The Web Stained Wretch Blog

Here's a question I've wondered about for a while.  What's the value of citizen journalism?  With the changing landscape of MSM, and the rise of the Internet, it's apparent that CitJ is going to have some effect on the news business, but insofar as blogs and YouTube go, I'm not sure how much farther it can go.  I mean, isn't there something to be said for the credibility of a news organization?  OK, I know a lot of people would have issue with that sentence.  But where's the credibility of some dude writing a story?  There's no check on most citizen journalism and I think that can be harmful. 

I agree with CNN.com anchor Nicole Lapin, who says that CitJ can have value in what it adds to MSM coverage...but I don't think it can seriously be viewed as a competitor.  I write for the Chi-Town Daily News, a CitJ outfit in Chicago, and I love doing it.  But it's mission is to cover stories that places like the Tribune and Sun-Times aren't covering, and I think it's a long way off.  I tip my hat to editor Geoff Dougherty, because I think he does a heck of a job with the site.  But I wonder if it can ever truly achieve its mission.  I write for it because I fancy myself a journalist and I get excited reporting stories; that's why I'm going to j-school.

KU, apparently, has a pretty cool citizen journalism project (which, like the Daily News, is funded by Knight Foundation grant).  I'm certain to learn more about it when I arrive in Lawrence.  I see the value in CitJ, but I see the pitfalls too.  Look at Denver's YourHub...it's awash with press releases.  It's actually a pretty cool, linked in site...but I think CitJ can devolve into rehashing irrelevant stories.  So can MSM, I suppose.  What a conundrum.  Good thing I'm not a businessperson.

Posted by Web Stained Wretch at 05:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Until I begin j-school in August, I'm a PR professional.  Journalists cause me much consternation and frustration.  Like the time I handed a reporter a story and flew down to New Orleans to give him every resource and bit of information he needed.  I was pretty ticked off when there was no mention of my client.  Then there are the assholes...those guys who just don't want to talk to you and make you feel worthless, even though you're just doing your job.  They snap at you and ask, pray tell, have ever actually read my stories?  Good question...and the answer is yes, jerk.

Then there are the clueless ones.  I do a lot of work with fire ants...a lot of work.  I know more about fire ants than any normal human should, and it's especially bad if I get drunk.  I can talk for a long time about them; they're strangely fascinating.  Anyway, my company often writes matte releases to be distributed to hundreds of small papers across the country.  Fire ants, by the by, inhabit the southern United States.  States like Florida, Tennessee, California, Texas.

So why in the world are papers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana and ONTARIO picking up these stories?  Is it filler?  Is it to bring attention to this problem in the South?  Most of these stories have to do with identification and how to treat for the ants, so they have no relevance to readers north of, say, Virginia. 

I just don't get it.  It's weak and lazy journalism, and it ticks me off.  What's the value for anyone?

I need a drink.  I'll tell you all about fire ants.  First round's on me.

Posted by Web Stained Wretch at 04:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (4145) | TrackBacks (0)

Joe Scarborough zings co-anchor Mika Brzezinski after Paris Hilton  she-who-shall-not-be-named is released from prison.  Cheers to Mika for her persistance, but I'm not sure she'll have a job tomorrow.  Really, folks, these c-list celebrities do not qualify as news when we've got bigger problems in the world.  Not to mention that she-who-shall-be-named served three weeks in the clink!  It's not like this is a world-changing event.

I think it's admirable to take a stand like Brzezinski, but I'm not certain her producers or bosses would agree with me. 

Posted by Web Stained Wretch at 02:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (4429) | TrackBacks (0)

For many years, Lou Dobbs was looked upon as a trusted source in buisness journalism.  Yahoo and 60 Minutes have now devoted time to exploring his remarkable transfortion from reporter to evangelist.

While he still considers himself a reporter, his crusade against illegal immigration and his advocacy for the middle class separates him from the pack.  Certainly it's valuable to explore these issues, but hasn't he crossed a line?  How can he be a reporter without people looking at him and thinking, "I wonder if he's slanting this?"  That's a problem journalists run into. 

Dobbs certainly is involved in journalism, and he admits he's an advocacy journalist, but it's difficult to allow the viewer to draw their own conclusions.  Dobbs is treading a line that can put him over the top to pundit-status.   

The ethics of journalism fascinate me.  The MSNBC report on journalists' campaign contributions highlights ethical dilemmas reporters face.  How can you balance the obligations of your job with your life, your political leanings?  I've always been a fan of keeping work and life separate, but I guess this is something I'll really have to consider.  I think I'm pretty passionate about the issues that are important to me, but it is my hope that they never affect my work.

At least I know I'm not buddy-buddy with my sources.  That's issue Maria Bartiromo is facing. And NBC, with its Paris Hilton interview disaster (really, do we need to hear anymore about this silly woman?).  How can reporters be objective when thye're hanging out with their sources?  And is it impossible to get an interview without paying for it?  We are so superficial.

One last note.  As I said last time, I think it's invaluable to consider the story behind the story, the truth about the facts when reporting. AP's Ron Fournier says reporters have to look for accountability from officials.  Hell.  Yes.  I read his notes on this subject and was inspired, I was excited and I was relieved that there are people out there at places like AP striving for the ideal of not necessarily objectivity, but *shocker* the truth!  It's what journalists should be doing.  And I can't wait to do it.

What do you think about all this?  Is the truth behind the fact as important as simply reporting the facts? 

Posted by Web Stained Wretch at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (293) | TrackBacks (0)

Whence we spoke last, I was discussing a NewsHour chat with Callie Crossley and Jeff Jarvis.  Jarvis says objectivity was never attainable, that it is an impossible standard that journalists obsess about.  He says, "We were never in the job...of delivering the truth. We've always been in the job of helping the public decide what is true. And I think that we lost sight of that."

I thoroughly disagree.  You cannot function as a reporter by leaving it to the public to decide what is fact.  That's partly how we got into the mess we face in Iraq.  Reporters were too timid to ask the tough questions and accepted the line that Saddam had WMD and was behind 9/11.  Had reporters been more tenacious in their questioning, the truth could have come out.  The public, a hefty percentage of which still believes Saddam played a role in 9/11, would have been able to see that we were being bamboozled.

Sure, journalists are there to tell people what happened.  But it has little value if there is no context.  If an official says that, for instance, a huge drug raid happened and the evidence shows that five pounds of pot was found, that is significant.  It's significant because, while a reporter may write about what the official says, the context of the story is lost.

So can a reporter be objective while still providing context?  My answer: yes.

Is objectivity a hard-fought ideal?  Absolutely.  As Jarvis notes, everyone has bias.  It can be tough to hide.  And there can be a place for it.  Personally, I think one of the most noble parts about journalism is the ability to affect issues.  By bringing light to issues, journalists provide a public service.  Certainly nobody is saying that Nick Kristof is doing a bad thing by working hard to unveil the stories in Darfur.  But, man, I bet it's hard to tell two sides of that story.  One one hand, it's horrible that so many peole are dying.  On the other...genocide is good?  That's a tough sell.

One of the more interesting cases out there of reporters blurring the lines is CNN's Lou Dobbs.  More on him later.

Posted by Web Stained Wretch at 09:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Objectivity.  The journalist's ultimate goal -- or hang-up.  There's been lots of talk recently about the need for objectivity versus that of context versus opinion.  Over the next few days, I want to build a conversation about this (hopefully...usually I don't follow through on these things).  I'm sure I'll be learning more about this in the next months and years, and it will help nail down my opinions on it, but at this point, I think it's important to be objective and truthful, but also provide the context of the story.  The quote that has inspired my whole journey into journalism came from the Hutchins Commission, which wrote, "It is no longer enought to report the fact truthfully.  It is necessary to report the truth about the fact."  

PBS had a couple of media experts on NewsHour to chat about this recently: Callie Crossley from WGBH in Boston and the great Jeff Jarvis, from BuzzMachine and a professor at the City University of New York's new j-school.  He has also not yet befriended me on Facebook, despite my request; neither has Howard Kurtz.  Sad.

Have a listen on the NewsHour site and let's chat.  I'd provide the file, but haven't figured out how to import files yet.

Posted by Web Stained Wretch at 11:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBacks (0)

So here we are.  On the Web.  Together at last.  This is going to be tricky.

This is not my first foray into blogging, but it's going to be my most robust, as I'm combining this blog with my own Web site.  I imagine this blog will deal primarily with journalism issues, but hey, you never know.  I might just get a little crazy. 

Mostly, it's going to be a chance for me to experiment, learn, fail, get up and try again.  And if my other blog forays are any indication, nobody's reading anyway.  So welcome, stranger.  Come on in.  Make yourself comfortable.

Posted by Web Stained Wretch at 04:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)