The fate of journalism

Dan Gillmor's recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle is a must-read for anyone concerned about the future of journalism and public discourse:

"Journalism's old guard is in a panic. With the latest bad news -- massive editorial staff reductions coming at the San Francisco Chronicle and believable rumors of similar cuts at an already shrunken San Jose Mercury News, among other things -- it's no wonder that people who care about the traditional journalism business are frightened.

But if the issue is the future of journalism -- as opposed to corporate business models -- there's at least as much reason for optimism as paranoia ..."

Click on the link to Gillmor's article to read more.

Also watch this video on the future of journalism and "participatory media":

Are We Rome? The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America

In the new book Are We Rome?: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America, Cullen Murphy, former managing editor of Atlantic Monthly, draws some striking parallels between ancient Rome and modern day America and raises issues that beg our consideration.

Here are a few of them as presented by Gary Kamiya of Salon.com:

(Among the similarities between Rome and America) Murphy cites massive privatization and its attendant sins, corruption, the loss of faith in government and the degradation of civil society. To my mind, this is the most original and compelling part of his book. "Rome had trouble maintaining a distinction between public and private responsibilities -- and between public and private resources," Murphy writes. When this happens, "central government becomes impossible to steer. It took a long time to happen, but the fraying connection between imperial will and concrete action is a big part of What Went Wrong in ancient Rome." Similarly, "America has in recent years embarked on a privatization binge like no other in its history, putting into private hands all manner of activities once thought to be public tasks." Murphy says that "the privatization of power isn't a phenomenon of the margins, a footnote to history -- it's a central dynamic of American public life."

The result, he argues, is not only corruption, the what's-in-it-for-me mentality epitomized by the sleazy likes of Jack Abramoff, but loss of government's "management capacity." In part this is because private contractors don't answer to the same laws and regulations that government ones do; in part it's because government itself is simply vanishing. The loss of efficiency and command and control is bad, but still worse are the intangible ramifications of privatization: "the loss of civic engagement and loyalty across the board is a very real threat." Murphy declines to explicitly single out the Bush administration, and in a larger sense the small-government ideology of the Republican Party, as largely responsible for this trend. But that does not alter the fact that his book is a blistering implicit refutation of the GOP's anti-government ethos, and the still more degraded crony capitalism practiced by Bush.

...

(Murphy argues that) America needs to "stop treating government as a necessary evil, and instead rely on it proudly for the big things it can do well ... The Social Security check every month, the safe drugs and highways, the guaranteed student loans, the heath-care safety net in old age, the sandbags when the rivers flood -- their inherent benefits aside, these things promote a sense of common alliance and mutual obligation that dwarf narrow considerations of 'efficiency.'"

We should institute a program of national service for all young people, "which would revive the militia ethic of long ago. 'We're all in it together' is a spirit that Rome lost."

...

As the late Senator Paul Wellstone said, "We as a society need to be encouraging people to focus not just on individual wants but on serving the larger community."

(Watch Cullen Murphy's recent interview with Stephen Colbert.)

A little inspiration for those considering a finals-week all-nighter

Is a finals-week all-nighter the only means of salvaging your term? If so, here's a little inspiration for you: "A man in Cornwall, England, actually went 11 consecutive days without a wink of sleep." -- Read the rest of the story on Howstuffworks.com

Video blogs: The future of blogging?

Sitting in on a conference call with Philip Meyer (see previous post) the other day got me thinking about the future of journalism and online communication. Technology and the online environment are changing so rapidly that new archetypes are continuously emerging, Meyer said. He told the audience members to monitor these changes and be ready to join the companies that are leading the wave of innovation or to create your own company and start the next wave yourself. So with that in mind I ask you, Is this the next big thing in online communication? You be the judge.

Is a blogger a journalist?

If a reporter for one of the mainstream media discloses confidential material, such as information from a secret grand jury hearing, he is often afforded protection under his state's shield law (if his state has one). Shield laws protect reporters from having to reveal the sources of their information. And protecting sources is essential to a journalist's work. If a journalist cannot protect a source's wish for anonymity, that journalist loses credibility. He loses the trust of the source and ultimately the source will be reluctant to reveal confidential information in the future.

Build a reputation for doing right by your sources, Lance Williams, an investigative reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, said during the National Writers Workshop last weekend.

If journalists were to make a habit of turning over their anonymous tipsters whenever a investigative agency comes calling, it would undermine the industry as a whole and have a chilling effect on sources. Many of the stories that now make it into the papers would dry up.

Similarly if a journalist for a mainstream media outlet, such as the San Francisco Chronicle, finds himself being sued or being coerced by the government to reveal his sources, his deep-pocketed employer will often back him, paying what sometimes amounts to a small fortune in legal fees to protect the journalist. Such was the case with Williams, when a federal judge ordered him and his colleague Mark Fainaru-Wada to prison for as long as a year and a half. The jail time was seen as the only means of pressuring the reporters into revealing their sources of confidential grand jury testimony about star athletes' use of steroids. Williams said last weekend during the Writers Workshop that the Hearst Corporation, which owns the Chronicle, probably spent more than $2 million defending him and Fainaru-Wada. As a result, the two journalists never spent a day in prison.

But one of the fastest growing and most influential forms of communication out there receive no such protection: Blogging. So far the courts have been reluctant to grant bloggers protection under state shield laws and most bloggers don't have pockets that are deep enough to fund a protracted legal battle. Underscoring this point was the fact that a California judge last year ruled that three bloggers, who Apple Computer claims revealed trade secrets in their online publications, must reveal their anonymous sources.

Many feel this was the wrong decision. "There is no principled distinction between a New York Times reporter and a blogger for these purposes. Both operate as news sources for wide swaths of the general public," said Susan Crawford, a law professor at Cardozo law school of Yeshiva University (and a blogger).

Professor Philip Meyer (photo) of the University of North Carolina wrote last year that, "Traditional journalists should support them (bloggers). There is neither sound moral or legal justification for claiming that those who work for major news organizations have stronger First Amendment rights than the rest of us."

I happen to agree. These are heady times, times when so many precedents are being set and the future of these nascent online communication forms are being decided. The stakes are high and it's important that we get it right. In this case, the right thing is to afford bloggers more protection, not less.

On writing 2: Tips from the National Writers Workshop

It's Sunday, a short day at the Writers Workshop, but also one of the most helpful. The first speaker of the day was Naka Nathaniel, who specializes in new media for the New York Times. He was joined by Casey Parks, a J-school student from the University of Missouri Columbia, who accompanied Nicholas Kristof to Africa last fall. The talk was the most inspiring of the weekend. Not surprisingly their focus was on new media.

If you incorporate video and audio, your stories will practically sell themselves, Nathaniel told the crowd.

The talk really opened my eyes -- as well as the eyes of my cohorts -- to the phenomenal storytelling possibilities available to us. As we walked out of the session, Katie and I were both buzzing, talking about ways to tell our stories through video, audio and slideshows.

In addition to being inspirational, the talk was also practical. Nathaniel offered several suggestions for the fledgling new media journalist. In regards to software programs: Learn Audacity and Final Cut Pro. Soundslides is a good program for creating Web slideshows. Don't bother to learn Flash.

Nathaniel said that the media titans such as the New York Times and Washington Post are scrambling to find journalists with computer programming skills. If you have the opportunity, he suggested, take some computer science classes. If you needed any extra proof, Nathaniel mentioned the story of a University of North Carolina student who is about to receive a degree in journalism and computer science and is being pursued by the NYT, the Post and several other large media outlets.

Nathaniel also recommended journalists read University of Florida professor Mindy McAdams' blog to learn more about new media.

On writing: Tips from the National Writers Workshop

I’m up in Portland this weekend for the National Writers Workshop. It’s an important event, to be sure, filled with such notable journalists as Pulitzer Prize winners Jacqui Banaszynski and Diana Sugg, Mark Kramer, the founding director of the Nieman Program on Narrative Journalism, and Jack Hart, the venerable writing coach for the Oregonian. While the conference has been a little too newspaper-focused for my tastes, there’ve been several important lessons and reminders I’ve received – and that’s just in the first day.

Among the most advice was that of Jack Hart, who told the audience that a good narrative story requires more than just an interesting topic. A narrative story must have a theme. There must be a reason for writing about a topic, a big idea, a universal truth. “Say something important about how the world works.”

Hart gave the example of soccer moms. If you want to write about the topic, you’ll need a theme, which could be as simple as “Non-working mothers drive community.” Once you’ve got the universal truth or the theme, you can focus your writing and it won’t simply turn out to be a report about an interesting topic, which Hart said was just an invitation for a reporter to empty his notebook on the page.

Hart said he actually types the theme at the top of the page before writing and then keeps it there as a reminder until the first draft is complete.

Another helpful tip from Hart – if you’re looking for story ideas, you might try the book Famous First Facts. It’s apparently filled with exotic facts and stories.

From Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, investigative reporters for the San Francisco Chronicle and authors of the book Game of Shadows, when working on investigative stories, be explicit with the sources about what specifically you’re looking for. When you do, someone is likely to provide the information.

Deborah Nelson, who won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting in 1997, also offered up advice about investigative reporting. One of her best pieces of advice was to go to the subject of the investigation early on in the reporting and return often. They often prove to be one of the best sources of information for an investigative piece. If an individual or company is reticent, read them or e-mail them a draft of the story and tell them this is what the story is going to say unless I can get your side. They usually respond pretty quickly after that.

Finally, Nelson said that if you want to affect change with your stories, you’ll need to name names, name the policies that are at the heart of the matter and be specific. When you do this and write a compelling story some pretty amazing changes can occur.

Nelson also recommended the article “The Blood-Cancer Experiment” by Duff Wilson and David Heath, as an example of great investigative reporting and writing.

Well that’s all for tonight. But if tomorrow’s presenters are anywhere near as good as today’s I’ll have another installment of writing tips for you.

For more information on the National Writers Workshop or for tips on writing visit the Poynter Institute Web site.