Pinch Sulzberger, gutless wonder; Kevin Kruse, BlueAnon blowhard

 It is weird — or laughable — that the New York Times publisher and owner chose to write the op-ed mentioned in this Substack in the Washington Post and not his own paper.

The jokes aside?

The substance?

"Both sides" reporting is still good, Pinch says. Well, sure. It prompts subscribers.

That said, the Substack IS Kevin Kruse, a good librul Democrat type who has no problem with his party putting thumbs on scales against third-party and independent candidates. Having 2-starred his most recent book, I know that.

The complaints against the NYT are valid, and on a LOT more than electoral politics.

For example, beyond not doing "both sides" on climate change, how seriously does the NYT report on and about and from climate scientists more alarmed than climate change Obamiacs Michael Mann, Katharine Hayhoe and their ilk? You know that.

How much does it really report about the reality in Gaza? You know that. Mondoweiss earlier this week noted another pro-Palestinian American citizen killed by the IDF. (This one was in the West Bank, not Gaza.) That link also notes the NYT's lack of coverage.

The reality of American exceptionialism that Kruse accepts? You know that.

This is Kruse working the refs first, with serious concerns about journalism a distant second.

The fact that this was another piece of dreck Kuffner had on his weekend link dump speaks volumes right there.

Texas Progrs talk more national-level policing, minorities, etc

As noted in the lead-in to state half of this week's Wrangle talking about policing, brutality, and racism issues, I noted that Camden, New Jersey, has been touted as the model for "defunding" and starting a police department over, from scratch. The truth, though, is more complicated. That reminds us that this is not a simple issue. With that, let's dig in.

Alex Vitale talks about how neoliberal mayors have turned over problems created by their acquiescence in neoliberalism to police departments. He also discusses defunding or abolition vs other reform angles.


Why does Starbucks hate Black Lives Matter? Why does it lie when it claims it's not singling it out as a movement? Finally, when will librul (not leftist) whites find the principle to kick it to the curb.

Potential Status Quo Joe Biden veep nominee Klobberin Klobuchar has yet more splaining to do from her time as Twin Cities area DA, over a case rife with jailhouse snitches, police witness intimidation and more. The fact that the Klobberer refuses to withdraw her name from consideration shows how much she, as well as Biden, just don't get it, speaking of white librulz.

Wesley Lowery, booted from the pre-Bezos Post, talks about Black Lives Matter, reform vs defunding and White Lives Getting It.

Why is Trump warning against falsely labeling people as racist if other than he doesn't like being accurately labeled as racist? Like I hope many black Tulsans label him as, loudly and vocally, if he's stupid and arrogant enough to show up there on Juneteenth.

Mad Dog Mattis is still a mad dog, but his comments about Trump have freed more active-duty military to distance themselves from Trump.

A White House divided over how Trump should respond to unrest over George Floyd's killing? Those who appeal to his baser instincts will win, as they usually do. And, people of color in his White House staff who "fear a backlash" will likely continue to be Toms, Tacos and Auntie and Tia Jemimas. (Aunt Jemima is being pulled from the grocery store shelves but not from the White House and RNC ones.)

Fox is willing to break photojournalism ethics (until caught) to tell lies about protestors. And, then, it tells lies about how it used the photos.

Atlanta Police Chief Erika Shields resigned after the third incident of police brutality or over-enforcement in six weeks, per Atlanta's mayor, this one fatal. I'm not sure this incident alone constituted a need to resign, but I'm not going to argue against it, and think that in the light of the history that Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms mentioned, this had to happen, for the good of the city and the future good of the Atlanta PD. And, I definitely think murder charges in the Rayshard Brooks case are an overcharge. That was even before reading that Fulton County DA is in a runoff and also faces corruption charges. We don't need politically biased policing against minorities, nor politically biased prosecutorial actions either for or against cops.

Many Zionist groups hate Black Lives Matter, and have so from the start, primarily because of fears of situational parallels between, and budding connections with, Palestinians.

South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott wants some sort of federal action on police reform, but without any real regulatory oversight. Shock me.

Long read: The devil's bargain between police unions and the larger organized labor movement.

'Journalism' vs 'mass communication,' the #FirstAmendment and #SJW world

I don't have a J-degree myself, let alone from a renowned J-school. But, I knew the basics, and a bit more, of the freedom of the press portion of the First Amendment when I got my first newspaper job. And, I grew in knowing its details, and my interpretation of it, since then.

That's why — despite my support of Mizzou students' right to protest, and even to not talk to the media — I find it appalling that a professor from Missouri's mass communications school tried to physically restrain an ESPN videographer. (And, asked for help from others in doing this.)

See also my new post about "Maoism on the Missouri."

That said, I do NOT find it surprising.

Update: And, apparently, neither has a board of curators at Mizzou, which on Feb. 25, 2016, fired her. She did apologize, yes, however her apology was about bad tactics first, and bad decisions second. And, it never mentioned the snarky, condescending approach a mass communications prof had about the First Amendment. Click the link for the embedded video, and you'll see that. Transcript of the relevant portion is on page 24 of this PDF.

So, even though the firing was a bit outside of normal channels, and under financial pressure from the Missouri Legislature, I still don't feel totally sorry for her. The social justice warrior movement, even if overstated, has become a problem within academia. And, it would be bad enough were a professor of biology at Mizzou helping feed the beast in an anti-First Amendment way; it's a lot worse for a communications prof to do that.

Given that she also claims to have been afraid of videographer Mark Schierbecker, even to the point of worrying he allegedly might have a gun, she's continued to double down on the indefensible. As for the small size of his camera? Smartphone cameras have exposed police brutality. Click appears to be trying to have it both ways.

M. Schierbecker (R) w. MO GOP gov candidate Peter Kinder

At the same time, while Schierbecker isn't a wingnut himself, he's at times associated with them, undermined his claims to objectivity by posing for pix with a GOP gubernatorial candidate, and more. True that he has occasionally Tweeted info from people of different points of view, but, OTOH, hanging out with the likes of quasi-reactionary troll "Sargon of Akkad" really brings his credibility into question to some degree. It certainly brings his common sense into question. That said, he's reportedly autistic; while not wanting to make excuses ...

Anyway, I Tweeted Schierbecker, with Kinder's account as well, about the photos. I'll see if he responds. I've spent enough time in the Internet weeds. Kinder looks like the stereotypical modern conservative Republican.

Update 2, March 19, 2016: He has not responded. Nonetheless, he is identified with an expressly conservative student journalism association, and a prof he cites favoring Click's dismissal has been called, in student ratings, "Mizzou's Rush Limbaugh." Therefore, I'll assume that he's willingly politicized himself, and won't allow alleged autism or other things as a defense against this. And, that's problematic itself, because defenses of the First Amendment should not be politicized.

2A: He has now responded, but didn't get that such a photo op, just before a primary election (remember, Missouri was part of "Second Tuesday" on March 15) could look like an endorsement. He then posted a link about another journalist arguably being unethical. I actually agree, but ... two wrongs don't make a right. A third person who jumped in the conversation on Twitter also didn't get that, claiming:

@SocraticGadfly @Schierbecker Journalists are political is much of what they do. We meet and tweet thoughts. Is that wrong?

— Stephen Tock (@stock73) March 21, 2016

Not arguing that, either, Mr. Tock. But, apparently you either didn't read this blog post, or else, if you did, you too have problems with journalistic ethics.

I would never pose for a lifestyles-page shot with a gubernatorial candidate a month before a primary election.

Update 3, March 19, 2016: And now Click claims "my inexperience with public protests" made her act that way. Given that she's on tape as being at two different protests that we know of, that's approaching a lie right there. Second, even if true, that's not a defensible excuse. Third, per my first update, her apologies continue to be apologias in the old academic sense as much as apologies, apologizing for nothing more than bad tactics.

And her complaints about "shaming" seem pretty hypocritical; shaming is a two-edged sword, eh, SJWs?

That said, I, like the AAUP, do have questions about administrative due process in this issue. At the same time as that, I reject that she's being used as "a scapegoat," per her own claims.

Back to the original ...

First, per my header, and per the demise of journalism, "mass communications," and departments or schools thereof, are not the same as "journalism." They're often a training ground for public relations, or in today's day and age, various "social media" positions.

Speaking of social media, Melissa Click has not one but two but two Twitter accounts. (Why? Is your life really Twitter?) On the second, she repeatedly uses the old social justice warrior shibboleth "microaggression."

And, in the SJW world, microaggression always trumps the First Amendment.

Click demonstrates that in her own apology. Contra CNN, no, she doesn't appear to be an unlikely candidate for this. I bet she thought she could control the situation better. Micromanage microaggression?

Melissa Click: The academic face
of microagression judo?

But, that's not all. Retweeting a group Twitter account professing to represent protesting students, we have:

We truly appreciate having our story told, but this movement isn't for you.

— ConcernedStudent1950 (@CS_1950) November 9, 2015

That was on Monday, before her apology. Does the apology cover that as well?

Also, on the first Twitter account, in her profile picture (at left) she looks like she's been out drinking with SJW queen Rebecca Watson.

It appears she started the second account after getting flamed too much on her first one.

(Note: The second Twitter account is an apparent parody. It's now deleted, so no way of proving it's an actual parody,)

Understandable, and sad if any flaming went too far verbally, let alone leading to more than that. So, no, you men's rights types, your actions aren't welcome either. (Fortunately, one person has been arrested for nuttery; let's hope this is both a deterrent to future nuttery, and leads to arrests for already committed nuttery.)

But, as I mix personal and professsional observerations, back to Click.

On her new account, yesterday, we have:

I need some muscle over here! #Mizzou #BlackLivesMatter #whiteprivilege

— Melissa Click (@MelissaClickMSU) November 10, 2015

I love a white professor talking about white privilege. And, someone who at that time, at least, didn't seem apologetic. (The quote is real, even if the account is a parody.)

But, it gets better. This is the subject of her Ph.D. dissertation. per her CV:

Communication, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Dissertation: It’s ‘a good thing’: The commodification of femininity, affluence and whiteness in the Martha Stewart phenomenon.

Yeah, Martha Stewart let herself be passively commodified all the way to laughing all the way to the bank.

Click the CV link; that's only scratching the surface of the New New Left.

And, if the mainstream media, especially its inside the Beltway and inside the Mopac versions, has Peter Principle, then modern academia's got it in spades in the humanities. It's no wonder conservatives turn their gunsights on much of higher ed. And, it's no wonder that folks like Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt draw flies to their bullshit.

More below the fold, including describing why I am not a stereotypical conservative vis-a-vis higher ed, per that last line above.

Columbia Journalism Review officially shark-jumps on #IFLS

First, CJR senior writer Alexis Sobel Fitts writes a five-webpage cover story about "I Fucking Love Science" and its founder, Elise Andrew.

In doing so, she commits these cardinal errors:
1. Writing the story about herself as much as Andrew.
2. Ignoring Andrew's seeming very deliberate violation of not just journalistic ethics, but ethics in general through not honoring copyright of NUMEROUS science-related photos, including a number by Google+ friend of mine Alex Wild.
3. Not talking to anybody who could and would have told her about this. (Wild is among those commenting on the page.)

In other words, it's shoddy journalism for being:
1. Self-centered
2. Lazy
3. One-sided

And, other trade publications and blogs are weighing in, too. Here's Knight Science Journalism Tracker:

For starters, the profile appeared in a journalistic publication, written in an unjournalistic way, about a person whose work is not journalism. Go ahead and debate what that J-word actually means in the comments, but I’d argue that several of the fundamental tenets of journalism – such as accuracy and unbiased reporting – are missing from the CJR piece (which also happens to be this issue’s cover story).

 Instead of taking a measured, balanced look at the person behind a media phenomenon, the profile came off as an overly sunny PR puff piece. After all, Andrew is not journalism’s first self-made brand. And, oh, by the way, the profile mentions almost as an aside, there is a history of copyright infringement and plagiarism accusations being directed at IFLS.

That's about right. 

Meanwhile, doesn't CJR have a managing editor? Who let this crap be printed? Let alone, who decided this was the magazine version's cover story?

Well, these people let this crap be published:

Editor in Chief & Publisher
Elizabeth Spayd

Deputy Editor in Chief
Brent Cunningham

Associate Editor/Production Editor
Christie Chisholm

Associate Editor Kira Goldenberg

Click here to email them. Or here to suggest this, their own piece as a "dart" under the mag's "Darts and Laurels."

Worse, who made the decision to let Fitts double down on her indefensible writing with a follow-up that's even worse in some ways?

As for the claims that Andrew's not gotten any "boosts" or "helps," one of Fitts' new, additional claims? Uhh, wrong!

From a March announcement by former national late-night talk show host Craig Ferguson:

Science Channel greenlit new series “I F-ing Love Science,” executive produced by CBS’ “Late Late Show” host Craig Ferguson. Ferguson made the announcement via a videotaped message at South by Southwest in Austin, Texas on Saturday.

So, please, that's not even close to being true.

Just stop it.

Fitts is doubling down on being:

1. Self-centered
2. Lazy (couldn't do a teh Google for the Ferguson bit?)
3. One-sided

Hence my comment on the follow-up piece:

I'm a journalist who didn't study journalism in college, and I didn't train inside one of "legacy media's great institutions," but I still know ethics, including of attribution. So, Alexis, does Ms. Andrew deserve a "free pass" on ethics? Copyright issues apply across all streams of journalism, and communications beyond journalism, including public relations, non-journalistic book writing and more.

And, if Fitts likes the snarkiness of "new journalism," I added:

Can I copy your mugshot for for-profit use without attribution? How much of your original piece can I copy without attribution? 

So, in addition to that comment, I asked CJR on those pages to fire Fitts. 

Oh, and you can consider firing David Uberti, too, or whoever above his head had the idea of now tripling down on the craptacular and putting both Fitts original story and her "apologia" follow-up under this week's must-reads of the week.

#Journalists lusting for scoops — #masturbatory, or something beyond?

Felix Salmon, from an international journalism conference recently, called lusting after scoops "masturbatory." Specifically:
“Breaking news is the most masturbatory thing journalists do. The reader couldn’t give a flying fuck who broke it.”
And, he's in the right vein on the first, and totally right on the second, by and large.

Readers, for the most part, unless they're avid news-followers (I refuse to use the word "consumers" in conjunction with news) don't check for a byline. Those of us who do, do so precisely because we're looking for possible bias and accuracy issues, whether on a scoop, investigative journalism, news analysis or whatever.

That said, I'm not sure "masturbatory" is quite right. Yes, it does capture the self-focus of scoop-hunting, but it doesn't get at everything.

I used an even more sexual, and more specifically male, observation, in tweeting back to Salmon. I called scoop lust "dick-swinging."

Because that is what it is. It goes back to the old, almost all male (and all white male) newspapers of pre-World War II at a minimum, and even back to the Spanish-American War days of yellow journalism. A bunch of old white males, overloaded with testosterone, and usually overloaded with booze, too, were prime grounds for swinging dick contests, and hunting for scoops, damn the accuracy of their content, and usually damn the ethics of how they were obtained, was the coin in trade for measuring dick swinging.

He's now blogged about that in more detail, here. Here's what I'd call his nutgraf (speaking of sexually laden journalism):

Outside newswires, on the other hand, chasing after scoops is silly — especially in the 99% of cases where the news is certain to come out soon enough anyway. Many highly-respected newscasts and magazines rarely or never break news; conversely, many low-quality, high-velocity websites are constantly churning out microscoops of zero importance. It seems self-evident to me that all news organizations should decide whether or not to publish information based on the inherent quality of the content in question, and the degree to which that information serves the publication’s readers. Instead, far too many news organizations make their publication decisions based on what other news organizations have already published.

From there, he notes that his promotes solipsism within the journalism profession, then within individuals, hence "masturbatory" as an act of self-satisfaction. Related to that, he says most scoops are written for other journalists, not the general public.

Pretty much so. But, masturbatory doesn't capture the dick-swinging part, which has infected most women in the media, too.

And, per the yellow journalism issue, each advance in electronic communications has only increased the scoops lust. Having telegraph service connected to railroads was the first great accelerator. Then came telephones, letting people dictate more complete information for scoops. Then, print media scoop lusters felt the pressure from radio, the first electromagnetic media. And, so on and so on.

That said, scoops today are also written for bean-counters. This is explicitly true of what Salmon calls "microscoops," especially at papers like The Oregonian, where Advance's bean-counters are counting pageviews of reporters and it's tied to their pay.

Texas Trib says it will be more transparent; I don't think it's enough

Facing growing criticism over its relationship to larger donors and sponsors, the Texas Tribune has promised new levels of transparency as far as how much particular contributors give, if some donors sponsor special areas of coverage and more.

It's a step ahead, indeed.

But, is it enough to shake the criticism, which I have via Jim Moore, that the Trib is still too "establishmentarian"? I kind of doubt that. Actually, I more than "kind of" doubt that, as I explain in further detail below.

And, I doubt that's going to change, either.

Plus speaking of Moore, he talks about some methodology problems with the Trib's recent polling. This issue has nothing to do with who's donating how much, but rather, with simple editorial quality and quality control issues. He may be overstating things somewhat, but, at the least, it's arguably that some of the numbers are probably more fluid than the Trib would have us believe.

If you're going to do polling, spend the time and money to do it right, or don't do it.

And, per Moore's previous work, I forgot that I had blogged two years ago about the Trib being a softie on environmental reporting AND founder Evan Smith being overpaid.

That said, I don't know if this is in part a pissing match between Smith as a Gen-Xer and Moore as a Baby Boomer or not, as I've heard implied. I don't think it is, and Moore says it's not. That said, I do know that the ethics issue isn't limited to the Trib. It's not even limited to modern digital news groups in general.

Back in the day, a paper as rich as the New York Times occasionally killed stories over advertiser "concerns" back in the 1970s. And, right now, in at least one place in Illinois, a community newspaper, your old-fashioned small-town weekly, is killing anti-fracking ads.

So, what we have is a problem that's existed, but is getting worse as we speak, both in print media and its modern kin, whether digital only or digital-print blend. That said, on the advertorial issue, while it can be easier to "segregate" advertorial from house-written stories and opinion, it can be easier to "integrate," or "semi-integrate," too.

Meanwhile, back to why "transparency" isn't going to be enough from the Trib, Ramshaw's claim aside.

Speaking of advertising, with that lead-in, let's not forget, per this blog post of mine, that the Trib is planning on diving in the advertorial "content" pool this year, if it hasn't already dived:

TribTalk will be the Austin-based news nonprofit’s answer to both the newspaper op-ed section and and the wave of interest in branded advertising — a place for commentary on Texas politics and an opportunity for the Trib to find a new stream of revenue.

Moore confirmed to me that, as far as what he knew, this was still a "go."

And, this gets right back to the "establishmentarian" problems. Especially in an election year, the primary year in the four-year cycle for state of Texas offices.

What this really is, is an invitation for lobbyists, trade groups and PACs to get some PR on the op-ed pages of the Trib, lightly labeled as "sponsored content" to the degree the Trib "segregates" this at all. Can you picture the blizzard of advertorial op-eds when the Lege opens in January of next year?

Basically, Evan Smith is moving the Trib into becoming Tiger Beat on the Colorado, riffing on Charles Pearce calling Politico Tiger Beat on the Potomac. In case you're wondering what I'm referencing, I'm saying, what's stopping Smith from doing something like Mike Allen's Playbook at Politico? Speaking of, maybe Alex Pareene needs to save room for Smith on his "Hack List" for 2015, joining 2014's top-ranked Allen.

Let's take this back to politics.

Campaign finance reporting is transparent. Transparency don't feed the bulldog of how much money influences politics when Greg Abbott's raking in more than $30 million and Wendy Davis isn't that far off, for example, and both will surely bust $100 million by the general. They can file their reports with the Texas Ethics Commission and be as transparent as they're supposed to be. They're still trafficking in a gravy train of political money, and if Evan Smith wanted to do something about that at the Trib, he'd write columns calling for public financing of Texas elections at a maximum, and at a minimum, caps on financial contributions on state races.

But, just maybe Smith doesn't want that.

Hell, maybe Evan will start posting video clips from his PBS "Conversations" on the Trib and make it into a Daily Mail. Or maybe he'll partner with the vast, amoeba-like, hypercapitalist blob known as SXSW and form a rival to TED? (That's in spite of the fact that concentrating on high-end video will not help newspapers.)
Per an old movie, newspapers and their digital-only equivalents need to learn to "dye your underpants and live within your (financial) limitations."

Meanwhile, this has gotten long enough that I may spin the speculative parts off into a second blog post later.

If the #TexasTrib is the future of journalism ...

Then journalism, or "journalism," is on a boatload of trouble.

Jim Moore, former journalist, now political consultant, explains why the Texas Tribune's "pay to play" idea of "journalism," kind of like Politico but on a much broader front, is ethically wrong and more, in a four-part series starting here.

Arguably, rather than becoming more ethically responsible now that it's theoretically past its teething troubles, the Trib is worse, if anything. 

Moore notes this in Part Four:

In less than five years, the Texas Tribune has gone from being an exciting startup to a hypocritical, money-grubbing promotional operation wearing a coat of many colors that it wants desperately to convince everyone is actual journalism. But it is not. There is no reason to any longer take the Tribune seriously as a news organization. They simply cannot be trusted.

The big brains of the Texas Tribune were supposed to save journalism. Instead, they are busily speeding up its extinction.

And they ought to be ashamed.

Of course, they're not.

Much of its sellout is to largely right-wing big businesses, who make "donations" and in exchange get puff pieces about themselves and their industries.

But, that's not the all of it.

Per Part One, at the first link, what the Trib is about is "access" to insiders in general, regardless of party or affiliation. The recent solo time with Wendy Davis at the Travis County Democratic Party confab illustrates this:

Organizers of an annual fund raising dinner for Travis County Democrats barred reporters from the room for what turned out to be the most compelling and energetic speech thus far of the Davis Campaign. There was, however, one exception. Jay Root of the Texas Tribune was allowed in with camera gear to offer a “live stream” video of Davis talking to her supporters. Root, who had asked permission several weeks in advance, was not required, as would normally be the case with a pool reporter, to provide notes to his competitors on what transpired during the fund raiser.

The locked out reporters were a tad upset, and not without reason. Although the Tribune was making the live feed available, the outlet’s logo was onscreen and unavoidable. Any rebroadcast would have been a promotion of one media operation by another. When Davis Campaign spokeswoman Rebecca Acuna was asked if she would inquire about making the Tribune offer a clean feed of the speech without the logo, she had no idea what was being requested. Consequently, Davis’ appearance and quotes were disseminated far less than if the event had been opened. Further, print reporters were disinclined to write longer or analytical pieces on Davis because they were not present to get reactions or interviews with attendees. The stories were about a public relations blow up instead of Davis.

The party insisted there was no space for more people and that the fire code was being violated, but reporters suggested it was, instead, just another event where the Tribune was getting favoritism. When Root was questioned about not making an effort to see that his colleagues were accommodated, he began asking if he were supposed to not cover it because other reporters had been banned. Quickly, he turned a long Facebook discussion into a cheering section for the live streaming of political events and frequently pointed out how exciting he found the new technology.

Moore goes on to, sarcastically, tell us that "live streaming" is nothing new:

Live streaming is little more than setting up a video camera and microphones that send a digital and electronically altered real time signal that can be plugged into the Internet to be dispersed over the web from a server. As exciting as it may be to Root and the Tribune, TV stations in Texas have been doing, essentially, the same thing for decades with the only difference being the way the signal was distributed.  

Meanwhile, yes, this is also, per the previous block quote, another ding against the Davis campaign.

It knew just whom it was getting in bed with when it pulled this shit.

Rather than a "public relations blow up," the Angles, Battleground Texas, Davis herself, et al, were surely hoping for a "public relations ass kissing." 

And, that's why I partially defend the Trib about accusations that it's "conservative."

No, it's "establishmentarian," just like its affiliate, the New York Times

Of course, what James doesn't think about is that the Trib might be superseded by folks with even less in the ethics tank. 

Update, Feb. 27:  And, speaking of Moore, he talks about some methodology problems with the Trib's recent polling. He may be overstating things somewhat, but, at the least, it's arguably that some of the numbers are probably more fluid than the Trib would have us believe. And, per Moore's previous work, I forgot that I had blogged two years ago about the Trib being a softie on environmental reporting AND founder Evan Smith being overpaid.

A new #ethics low for a #newspaper: #OCRegister fail

Initially, the purchase of the core of old Freedom Communications (disclosure: I once worked for the Odessa American), above all, the Orange County Register, sounded great.

New owner Aaron Kushner talked about making a stronger explicit commitment to print publishing, among other things.

Then, we found out that a lot of the expanded print copy was going to be advertorial. Now, it wasn't going to be with traditional big business, but instead, with colleges and universities in the area. But, they're still institutions needing news coverage, and $825,000 per year might dissuade a lot of negative coverage, especially since the advertorial stuff was supposed to be about PR for the three colleges in question.

Now, the OCR has taken the next step into an ethical swampland,

The Register is "brokering" the process of selling naming rights to a city of Anaheim transportation hub.

Kushner defended the arrangement as just a new twist to traditional advertising sponsorships that speaks to the media company's commitment to the region's future.

Freedom Communications would have the exclusive right for 12 months to solicit corporations for the opportunity to display their names on the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center or ARTIC, a nearly $200-million structure that would house the city's train station, a letter of intent from the city states.

In order for the deal to be complete, the City Council must approve it.

Kushner acknowledged that the company would receive a cut of the revenue from any successful sponsorships.

"Effectively, we are acting as an additional source of marketing muscle to try and bring private support to this project, because our mission, we believe, is to help Orange County grow," Kushner said. "We believe this is an important project."

How can a paper objectively cover whatever biz wins the bid? That's even without it taking a cut of the marketing sales pie.

And who knows what other facilities the City of Anaheim wants to "brand" in the future, and ask Freedom to handle the branding, for that matter?

Imagine, say, that Dallas or Fort Worth wanted to put a corporate name on its zoo and asked the Star-Telegram or Morning News to handle the marketing hunt, and give itself 10 percent in the meanwhile.

It also makes me wonder why Kusher has started a competitor to the Long Beach Press-Telegram. Is it really about news coverage, or it is about siphoning up advertorial $$ from Cal State-Long Beach, naming rights to the Queen Mary and more?

That also makes me wonder what's behind converting the Irvine World News and a couple of other weekly papers to dailies.

Hey, Aaron: Hope the advertorial and marketing $$ offset the cancelled subscriptions.

Meanwhile, contra to his touting of how the expanded OCR, expansion of two if its weeklies, and other things will drive profitability, second quarter profit has slumped. And had been slumping,  enough for the company to stop contributing to employees' 401(k) accounts back in January. Oops.

Circulation's still sliding down there, too. Even with the paywall. Circulation's up at the community newspapers, but I don't know whether that factors in moving from weekly to daily on a couple of them or not.

 Update, June 5, 2014: Kushner's hunt for cheap, and unethical money, have availed him for nought. Ken Doctor notes how the Kushner yellow flags have now become red. The Long Beach rollout cut back to weekly. Community sections cut back in the OC. And, the biggies? Mandatory two-week furloughs, plus late vendor payments.

===

Meanwhile, serf-and-SEO-driven "hyperlocal" content producer Journatic now has a competitor of sorts, linked to the Sun-Times rather than Journatic's link to the Chicago Trib. Wunderbar.  If Mathew Ingram is for it, that's probably a good reason to be agin it.

And, Groupon is launching an affiliate partner network.

Just an all-around crappy day from the world of Gnu Media.

#AtlanticMonthly: The sorry state of "big-brand" magazine journalism

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Court: Blogger isn't journalist - he may be right

Update, April 1, 2012: The blogger not only isn't a journalist, she's apparently a shakedown artist.

Let's see the new media fluffers' take on this:

A federal judge in Oregon has ruled that a Montana woman sued for defamation was not a journalist when she posted online that an Oregon lawyer acted criminally during a bankruptcy case, a decision with implications for bloggers around the country.

Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., was sued for defamation by attorney Kevin Padrick when she posted online that he was a thug and a thief during the handling of bankruptcy proceedings by him and Obsidian Finance Group LLC.

U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez found last week that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.

Is this just a matter of Oregon needing a better shield law? That's one claim.

“My advice to bloggers operating in the state of Oregon is lobby to get your shield law improved so bloggers are covered,” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. 

Dalgish may or may not be right on that. She is right on this:

“But do not expect the shield law to provide you a defense in a libel case where you want to rely on an anonymous source for that information.”

That's because Hernandez went further:

The judge ruled that Cox was not protected by Oregon’s shield law from having to produce sources, saying even though Cox defines herself as media, she was not affiliated with any mainstream outlet. He added that the shield law does not apply to civil actions for defamation.

But, Dalgish is not guaranteed to be right on this, if Cox is indeed not a journalist.

Now, contra new media fluffers who accuse old media of trying to maintain a guild system, I'm not doing that.

Let's read WHY Hernandez ruled as he did:

Hernandez said Cox was not a journalist because she offered no professional qualifications as a journalist or legitimate news outlet. She had no journalism education, credentials or affiliation with a recognized news outlet, proof of adhering to journalistic standards such as editing or checking her facts, evidence she produced an independent product or evidence she ever tried to get both sides of the story.

Emphasis on the last clauses are mine. Hernandez, although he appears to start from the "guild" point of view himself, goes beyond that to use generally recognized journalistic standards as a large portion of his decision.

And Cox's response, if anything, justifies Hernandez's decision:

Cox said she considered herself a journalist, producing more than 400 blogs over the past five years, with a proprietary technique to get her postings on the top of search engines where they get the most notice.

“What could be more mainstream than the Internet and the top of the search engine?” she said.

Let's try riffs on that:
1. Twenty years ago: What could be more mainstream than junk mail and a filled mailbox?
2. Sixty years ago: What could be more mainstream than Joe McCarthy and a stack of papers waved in one's hand?
3. Seventy-five years ago: What could be more mainstream than Father Coughlin?
I think you get the drift.

I'm sure Dalgish's organization and others will file amicus briefs in any appeal, but, really, they shouldn't. Both for the actual defendant and for the material facts involved.

Here's my response.

First, blogging may be journalism. It isn't automatically journalism. That's reason one professional media organizations should be wary of offering amicus briefs in this case, at least without actually taking a look at Cox's blog first.


Second, I'd potentially partially disagree with the judge that that plaintiff is not a public figure. I'd have to see the details of how big his tax shelter advice was, whether he's a defendant in the fraud case against some of his advisees and other things. He may be a public figure.

This isn't a slam-dunk one way or the other, unlike the Houston-area blogger of a few years ago, who was reporting on a criminal case, a felony, and using anonymous sources.. There's no indication that Cox was even using anonymous sources, or doing anything more than writing opinion pieces. And, even if attorney Patrick IS a public figure, while case law cuts more latitude on opinion pages in conventional newspapers and magazines, even there, there isn't a license to libel.

Given that Cox is using a "proprietary technique," which is probably called paying $99 to some SEO optimizer outfit, and boasts about that, she's not a journalist from where I stand, and probably stands guilty of the failings of effort Hernandez found.

I do agree with media analysts that a case like this shows we need SCOTUS to eventually wade in. BUT, this case ain't the vehicle for it.

Meanwhile, the New York Times op-ed section, with one of its "Room for Debates" set of mini-columns, has weighed in. Of the four contributors, one notes that post-"Sullivan" understandings of libel and public figures apply to the general public, not journalism; one halfway wrestles with the idea of what individual bloggers must be doing to prove themselves journalists, without looking in more detail as to whether Cox met that hurdle; and the other two, including one from the Poynter Institute (which I see as more and more coasting on "reputation") talk in terms of vague platitudes without addressing case specifics at all.

#Poynter #PolitiFact and St. Pete Times: Overblown blowhards?

Between deliberately slapping ESPN in the face at times just to prove it's a good contract/consultant ombudsman, between financially affiliated St. Petersburg Times getting ready to call itself the Tampa ("Bay, if you will") Times while the Tampa Tribune still publishes, and other things, I'm beyond skeptical to cynical about both the paper and the media institute.

The latest? Its/their PolitiFact have awarded the claim that the GOP wants to kill Medicare the lie of the year, then said that the raft of objections to that award is all just from liberals being in an echo chamber.

Oh, technically, the GOP doesn't want to directly kill Medicare. But, privatization of it? Everybody with a brain knows that is exactly what will happen.

Basically, PolitiFact descends into he said/she said journalism:

We stand by our story and our conclusion that the claim was the most significant falsehood of 2011. We made no judgments on the merits of the Ryan plan; we just said that the characterization by the Democrats was false.

That's exactly the problem: Politifact made no judgment on the merits of the Ryan plan. Krugman's right: RIP PolitiFact. And, as far as I am concerned, everything else in the Poynter/St. Pete Times stable.

Blogging vs. journalism and the ‘citizen journalist’

Now that I’m in for a penny, I’m in for a pound on this issue, having done one overview post on the issue anyway.

Let me caveat this first. I'm not attacking all news bloggers, and certainly not all small-community, small-scale ones. I'm just pointing out some realities of claims that bloggers can replace traditional media, or set up a "new ecosystem" alongside of the mainstream media. (For an overview of how some of the top myths about both traditiona new media, as "sold" by new media fluffers, are wrong, go here. Bursting the bubble of the claim there's money to be made off social media in general, including new media in particular, go here. For refuting Jay Rosen's claim, regarding possible paywalls by online sites of traditional media, that they won't work, go here. [I'll confess that I long ago halfway believed Rosen and Clay Shirky on paywalls.])

I do charge that the idea of “citizen journalist,” or to spell it out more fully, “beknighted citizen journalist,” is a straw man. (And yes, I know how to spell the word; I’m deliberately rewriting it with the “k” to make a point about how New Media fluffers look at citizen journalists as knights unhorsing mainstream media. Of course, the reality is more that both the beknighted citizen journalists and their academic fluffers who have never worked at an actual newspaper a single day of their lives are actually tilting, if not at windmills, at least at straw men on the Extremadura landscape.)

John/Jane Blogger of news blogging, especially if at the local small-to-medium town level, is, if anything, at least from my anecdotal experience both at newspapers in those-sized areas and seeing bloggers at those-sized areas, more likely than “mainstream media” newspapers to have some of the reportage issues and problems, including ethical ones, that the likes of Bora, Jay Rosen, Clay Shirky and others hurl at the MSM.

First, if you’re a smaller-scale blogger, you may not know the ins and outs of libel law. Related to that, you may know and willfully not care. Some bloggers operate on the idea, I think, that “I not only don’t have deep pockets, I have zero pockets, so nobody will sue me.” And, trust me, I have seen bloggers write material that was at least on the borderline of libel. And, perhaps, do so deliberately, not out of ignorance.

Second, a news blogger may not always be careful at disaggregating straight news posts and opinion posts. Newspapers do that. It’s called the op-ed page. Now, before the cornucopian new media fluffers claim that plenty of news stories have a “slant,” see immediately above. Bloggers can and do do that too, on what they claim is straight news. Parallel to my first point, our beknighted citizen journalist may also not care about separating news from opinion, too.

Third, contra a newspaper reporter, even when allegedly writing straight news, a blogger often writes to a particular audience rather than the general public. Again, yes, in some cases, like financial reporting, and national security and foreign policy issues, the MSM does this as well, writing to insiders of the Acela Corridor. But, at the local level, this can become obvious, such as when a community is divided over the actions of a school board or a superintendent and, under the guise of reporting straight news, a blogger writes to one faction of that divide.

NOTE: NONE of the above is hypothetical. I have seen multiple instances of every one of these things, and from multiple bloggers.

Related to my third point is the fact that local politics, especially in those smaller communities, can often be personality-based at best, clannish and tribal at worst. I can tell you plenty. Texas, about 15 years ago, changed some education statutes to cut down on school boards micromanaging superintendents. Well, at a town of 4,000 in a county of less than 10,000, at one paper I edited, some people didn't like that. When the superintendent didn't hire an interim high school principal to be full time (this guy had retired several years ago), some former board members (silently abetted by a minority of the current board) took out quarter-page ads in our newspaper! And, yes, small town bloggers can play to that.

The role of editors, at newspapers of any size, are connected to this. At community newspapers, the training and ethics of a managing editor who also reports are key and invaluable. Looking for bias, pointing out bias, and writing it out of stories are important.

Finally, as a friend points out, bloggers are soloists. A modern newspaper of any size requires multiple news reporters, for several reasons. One, a reporter may need help on a story; it’s too big to tackle alone. Second, in smaller communities, at times, one editorial person may need to play good cop to a certain individual or institution while another plays bad cop. Again, from my experience at weekly newspapers where it’s a one-person editorial operation, that’s tough to do by yourself.

Coming later? More squarely addressing the money issue, and why beknighted citizen journalists, because of money and time constraints, plus the good cop/bad cop issue above, can’t generally do investigative journalism.

Does Scientific American have a ScienceBlogs problem?

Updated at bottom with addition information that, in my opinion, makes Scientific American look even worse.

A few months back, ScienceBlogs was in full revolt over Pepsi being asked, by SciBlogs' top brass, to sponsor a health blog. Well, what's up with SciAm having Chevy Volt sponsor a special section on electric cars?

Add in the fact that the stories linked off the online cover page of the special section are a mix of SciAm-reported stories and Chevy PR, and it really doesn't look good.

Also, not good? SciAm's stories all talk about "electric cars" when the Chevy Volt isn't. It's a hybrid, and Chevy has finally admitted that. In short, it's bad PR, bad journalism, and if we're counting tech as science, bad science, too.

And, no, it's not the deal that this was "sneaky" like the Pepsi/SciBlogs deal. Sorry, @BoraZ. (That said, depending on who in Scientific American's editorial hierarchy knew about this, and who didn't, and when, it may well be sneaky, for all I know.)

That wasn't the only thing wrong with the Pepsi issue at ScienceBlogs, although it was the first problem and the first-visible one. There was also the question about Pepsi, rather than, say, FiberOne, sponsoring a health-related blog.

So, in line with that, if Scientific American was going to sell itself out for sponsorship from an electric car, then why didn't it get an actual electric car, i.e., the Nissan Leaf, and not the Chevy Volt, which is a hybrid? Right there is an indication of how the "sponsorship" has affected the reporting.

Since the Volt isn't a pure electric ... I'd have to say this is a version of greenwash. It also, besides ethics, makes me wonder just how intelligent about auto tech some SciAm editors are.

I hadn't originally intended to name Bora, former ScienceBlogs blogger of "A Blog around the Clock" and now at Scientific American. BUT ... he just either doesn't get it, or is being defensive about Scientific American. An exchange of several Twitters over more than 24 hours leads me to believe that while it may be primarily the former, it could well be in part the latter.

If it is, Bora, you need to talk to other people at Scientific American rather than being defensive.

After all, you left SciBlogs in part over the Pepsi fiasco. I quote from your post about your leaving:

What is relevant is that a corporation paid to have a seat at the table with us. And that Seed made that happen.

What is relevant is that this event severely undermined the reputation of all of us. Who can trust anything we say in the future?

Even if you already know me and trust me, can people arriving here by random searches trust me? Once they look around the site and see that Pepsi has a blog here, why would they believe I am not exactly the same, some kind of shill for some kind of industry?

At the end, you said Seed's image is permanently damaged.

Well didn't Volt, in this case, also pay "to have a seat at the table"? Doesn't that affect SciAm's reputation?

Answers? Yes and yes.

Update, Dec. 28:/ Apparently, I've gotten a bit under Bora's skin, as he thinks I am just pot stirring. In his last Tweet on the subject though, he adds one more point that makes SciAm look even worse, in my book.
He notes that the special project from August! I usually don't read the mag stem-to-stern online or off, but for it to be still promoted 4 months later? And, after GM brass officially admitted the Volt is a hybrid, to STILL, with the side-by-side presentation and the content of the articles, to STILL leave standing the implication that SciAm believes the Volt is an electric car, not a hybrid, AND that Volt could buy such favorable coverage in general.

Also, Bora, this is NOT about "investigative journalism." I know, because, I've actually DONE investigative journalism.

And, do you really think knowing the difference between a hybrid-drive vehicle and a truly electric is "too geeky" for Scientific American?

Wowsa.

Methinks thee doth indeed protest too much. Talk to the hand, Bora, on this one. Better yet? Seriously? Talk to some Scientific American editorial management, as I said when I first wrote this post, before updating it.

And, if this is pot stirring, I take that as a compliment.

AND, per the "lifting up" of new media? Or new-type media venues? The medium is NOT the message, contra McLuhan. New media faces the same ethical responsibilities and issues as old media.

In this case, in fact, since this is an easy issue to address, even solve, online, it's arguably worse than in the pre-Internet age. If I'm going to be in for a pot-stirring penny, I'm in for a pot-stirring pound. My forthrightness in not swooning over new media is probably why Jay Rosens and others don't like what I say on the subject either.

UPdate, Oct. 3, 2011:  The Leaf is beating the sales pants off the Volt.

Gawker sells out

OK, so Jason Chen gets his computer back. And, in exchange for a warrant against him officially being dropped, San Mateo County gets to keep copies of everything on his computer. How is a compromise sellout like this good for journalistic integrity in any way?

Atlantic and WaPost hypocrisy fest

As readers who follow national politics may already know, the Atlantic Monthly didn’t comment on the Washington Post’s “pay-to-play” salons because it’s been doing pretty much the same thing and, so far at least, is even less repentant than the Post.

Speaking of that, though, the Post says it will conduct an internal investigation of it’s own salon plans and how they got to be the way they did.

Given that Publisher Katherine Weymouth has refused to fall on the sword herself, and still isn’t:

Weymouth said she was on vacation last week and did not see the invitation that was sent out in her name

(As if the flier invitation is the only thing wrong about this)

And Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli really can’t be as ignorant of what happened as he claims, it’s clear that “internal investigation” means scapegoat searching.

Let’s let Post political reporter Dan Balz talk about that:

“I think everyone still has questions about how this collective breakdown occurred. This was not just two people in a room. There were a number of discussions about it. That part concerned me. Everyone knows the dinners were a bad idea.”

It appears new marketing exec Charles Pelton, already fingered for the fliers about the salons, would be scapegoating target No. 1.

That said, how different is this from newspapers spiking, toning down, delaying, or otherwise bollixing up stories for fear of offending major advertisers?

Not much. So, in that sense, this is nothing new.

Washington Post publisher passes salon buck

In a special letter to the public, Washington Post publisher Katherine Weymouth, granddaughter of THE Katherine, pretty totally dodges responsibility for the Post’s recent idea of “pay-for-play” salons to bring together Post editorial staffers alongside White House staff and lobbyists, etc.

That’s totally contrary to what she told New York Times reporter David Carr just a day earlier, claiming she took full responsibility for the fiasco.

Carr notes this:

Ms. Weymouth’s excuse — that the salon brochure “completely misrepresented what we were trying to do” didn’t track with many reporters, who have already been contending with cutbacks at the paper.

That “explanation” she holds on to in her public letter:

The flier was not approved by me or newsroom editors, and it did not accurately reflect what we had in mind.

Boy, the Politico will have fun with this!

Army busted Photoshopping four-star’s pic

And, not just any four-star, either, but Photoshopping Ann E. Dunwoody, the Army’s first female four-star.

Why? It’s PR to make her look better in some way, that’s why.

Then, it got busted in a lie, for claiming the editing, which changed the background of the pic, which also hid that it was an old three-star uniform she was in, didn’t alter the picture in any material way.

And, since it’s not the first itime recently the Army has been caught Photoshopping PR pics, the AP is going to stop using DoD PR pics for now.

Read for yourself; from my background as a newspaper editor, this was a HUGE no-no.

The heartless mainstream media continues to filet itself

The Miami Herald lays you off. After a bait-and-switch sending your job to India.

Then, it wants you to blog about it, and about how you’re going to survive without full-time income! (Scroll down to the June 22 post, or go directly there.

And, this is McClatchy.

Outside its more thorough, non Bush-shitted coverage of Iraq, it shows again it is Just.Another.Newspaper.

Dateline: Maureen Dowd and New York Times editorial deceit

A “Dateline: Kerry, N.H.” tag on a column about Hillary Clinton potentially crying her way to election loses a lot of objectivity and ethical credence when it was actually filed from Jerusalem about the obesity crisis.

Meanwhile, the column itself engages in psychobabble pseudo-analysis below even her normally vapid and puerile standards.