Accuracy, speed and corrections

Social media lit up a bit this week when Howard Kurtz from the Washington Post included a line in a column, referring to Kenya as President Obama's "native country."
As you probably already know, some fringe folks known as the "birthers" question the legitimacy of the Obama presidency, claiming he was not born in the U.S. and thus is constitutionally barred from serving as president. When a reader pointed it out, Kurtz immediately said it was a slip and he meant, "ancestral homeland."
The Post has now appended a correction but many questioned how long it took them to do that (about three days, by my count).
What are organizations' responsibilities when it comes to accuracy? How fast should they correct errors? How does the social media sphere both exacerbate errors (such as the birthers linking to the story) and ferret them out (such as the reader who noted the problem)?

Obama tours the Post

Here's an illuminating inside look at what happens when a popular new president checks out the newsroom in his new hometown.
What is the difference between news and celebrity coverage and how might that affect this administration? What does it mean that people are "star struck" by Obama? How can reporters overcome this in themselves? Is that feasible? Why might people be concerned about personal relationships between reporters and the people they cover?

Outing Prince Harry

Britain's Prince Harry has has been serving with the military in Afghanistan, fighting in forward areas. His presence was kept secret under an agreement between the military and the media.
Blogger Matt Drudge broke the silence Thursday, and the British are now calling him home, fearing that his presence would be a magnet for attacks and endanger his unit as a whole and him as an individual.
Assess the Drudge Report's responsibility here. Did he make the right call? Were other media outlets right to agree to the blackout?
Here's the take from an ethics expert at the Poynter Institute.

Are We Dumb?

I'm quite curious what you think of this piece, as a member of a generation she targets in her argument.

NIU Shootings

As raw as the events are, I'd like you to think about the Northern Illinois mass shootings and the media implications.
Check out news organizations:
- Chicago Tribune
- Washington Post
- New York Times
- CNN
just to name a few. How are they handling the coverage? What's the level of sensitivity? Of information? Are you getting insights? Or repeats of the same information? How are they handling the questions of mental health? Of victims' stories? What writing has resonated most with you? What images? What things shouldn't have appeared?

Then I want you to look at the strat comm angles. I know this seems odd, but this is a story that was handled by PR people, the university communications staff at NIU. Go to their Web site and look at the information. Did they provide enough info and do it quickly enough? Look at some of the info updates earlier on. I found them interesting because they didn't just update and replace info. Instead, they used strikethrough to show what info had been updated or replaced. Watch the press conferences and examine those interactions. What role did public relations play in this tragedy and was it done ethically and effectively?

A Requiem

An intriguing (and I'll admit depressing) commentary by David Simon in today's Washington Post. He charts the fall of great American newspapers, lining up with this season's arc of "The Wire" on HBO, a show he exec produces.
What does the article mean for those who want to become journalists today? (Hint: I'm far more optimistic than Simon)

MySpace Suicide Update

Washington Post has an excellent piece today on the MySpace suicide case we discussed at length earlier. At first glance, I must admit, I thought, "Geez, Post, you're pretty late to this story." But the piece benefits from the distance. It has a better grasp of the response than others I've read. Definitely worth a look.

Pakistan in Turmoil

Received this note from a 202er this morning:

Obviously you'll have gotten this link too or have read about this by now, but for formality's sake: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/world/asia/28pakistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

What's the deal with Pakistan? With all the crap surrounding Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan it seems like Pakistan has kind of flown under the radar for our nation's media (and possibly rightly so considering what we have invested in the other countries). I don't know much about Pakistan and how it fits into Middle East equation, but I remember reading about it for the 202 quiz questions when Bhutto arrived and the martial law imposed by Musharraf. It sounds like Pakistan is very unstable and might have revolutionary leanings given the controversy and dynamic there coupled with the death of this popular opposition leader. I unfortunately and unbearably don't have cable at home at my parents', so do you know of any good books or articles to get me up to speed on Pakistan? This country just keeps sounding more and more interesting and I can't see it not playing a big role the Middle East vs. United States Armageddon that's brewing.

Hope your break is going well,
~Al

Here are some story links that might help with background. You're welcome to use comments to add your own.
TIME magazine had a pretty good piece before Thanksgiving when the touchy deal between Bhutto and Musharraf went to hell
Bhutto herself had an op-ed in the Washington Post in that same time, gives a bit of background and shows her political strengths
The Post's roundup of Pakistan stories is comprehensive. I especially liked the image galleries when the lawyers erupted in protest.
Of all the pieces I read in the last three months or so, Newsweek's cover stands out the most. The lead is downright chilling, given today's events.
Hope that helps!

FCC and Cross-Ownership

Welcome back from your labors in the final project. Let's get chatting again.
Congress is highlighting an issue you should all know about by now, an FCC rule controlling ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations in the same markets. Check out a decent summary of the issues and opinions in the Washington Post.
So what say ye? Should the government restrict this kind of ownership? Can newspaper companies survive without it? Would it benefit broadcast? Does it matter at all in a digital age? Do you know (or care) who owns the local papers and TV stations? How does ownership affect content?

Fat and the Farm Bill

Here's a suggested post from a 202er. I would STRONGLY encourage you to familiarize yourselves with this issue. It's going to be getting a lot of media attention. Took a long time to start bubbling, but now it will boil.

Katy,
I'm not sure if anyone's still reading the blog now that the quizzes are over, but on the chance that they are, it might be good to mention the Farm Bill 2007 that's currently going through the senate. The legislation is extremely important, and, unfortunately, it hasn't gotten much attention (at least that I've seen) besides a few op-eds (and an upcoming documentary called King Corn). Ultimately, the Farm Bill is the reason corn syrup is in everything we eat, and part of the reason Africa loses two dollars to trade deficit for every dollar in aid it receives. Billions and billions of dollars of subsidies go to massive agri-business corporations (I think 75 percent of the subsidies go to 3 companies), and it affects everything: nutrition, local farming,
the environment (that shipping costs money) and global poverty. It doesn't seem like a very interesting topic, but it has a huge impact, and people should know about it (especially since this is a very agricultural state). Here are a couple of those op-eds:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15kleckner.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/22/AR2007102201656.html

plus a NYT magazine feature a while back:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html

A Skeptical Editor

I was sorry to read of the death of Vivian Aplin-Brownlee, who stands out as one of the few to challenge the authenticity of a story that marked one of the lowest points in American journalism.
In 1981, Washington Post reporter Janet Cooke won a Pulitzer Prize for a story called "Jimmy's World," reporting on an 8-year-old heroin addict in DC. The problem: he didn't exist. The piece was a complete fabrication.
I've often stumbled on the case because when I read the piece, I found it strained the bounds of reason. But then I suspected it was just the clarity of hindsight leading me to that conclusion. You can read it and judge for yourself.
Aplin-Brownlee doubted the story from the beginning and came to be well-regarded for being a lone voice of dissent.
What is a newspaper's responsibility to check the veracity of its reporters' work? How could a false story slip through? What did this do to the Post's credibility? What forces prompt reporters and editors to behave unethically? What effect may race have had in this saga?

Paying the Ultimate Price

It's been a bloody week for journalism in Iraq. The Washington Post lost a reporter who worked in its Baghdad bureau. (Check out this moving tribute from his colleagues.) And an Iraqi newspaper lost three employees in an ambush.
The Committee to Protect Journalists reports 119 deaths among journalists in Iraq and 41 among support workers. In 2007 alone, 47 have perished.
What does it mean to pay this price to report? When journalists are a target, what else is sacrificed? Press freedom? Security? Information itself? Would you risk your life to tell a story? Are you glad that other people do or do you think it's unnecessary risk-taking? What stories are worth the risk and what stories are not?

Chandrasekaran Visit

As I mentioned in class, attending the speech by Rajiv Chandrasekaran at 5 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 17, counts toward your Professional Practices credit. I think this could end up being one of the best events on campus this year. He's an engaging speaker, and his book blew me away. Some clickables:
1. Rajiv's appearance on The Daily Show (wherein Jon Stewart butchers his last name)
2. His appearance with Keith Olbermann (who got the name right)
3. His Web site on the book and his background
4. His book for sale on Amazon
"Imperial Life in the Emerald City" is easily one of the five best books I've read in the last five years. I recommend it as one point on a triangle of reading. It does an excellent job covering policy and the botched effort to rebuild Iraq. To get a view of the war's effect on everyday Iraqis, read Anthony Shadid's outstanding "Night Draws Near." And finally, I'm newly into Tom Ricks' "Fiasco," which provides excellent coverage from the military perspective. Read together, the three give you a well-rounded view of what is aptly called the key story of this generation.

Recording Industry Hits the Jackpot

Music file sharing took a massive hit yesterday when a federal jury awarded $222,000 to six record companies that sued a Minnesota woman for illegally sharing 24 songs. Yep, that's right ... 24 songs.
What's your reaction to this decision? Does peer-to-peer sharing violate copyright any more than burning a mix CD for your roommate? If you shared music in the past, do you worry that you'll be sued? Would you fight it or take the settlement? Do consumers have any recourse when the six biggest labels join forces to sue?

Insurgent Recruiting

Here's a great blog addition from a 202er:

Hey Katy,

I didn't know exactly where to send a news clip I just watched, which I believe would be a good blog topic, so I thought e-mail would do. In the following link to a video clip, an interviewee discusses how insurgent groups use video to market themselves, gaining supporters and money. I thought the topic was fascinating although the movie itself was a little on the dull side. I found it on the online Washington Post web site.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/09/28/VI2007092800608.html?hpid=topnews

My questions: How powerful is video in attracting people to the insurgent cause? Why kind of tactics can be used to counter this kind of mass communication? Should everyone have the freedom to produce these kinds of materials or should governments try to choke them off? Should these "statement videos" or "hostage videos" be hosted on YouTube or should organizations like that ban them?

Updates on Previous Posts

Some new stuff on things posted earlier:
1. The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson has a interesting twist on the Dan Rather lawsuit while the LA Times' Tim Rutten calls it "pathetic"
2. The New York Times screwed up ... and badly. Their ad rate for the controversial moveon.org ad was indeed grossly low (definitely fired a bullet into the foot of their credibility there and handed new ammo to the "liberal media" faction)
3. I referred you earlier to a book by Rajiv Chandrasekaran called Imperial Life in the Emerald City. He's coming to campus to deliver the J-School's Nafziger Lecture, 5 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 17, in the Pyle Center on Langdon. It's titled, "Iraq's Elusive Peace" (and yes, attendance does count for extra credit in 202)

Truthiness

Stephen Colbert coined my favorite word of the last 10 years: truthiness.
A few media orgs have started actually trying to decide whether a public statement is true (imagine that).
- the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly have launched Politifact to verify the claims of presidential candidates
- the Annenberg Public Policy Center at Penn has FactCheck.org
- the Washington Post has started a blog called The Fact Checker, with a reporter and researcher applying a "Pinocchio test" to public statements of interest (check out the post earlier this week on the "General Betray Us" ad)
Jack Shafer does a good job rounding them up in a new piece in Slate. Here's a bit of it:
Why can't the press drop the pretenses and call people who lie liars?
On the Media co-host Bob Garfield, exasperation filling his voice, asked that late last month on his show. Garfield's prime example of a public figure deserving the label was Alberto Gonzales.
"In the major institutions of the media, hardly a soul has invoked the term that best describes [Gonzales'] failure to tell the truth," Garfield said. "The word is lying."
So should the news media call a liar a liar? Who decides whether something is "true"? Check out some current controversies. Can we objectively say what is true and what is untrue? If it's a news organization's job to inform the public when someone is lying, what's taken them so long?

Washington Post On Being

Yesterday a 202er asked me what I think is the "best of the Web." Hands down, the thing that captures that for me is a Washington Post online series called "On Being." It's just a person or pair answering questions directly to the camera that's deftly edited into a brief package. A new one goes up every Wednesday, and I have yet to not be blown away. Check it out today and every Wednesday.
In general, the Post blows me away online. Their "Being a Black Man" is definitely worth a look.
Locally, the State Journal has been behind but just got an award nomination for their Hip Hop 101 package.

Just Fake It

Well, you have media ethics issues and then you have MEDIA ETHICS ISSUES!!! Check out this coverage in the Washington Post, New York Times and ABC News of a French "reporter" who faked interviews with some of the most recognizable names in the world. We don't need another black eye.
The key question here is how journalism maintains its legitimacy when it's undermined from within.

"Blogging" vs. "Reporting"

A Washington Post columnist wades into the debate over "what/who is a journalist" with a take on the blogger who tried to "out" Larry Craig. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502519.html?hpid=news-col-blog
From high atop his Adams Morgan apartment building, Michael Rogers decides who is living a lie and who may be turning toward righteousness.
Then, with a few words sprayed onto the uneven ground between gossip and journalism, he turns a life upside down. Or he offers absolution, remaining silent if he believes the person in question has a good heart.
This isn't a new debate. Newspaper companies fear losing revenue to the Web and newspaper reporters fear losing readers to it. Bloggers can be a threat.
But beyond that is the more central question Fisher is trying to get at: what is "journalism" and does it deserve higher esteem than blogging?
What do you think? What is it? What kind of regard does it deserve? As I said in lecture, I think challenges to legitimacy are a greater threat to journalism than declining revenues. Are news organizations earning their legitimacy?