Professor Whitehead Talks About Middle Class With Biden

In case you missed it, Professor Ralph Whitehead was part of a panel (along with Vice President Joe Biden) at the Center for American Progress earlier this month–the topic: The Challenges Facing the Middle Class in the 21st Century Economy.

Check out the video of the panel.

 

Steve

One-Source Journalism and the Fort Hood Shootings

My old editor at The Washington Post’s Web site was fond of saying:  “I would rather be second and right than first and wrong.”

It was good guidance.  And it was advice that I often followed during my years as an editor at The Washington Post’s Web site.  During my 10 years at The Post, we were regularly confronted with BREAKING NEWS events.  It was always a tug-of-war.  We forced each other to check out everything — not an easy task when you have a bank of televisions yelling at you with speculation and editors wondering why TV had the story and we didn’t.  But, we sought confirmation and stayed away from skeletal one-source stories.

I remember one friend and colleague in particular who saw cable television’s Breaking News-ification of news events as having a serious, negative influence on good journalism.  During the 2000 election recount, Jason was working one Saturday afternoon when the Supreme Court came out with one of its many contorted statements on the recount.  One of the Web producers working under Jason posted a BREAKING NEWS headline based solely on a headline that CNN had run on television.  Jason moved quickly to take it down, explaining that journalists need more than CNN — we needed actual facts before reporting.

So, that brings us to yesterday’s reporting on the Fort Hood shooting.

I was in the offices of the UMass Journalism Department, watching the coverage yesterday.  Having covered and watched dozens of breaking news events, I was willing to shrug off the confusion over the number of shooters, number of dead and number of wounded in the first several hours.

However, when it became clear hours after he was reported dead that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan — now the alleged shooter — was actually alive, I realized we had another victim of cable’s Breaking News-ification of journalism.

I posted a few items to Twitter yesterday about the failure of cable, television and other news reporters to get the facts right after the news came out that the alleged shooter, Nidal M. Hasan, was actually alive, not dead.

Here’s one of my tweets:

Another chapter today in how cable TV turns fiction into fact. Ft Hood shooting shows again that BREAKING NEWS! takes time to get it right

My tweets prompted one of my followers — a TV journalist — to send me an e-mail noting that the suspect’s death was announced on camera by Ft. Hood’s commanding officer.  I have not been able to find that video (if you see it, please e-mail it to me,)  but, whether it was on camera or not, the word of one military official was was passing along secondhand information soon became established fact.

One-source journalism is too often the norm for television and cable journalists.  And, in this case, traditional print journalists filing for their news Web sites passed along the bad secondhand information.

Did anyone ask where military officials were getting their information?  Did anyone try and get confirmation from hospital officials?  Did anyone official actually identify the body believed to be Hasan’s?

The information from “military officials” was bad information that took hours to sort out.

As this video points out, the situation at the emergency room involved in handling victims was chaotic.  Were military officials sure that Hasan was killed?

Apparently not.  But, it doesn’t appear anyone asked.

We as journalists have seen time and time again that the ‘facts’ in the initial hours of a breaking news event prove to be erroneus.  Balloon boy is a great recent example.  Even when officials on the ground raised questions about whether the boy was in the balloon, CNN’s Rick Sanchez plodded on with the drama of the balloon.

Is this “spaghetti against the wall” journalism — report now, figure out the facts later — good for journalism?  Good for Democracy?  Good for communities?

What we saw yesterday — in the rush to be first — were a bunch of profiles of Hasan characterizing him as everything from guilty to unstable to having an Arabic-sounding name.   Stories that framed him as the obvious guilty shooter are reframed today as a ’suspect’ and ‘alleged shooter.’  The need to be first rather than right resulted in horrendous journalism.

Today, military sources put forth the Islamic terrorist angle.  Lt. Gen.  Robert Cone appeared on several morning television shows and said that soldiers who witnessed the shooting reported that the gunman shouted, “Allahu akhbar,” Arabic for “God is great,” before shooting.

Is it true?  We don’t know.  It’s one-source reporting from a military source right now.   But, it makes for good television.

 

Steve

ESPN Editors Visit UMass Journalism

ESPN's Jena Janovy, Sarah Goldstein and Matthew Lee spoke to UMass journalism students this week. Photo Credit: Brian McDermott

About 40 UMass journalism students heard from three editors from ESPN this week.  Jena Janovy, Sarah Goldsteein and Matthew Lee spoke about the state of the industry and their duties during a 90-minute discussion.

The trio dispelled several myths, including notions that ESPN does not do serious journalism.  Janovy spoke at length about the cross-platform, long-form journalism she does.  She spoke about how she and her writer spent more than six months putting together the award-winning Ray of Hope package.

All three work for ESPN’s Web site and quickly dispelled the notion that Web journalists do not practice under the same ground rules as “traditional” print journalists.

“First and foremost, journalism and basic skills you need to write a proper story are the same no matter what,” Goldstein said.

All three said there were jobs available but admitted that the pool of available talent is much larger because veteran journalists are being laid off at newspapers.  The advice was consistent from all three:  Journalism students should acquire as many skills as possible while in school and do as many internships as possible.

Lee polled the crowd as to those who had taken part in internships.  When about half of those present raised their hands, Lee looked out at the group and asked:

“What are the rest of you waiting for?”

Good advice indeed.

Steve

First-Ever Multimedia Journalism Bootcamp!

If you happened to stroll past Bartlett Hall this weekend, you would have seen a small group of journalism students hunched over their laptops, putting together a collection of stories focusing on the return of students to UMass and Amherst.  The students were part of the first-ever Multimedia Journalism Bootcamp, which began Thursday night and concluded late Saturday afternoon.

Jackie Hai, BJ Roche and I guided student discussions on everything from the role of bloggers and social media to the importance of networking and internships to the ethics of using music in audio slideshows.  Instructors accompanied students on reporting outings on Friday and worked with students on the editing of their video and text pieces upon returning to Bartlett 107.  Students spent about 14 hours on Friday working on their packages, which can be found on Amherst Wire.

A great experience for all involved.  Much thanks to my fellow instructors, Jackie Hai and BJ Roche, for helping to make this happen!

Steve

A Wake-Up Call for AEJMC

I have a song bouncing around my head:  The Rolling Stones “Out of Time.”   After my time here at AEJMC, I’ve changed the refrain to “baby, baby, baby you’re out of TOUCH.”

My former washingtonpost.com colleague and friend Tom Kennedy captured my feelings well during his session yesterday when he suggested that both news organizations and those in academia need to abandon the print-centric focus of journalism.   A simpler version: WAKE UP!

I’ve been somewhat dismayed at the overall print-centric focus of this conference.  Many, including Dan Gillmor and Eric Newton (who were on the same panel as Kennedy), have said that academic institutions are places where innovation and experimentation can and should be happening.

That refreshing thinking has been noticeably absent in many corners of this conference.  We as educators have a tremendous opportunity at gatherings like this to set the agenda on the future of the industry.  Lamenting about the role of Twitter in news delivery isn’t the way to go.

I went to one panel entitled the “Future of Newspapers” where several editors made clear their Web and print products were separate.

I went to one session on narrative, but it was solely focused on the written form.   No mention of video or audio slideshows.

The us vs. them characterizations of bloggers and the twitterverse has dominated many discussions.

This is my first time at AEJMC, so I’m not sure what I expected. I just didn’t expect this.  But as one friend pointed out last night, AEJ has a newspaper division.

Indeed.

As I sat in on the session on the ‘future of newspapers’ there was literally a black cloud hanging over the panel.  But, it’s the wrong conversation.   It’s not about the ‘future of newpapers,’ it IS about the future of journalism.

And THAT is a tremendously positive conversation.  ASU’s Dan Gillmor said yesterday he was jealous of his students.  Damn straight.  We need more of those conversations and less of the ‘How to save the horse ‘n buggy’ conversations.

I spent many years at The Washington Post trying to persuade print-centric reporters and editors about the values of Web journalism.  It’s kind of weird to be back in that position again.   There is a tremendous opportunity for this organization to be cutting edge.  We need to shift the conversations.

Quickly.

Wake up!

Steve Fox

Multimedia Journalism Coordinator, Lecturer

UMass

Yes, Virginia, the Web Has Changed the Way Newspapers Operate

It seems that almost daily I’m coming across articles, blogs, musings pertaining to outdated thinking from newspaper folk.

In an article that was widely tweeted today, Jonathan Landman, the deputy managing editor for the New York Times was quoted as saying:  “nothing about the Web has changed the front page of the paper in any fundamental way.”

Such a statement is not only arrogant but points to a fundamental misunderstanding of how the news cycle has changed thanks to the Web.  Later on in the same article, Jim Roberts, The Times’ associate managing editor and NYTimes.com’s digital news editor, hedges a bit but drifts more into reality:

“The newspaper is at once the starting point of what we do on the Web, and sometimes it’s the ending point in [that] it sometimes is an interpretation and an encapsulation of the news that has happened through the day.”

For those of us who have worked in Web journalism, a statement that the Web does not change the front page is not surprising.  In many corners of “mainstream”  or “legacy”  journalism, newspaper executives continue to treat their Web operations as the stepchild of the family.

Way way way back — back before the Internet, White House announcement stories and the like — whether resignations or appointments — would be on A1.    Today, such stories are commodity news.  Mark Stencel, one of my former colleagues at The Post, was one of the first to coin this phrase.  He would ask:  “Why are we spending time and resources covering commodity news when everyone else has it?”  In other words, what can news organizations do on any given commodity story to make users want to read it?

By its very nature, commodity news has a short shelf life and since every news aggregator out there has a version of the announcement, it behooves news organizations to have their best writers get an “Analysis” up on the site as quickly as possible.  Such stories usually focus less on the event of the announcement and more about the strengths, weaknesses and background of the person/people involved.  The “Analysis” allows news organizations to show the strength of their reporting and knowledge of the issue.  That “Analysis” usually overtakes the commodity news within the first few hours and will stay on the site for most of the day.

When I worked at The Post’s Web site, there would be cases where by the time the paper’s deadline rolls around, we had already moved onto a second day story approach — perhaps looking at the challenges facing the nominee (or whomever.)

To ignore the influence of the Web day on the print product is arrogant and spells death for the print product.  Probably the best example of the disconnect came when Chief Justice Rehnquist retired.  The announcement story was streamed across the front of The Post’s A1 print product while the Web site had moved on to the morning announcement about Roberts being nominated for the position.  Granted, it was bad timing but it was also illustrative of how the news environment has changed.

To not acknowledge that the Web has an influence on the news cycle is to position your news organization as being out of date and out of touch and placing it on a death march.   Landman and other news executives need a wake-up call.  Break down the us vs. them mentality.  Make the Web work for you.

One of the best examples I can recall of making the Web work for you came during the initial ground war in the War in Iraq.  I was running the morning news operation of The Post’s Web site at the time and I remember the evolution of stories about the initial clashes.  The first versions filed around 5-6 a.m. ET were almost first drafts of the versions that would show up in the newspaper.  Correspondents had about 12 hours or so to respond to reactions to those first stories, filling in gaps, adding color, getting more detail.  I remember then-managing editor Steve Coll saying that the feedback from those who saw the story on the Web allowed correspondents to develop a much fuller version for the next day’s newspaper.

News organizations need to stop treating their Web operations as the evil stepchild.  Understanding that A1 of the print product is not the end all and be all would be a good start.

Steve

Blogging About Joan, the Broken Foot

Any student in the UMass journalism program who has taken a class with me knows I’m a big believer in blogs.  Last year, students in the freshman seminar started up their own blogs.  If a student has a great idea or is travelling somewhere, I usually tell them to blog about it.

It’s nice to see such advice sink in.

Emily Grund, who will be entering her senior year this fall, not only blogged for my multimedia class last semester, but has been blogging about her internship experience this summer.  And,  recently she started a blog about ‘Joan.’ ‘Joan’ is the name that Emily has given her foot — which was broken earlier this summer in a freak accident.

Three different blogs.  Three different voices.  Good ways to work on your writing skills!

Steve

Woodward, Downie at IRE

A post from the Baltimore to Bridgeport train ride:

At the start of their hourlong discussion at the Investigative Reporters and Editors Conference in Baltimore Friday, Washington Post legend Bob Woodward turned to Len Downie, The Post’s former executive editor and suggested they start their chat with a couple of hundred investigative reporters by talking about the ‘fuck-up’ – also known as The Post’s coverage of the WMDs and the run-up to the Iraq War.

(Full Disclosure:  I worked at The Post’s Web site from 1996-2006.)

Both admitted that they should have pushed harder on the WMD argument, with Downie reminding the audience of how many stories were in play at the time, including  the war in Afghanistan; post 9-11 coverage and 9’11 investigations into the performances of the CIA and other agencies, and others.

Woodward said (again) that he had drafted a story that pushed hard at the presumptions of WMDs but never walked into Downie’s office to argue for his story – like he often did on most projects.
Woodward admitted what has already been written and discussed:  That other Post colleagues wrote articles challenging the WMD argument – but it was one often buried in the A section of the newspaper.   I often think back to that time and wonder what more I could have done.

At the time, I was one of the senior editors in charge of running the homepage of The Post’s Web site.  The closest description I can come up with for the job is that it was similar to running a U.N. peacekeeping mission.  There were about 4-5 premier slots on The Post’s home page, including the photo slot – which often had a headline and story linked with it.

On any given day there could be editors from 5, 8, 10 sections in The Post’s newsroom, along with sections from The Post’s Web site, lobbying for display in that prime real estate (this is in the days before RSS and the dominance of search engines that have lessened the importance of the homepage on most news sites today.)

I remember being pushed by several Web editors to give prominence to stories written by Walter Pincus and Bart Gellman – two of The Post’s premier investigative journalists who questioned the validity of the administration’s WMD argument.  What we would often end up with was a lead story on the site that was the administration perspective of the day, packaged with a second headline and blurb to stories that challenged the WMD argument.   At the time I thought it was the ideal use of the Web – we were able to provide a balance that was lacking in the newspaper presentation.

The Web site operation was then located in Arlington, Va., while The Post’s print operation is based in downtown Washington.   Communication was not the best – Web site editors worked with editors on the newspapers “continuous newsdesk” but not on a regular basis with the newspaper’s section editors.   I would sometimes take it upon myself – sometimes at the prompting of others – to swap headlines, making the ‘challenge’ story the lede of the site.  That was not welcomed much.  The reason I often received – after some “discussion” – was that we had to give more weight to the administration’s point of view.

And, in the end I think that is what sank a lot of MSM coverage in the run-up to the war.  The ‘challenge’ stories were out there but news organizations felt obligated to give weight to the arguments being made by the administration.  This has and continues to be a continuing issue with those in the White House press corps and Washington-based journalists and news organizations.  Did Washington-based journalists learn the lessons of the failed WMD coverage?  At best, I think the jury is still out.

In my Iraq War, Journalism and the Web class last semester, we spent a considerable amount of time analyzing coverage of the run-up to the War (and the war itself.)  Students were baffled by how veteran mainstream journalists seemingly bought into the administration’s point of view with little challenging.   I remember one student specifically asking me:  “We’re trained to ask questions and challenge, why didn’t that happen?”  I didn’t have an answer for her.

One of the things that journalists do very well is the ‘look back.’  We sharply assess our performances:  “How well did we cover the story?”  “What did we miss?”  “What could we have done better?”  Journalists tend to be their own toughest critics when it comes to self-assessment.

Woodward certainly pulled no punches on Friday.  He said he and others failed to get at the “unanswered questions” in the run-up to the war.

“Would it have made a difference?  I don’t know,” he said.   Well, no, we don’t, but we have to do a better job of asking the questions and challenging each other.

Downie described the need for editors to have their antennae up even when they are knee-deep in a project and don’t want to get distracted.  “And, you reporters need to stay in the face of your editors.”

Good advice indeed.

Other highlights:
•    Woodward drew some laughs when he recounted a conversation he had with Al Gore about what the press and the media does or doesn’t know about the what happens in the White House.  When Gore said folks know about 1 percent of what happens, Woodward admitted to an unclean thought:  “How many women don’t we know about?”

•    Downie refused to be drawn into the blogger vs. journalist debate:  “To me, anyone who commits journalism is a journalist.”  He said that while older journalists are worried about the “creative destruction” ongoing in the industry, younger journalists and students see the “creative possibilities” out there.

•    Woodward said he thinks of two things when he wakes up in the morning; No. 1: “What are the bastards hiding,” and No. 2:  “we’re not so smart.”

•    The days of ‘lone wolf’ journalism are gone, collaboration is key to the future, said Downie.

•    And, finally, what would a journalism conference be without discussion of business models?  Downie said the advertising model subsidized journalism, serving as a dominant business model for 50 years.    That “golden era” is gone, he said, and there will no longer be just one single model
“We’re not talking about the survival of newspapers, we’re talking about the survival of news,” said Downie.  “Some newspapers will go away and some will survive on the Web.”

Steve

A Year in the Making

In case you missed it, Eric Athas, a 2008 graduate of the UMass Journalism program, has a story in today’s Springfield Republican on the tragic circumstances surrounding last year’s death of UMass student Katie Sherman.

Eric worked on this story for a little more than a year, providing a strong example of what dogged persistence can yield in an investigation.   Few things came easy on this investigation. Eric was vilified by many of Katie’s friends because of his initial reporting on this story.  He ran into numerous dead ends and many folks tried to wave him off the story.  But he persisted, resulting in today’s A1 story.

Steve

Students Edge Faculty in Annual Softball Throwdown

In what many around the sporting world are describing as the “Upset of the Century,” the Seniors of the UMass Journalism Department squeaked by the Faculty Fanatics in a thriller, winning the Second Annual Softball Throwdown, 8-7  last Friday afternoon.

Kevin Koczwara drove home the winning run for the students under the outstretched glove of Journalism alum Courtney Smith.  Smith, Amber Vaillancourt and Eric Athas were part of a strong alumni corps that helped build a commanding lead for the Faculty Fanatics.  Melissa Turtinen, B.J. Roche and John Katzenbach helped round out the faculty squad, who were cheered on by Maddy Blais and Karen List.

But weeks of grueling training under the direction of student coach Wil McGuiness finally paid off with some strong hitting and fielding by the students.   And the student squad seemed to elevate its game as McGuiness gave new definition to multitasking when he took time out from the game to conduct a phone interview.  Rookies Alexa Marcigliano, Ashleigh Bennett and Jackie Hai were whacking balls all over the field, showing once again that softball is a game for all!

The series is now tied at 1-1 and an off-season regimen is currently being devised for the Faculty Fanatics.