by all that vanished reportorial power.

For instance, the incoming Obama administration promises a veritable revolution in government openness, and there are already a number of organizations in place that plan to build on that. Bloggers and citizen journalists are also in this picture. What will this transparency really mean for understanding how government works? After all, government is still government. Which means it will spend a lot of time covering its a**, no matter how much raw data it puts out there. There are a lot of rich questions here. Alas, the folks at the Gridiron Club are still in mourning, and probably will be for some time.

On the other hand, this response by Henry Blodget gives new meaning to the word “cavalier.” Most DC coverage is/was duplicative and thus unnecessary, he writes. In general terms, of course he’s right. But by Blodget’s standards, the McClatchy bureau’s distinctive, path-breaking coverage of Iraq and other issues — in substantive terms, not duplicative at all — clearly falls into this category, and thus belongs on the chopping block with no second thoughts.

Here’s what he says about regional/local bureaus:

One area where coverage may actually suffer is that of the Washington-based activities of state senators and Congress-people: New Yorkers may not care much about how much pork, say, Wayne Allard of Colorado is stuffing into the latest bill, but folks in Aspen might (might–although if it is really tasty pork, we expect Wayne himself will rush to tell them about it). 

Even this lament, however, is misplaced: If there is truly a need or hunger for news about the Washington-based activities of local representatives, it can and will be filled by Politico or some other organization that has some economies of scale. Then local newspapers can reprint or aggregate it.

OK, let’s let Politico handle it. Problem solved!

Seriously, the relationship between citizens and government has been sorely strained over the past eight years, and most of the real business of government goes on at precisely this regional or local level, below the radar of the Politico or the Washington Post. Blodget obviously doubts it, but I do think there is “truly a need or hunger” for this type of information that must be satisfied somehow, by organizations that a) exist and/or b) have real plans to pursue it.

 

December 17, 2008

The media party like it’s 1997

Posted by johnmcquaid under Barack Obama, government, media | Tags: , , , , |
[4] Comments 

Looking over the media’s political coverage of the past week,  a casual observer might think s/he was back in the 1990s. There’s a big scandal  involving the Democratic governor of Illinois trying to sell the president-elect’s senate seat. Will it hurt the party? The incoming administration? Caroline Kennedy wants to be the next junior senator from New York. Are the Democrats embracing dynastic politics? The president-elect gives a press conference announcing the new secretary of education – in which he dodges questions and bores reporters present – just like his obfuscating predecessors!

I sympathize with the media. The fact is, there isn’t much political news right now, though there’s a great hunger for it. Obama is not yet president. He’s making appointments, but those people aren’t actually doing anything yet. Bush is making dog videos. And Congress has adjourned after deadlocking on the auto bailout.

But what we see here is more than just an attempt to fill space. The media is falling back into old habits perfected during the vaporous Clinton scandals of the 1990s. The not-so-subliminal message in this coverage: You thought things would be different with Obama. But they’re not. Politics as usual. Scandals. Spin. Coverups! And, if we’re lucky, a feeding frenzy!

Drill down a little, and most of these questions turn out to be off-base. Take Dana Milbank’s piece on Obama’s press conference. Is it reasonable to expect a press conference announcing the new education secretary to be anything but deadly dull? Is it reasonable to expect Obama to step into the state-level political tempest over how to choose his replacement in the Senate? Or to opine on an investigation in which he is at best very tangentially involved? When Clinton or Bush “dodged questions” about investigations, they (or their subordinates) were the ones being investigated.

Enormous changes are brewing in the country and in government itself. Big Government is back – and it may be the only thing that can save us. This has tremendous implications for American politics.  The political media, however, doesn’t seem to get this. It’s bad at covering the actual workings of government, the nexus of politics and policy. In a pinch, it always returns to a set of commonly-held tropes and cliches forged during the Clinton scandals of the 1990s. Proven cable chat-generators, these focus heavily on the habitual hypocrisy of politicians, the always-disjointed relationship between their words and actions – but not on the substance of the actions themselves.

This is both predictable and comforting – all the more reason we’re seeing it now, when no one knows what the hell is going to happen. But not promising.

 

December 5, 2008

The New Yorker edges onto the web

Posted by johnmcquaid under media | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Yesterday I wrote that some magazines still occupy a revered cultural space, something that might let them survive the Internet revolution. Many “high quality” magazines lose money anyway, but somehow go on year after year, supported by family largesse, foundations, and more profitable sister publications.

The New Yorker would have to be number one on this list. However, like many dead-tree publications it still hoards its subscriber-only, print-centric exclusivity. It has been improving: more of the weekly magazine’s content is being made available online, and some of its best writers, including Hendrik Hertzberg and George Packer, now blog. Huzzah! If you want the whole New Yorker experience online, with the benefits of the Internet (such as links) you’re still out of luck. I discovered this when I tried to find a great piece by Ian Frazier in this week’s (Dec. 8 ) edition. Frazier profiles Derrick Parker, an ex-NYPD detective known as the “hip-hop cop.” For many years, he was the department’s reigning expert on the world of hip-hop. Now a security consultant, Parker is one of the great profile subjects – colorful, talkative, with an entree to a fascinating subculture.

In one vivid and hilarious scene, Frazier accompanies Parker as he vets would-be attendees at a birthday party for a rapper at an exclusive club. Now, I’d like to quote this briefly and link to it, but alas, no dice. The piece is not available to non-subscribers online. It is available to subscribers of the magazine’s “digital edition,” which is a kind of glorified pdf reader that reproduces the physical magazine on your screen. Here’s the link to the piece, if you’re a subscriber. Navigation is cumbersome, requiring zooming in and scrolling around to get through the columns/photos/pages – which, of course, are not designed for a computer screen in the first place.

Some magazines, such as the Atlantic, have embraced the Internet and leveraged their cultural cachet effectively in the new arena. The New Yorker still has a ways to go.

 

December 4, 2008

Can CNN cover science without journalists?

Posted by johnmcquaid under media | Tags: , , , , |
1 Comment 

I don’t understand why CNN has fired its entire science/environmental team. Nor have I seen a good explanation for it – as in, what’s the thinking behind this? Obviously, these topics are only going to get more important as time goes by; it’s time to expand, not gut them.

The stated reason – science and environmental coverage is being folded into the mother ship, under the aegis of Anderson Cooper’s show – doesn’t make much sense. Having Cooper be the sole point person on these topics may well be a good idea: CNN can leverage his star power, as it already has, to dramatize these er, dramatic issues. But you’d think it would still require a certain critical mass of expertise and experience to generate the relevant content for Cooper’s show. But perhaps I’m just naive about how the cable nets operate. (And I’ll confess, it’s a little weird when your space correspondent has the same name as a Star Trek character.)

 

December 4, 2008

Take the “daily” out of the dailies

Posted by johnmcquaid under media | Tags: , , , |
1 Comment 

I recently finished a piece for a magazine. In the last days before the January issue went to bed, there was the usual frenzy last-minute updating, fact-checking, sudden forehead-smacking questions coming up, caption-writing, et al. There is, in short, a very high ratio of man-hours to the amount of content in a monthly magazine piece. Speaking as a writer and a reader, this was well worth it – the final product is a very good one.

From an economic point of view, though, who knows? Magazines as we know them may not be around in 10 years. But then again, the glossy, highly-edited general-interest publication probably has some staying power as a cultural object because the content it serves up is not just interesting, but well-crafted. It struck me during the editing process that journalistic content – or, more broadly, the written word – is stratifying in interesting ways. At one end, you have books and high-end magazines. Both operate with small editorial staffs. They produce well-crafted content. In the case of magazines, that content has a still-convenient physical form, but also takes to the web in interesting ways.

On the other end you have the burgeoning world of blogs and news sites, where immediacy is king. Here you can have good writing and editing, but speed and brevity and linking (with the capacity to jump out of a piece/post and then back in, or continue on elsewhere) mean that you don’t get much long-form stuff that develops a deeper argument or a truly three-dimensional picture of something in one space. This is the dichotomy the Nicholas Carr wrote about, from the reader’s perspective, in his Is Google Making Us Stoopid? piece for the Atlantic.

Who’s the odd man out here? Newspapers, of course. They used to occupy a middle ground – well crafted and immediate! – but that ground is falling out from beneath their feet. They are neither.

The old-fashioned physical newspaper is outdated the moment it’s printed. And (with exceptions, of course) it’s not finely crafted. It’s worth waiting for this week’s New Yorker. Not so the morning paper, anymore. The problem here goes beyond the newsprint issue. Newspapers (still) have large bureaucracies of editors, copy editors, photo editors, et al who are trapped by their own habits and prejudices. The traditional newspaper voice is outmoded, weirdly opaque. (I was reading a recent NYTimes story for research today, and was having trouble getting through it because I couldn’t tell what the reporter really thought amid the dutiful quoting of various sources and bland NYT-style declarations). And the content itself, as papers shrink, will get weaker.

The answer, I think, is obvious. The “daily” part of newspaper journalism has become a trap. It’s too slow for today’s readers, not slow enough for good in-depth journalism. Get rid of “daily” obligations, the filing for tomorrow. Focus on immediacy. Liberate reporters’ voices. But: devote some resources to long form and craft.

 

November 12, 2008

The Rosenbaum-Jarvis smackdown

Posted by johnmcquaid under media | Tags: , , , , |
[5] Comments 

My first reaction upon reading today’s old-vs.-new media tussle between Ron Rosenbaum and Jeff Jarvis was to wonder “can’t we all get along?” A tiresome sentiment, I know. But is it any more so than replaying the arguments that these two heavy-hitters bring to the endless circular discussion about 21st century journalism?

Shorter Rosenbaum: Jarvis is cruel to those traditional journalists and old media outlets getting hammered by job and budget cuts. Jarvis ignores what they bring to the table -  reporting on real life events – while focusing on the new forms journalism should take. And his self-regard has become unbearable.

Shorter Jarvis: I’m just telling it like it is: if traditional journalists don’t stop whining and adapt to a rapidly changing environment, they’re doomed. And I’m not unbearable; the truth hurts. Nyah.

Rosenbaum is his typically entertaining self: Jarvis’s oracular pronouncements and descriptions of his jet-setting do sometimes verge on self-parody. But I think Jarvis is, on the whole, correct: radical innovation is the only way forward for journalism, and is incredibly promising. Whining about the bygone days (five years ago!) of newspapers and magazines may provide a necessary emotional outlet, but it’s a huge waste of energy and a distraction from the challenges at hand.

But Rosenbaum does identify a weakness that runs through the pronouncements of many a new media guru: the obsession with, and fetishization of, technology and new forms. That’s good as far as it goes, but it’s still not clear what truly great post-dead tree journalism looks like. Oh, there are more and more examples out there – TPM, Spot.us, Grist.org – that combine reporting with technology, Internet, and social networks in compelling ways. And examples of the big media outlets adapting, such as the Washington Post’s decision to include blogger Chris Cillizza as part of its incoming White House team.

However, there’s a certain chicken-or-the-egg factor here. Do emerging technology and the social changes that follow from it naturally beget quality journalism (if you build it, they – journalists and readers – will come)? Or is there a risk that if you focus on technology and the changing relationship between the journalist and the news consumer, the fundamentals get lost in the shuffle? This is a problem at many newspapers, which in their relentless race to cut back and innovate simultaneously are literally trading journalism talent and experience for technical expertise.

The focus on technology, form, and social networking is a big part of the puzzle. But content should be given its due. What are the problems – in communities, the nation, the world – that deserve investigation and exposure with these wondrous new tools?

 

November 11, 2008

Farewell

Posted by johnmcquaid under media | Tags: , , , |
Leave a Comment 

From 11/7/08:

THIS IS THE FINAL REPORT OF NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE

THE MISSION OF THE NEWS SERVICE HAS BEEN TO PUT THE FINEST JOURNALISM IN FRONT OF AS MANY EYES AS POSSIBLE. FOR NEARLY HALF A CENTURY, WE HAVE DONE OUR BEST TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ARTICLES THAT INFORM, EDIFY, EXCITE AND AMUSE YOUR READERS. WE BID FAREWELL WITH THE WISH THAT THE NEWS BUSINESS WILL BE KIND TO YOUR PUBLICATION AND ITS HARD-STRIVING EMPLOYEES.

 

November 6, 2008

Oh-Bama!

Posted by johnmcquaid under 2008 campaign, media | Tags: , , , |
Leave a Comment 

I’m sure I’ll have more to say about the incipient Obama administration going forward. In the meantime, a side note about newspapers. It was a banner day for the traditionalists: Many papers had to do midday press runs because their dead-tree editions sold out. (I was lucky to find a non-empty Washington Post box near my gym and picked up a copy. Now I have to keep it forever?)

One observation: historic newspaper headlines announcing an election result or other event were straight declarations. Think: NIXON RESIGNS, MEN WALK ON MOON, et al. This is what made them, well, historic. They concisely described the moment.

But today it’s different. Most people picking up a paper the day after something big happens already know all about it. When I got my paper, I had already watched election results the night before on TV, read news websites and political blogs. So the hard news headline is no longer needed. Meanwhile, newspaper design is also becoming flashier, more photo-heavy, the headlines bigger – and shorter.

So instead of the declaration of history — OBAMA ELECTED PRESIDENT — today’s headlines were impressionistic:

* • “Yes We Can.” (The Record of Stockton, Calif.)
* • “Change Comes to America.” (Canada’s The Hamilton Spectator)
* • “Change of Course.” (Athens (Ga.) Banner-Herald)
* • “Face of Change.” (Omaha (Neb.) World-Herald)
* • “A New Hope.” (Iowa City Press-Citizen)
* • “In Our Lifetime,” declared The Anniston (Ala.) Star.
* • “Obama Overcomes,” said The Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News.
* • “Race is History,” The Beaumont (Texas) Enterprise offered.
* • “Obama Reaches The Mountaintop,” said The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J.
* • “Obama!” (The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pa.)
* • “Oh-Bama! (The Orange County (Calif.) Register
* • “Mr. President.” (The Chicago Sun-Times)
* • “It’s Obama.” (La Tribune of Paris, France)

What does this mean, other than that today’s newspapers are like yesterday’s magazines? It’s sort of paradoxical. People seek commemorative editions because they are, of course, physical objects, and they distill something of the day that a web page, changing every 15 minutes, can’t. At the same time, though, because papers no longer have a monopoly on information and are desperate to grab attention any way they can, the headlines (and in many papers, much of the content as well) are softer, less matter-of-fact, less “serious.” When we look back on these headlines in 40 years, it’s hard not to think they’ll show more about the steady fading away of the paper edition than the historic event they record.

 

November 2, 2008

The ombudsman’s lament

Posted by johnmcquaid under 2008 campaign, media | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Is there any job in American journalism hurtling toward obsolescence faster than that of the ombudsman, the “readers’ representative” who mediates between the myriad comments/complaints/suggestions of readers and the management of the paper?

With the collapse of the newspaper business model, many papers have eliminated this position. That’s probably a good thing. Not long ago, I felt differently: newspapers are traditionally opaque institutions that call other people to account, but are reluctant to acknowledge their own mistakes. Good to have an in-house critic who could get answers from the publisher, from editors and reporters. But with the rise of countless online sources of media criticism and the migration of newspapers online, the ombudsman’s function is becoming redundant. Newspapers are starting to open up and join the conversation; those who go into a defensive crouch when they make a mistake do themselves no favors.

And the ombudsmen still on the job seem increasingly caught betwixt the giant forces grinding down and transforming newspapers and the conventions still holding them back. In today’s New York Times, for example, public editor Clark Hoyt goes to great lengths trying to wave reporters off prematurely calling the election for Obama:

There are only two days left until the next president is elected. I think The Times would be wise, in the words of my former colleague Tom Fiedler, dean of the College of Communication at Boston University, to “forgo the temptation of the horse race” and focus on issues and what the candidates are saying. That is just what the paper did Thursday, with articles on their positions on student loans and summarizing their final stump speeches.

He’s right that it’s silly to write articles saying “it’s over” before it’s over. And I’m no fan of horse race coverage, with its endless focus on what might happen weeks or months in advance. But it’s different now: The horses are very close to the finish line. It would be ridiculous for reporters to ignore that one of them is ahead by a length. That reality shapes everything, from campaign decisions to voter behavior itself. In making the most predictable of all ombudsmanic pronouncements – cover the issues – Hoyt dispenses the strangest kind of journalistic advice: Cover your eyes! Ignore the facts!

And let’s face it: Obama is very likely to win. The odds of an election-night shocker are quite small. If you want an example, look at the indispensable 538.com, which runs 10,000 computer simulations every day incorporating the latest polling results, taking into account polls and election results going back to 1952. As of tonight, 538 gives McCain a 6.3 percent chance of victory. That’s not zero, of course, and the vote could turn out to be a black swan – that totally unanticipated outcome. But that must be weighed appropriately against the preponderance of the evidence.

Moreover, the cautionary examples Hoyt uses – the recent Rams upset of the Redskins and Hillary Clinton’s surprise victory in the New Hampshire primary – are weak analogies to a national election. A football game is not an election at all. And the New Hampshire primary had a small and volatile pool of voters. It’s a bobbing cork compared to the aircraft carrier of a national election campaign that, in spite of its drama, has not been close for weeks.

Update: 538.com crunched the numbers again overnight and now gives McCain a 3.7 percent chance of winning.

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.