August 31, 2007

Pew Trust and News Preferences

The Pew Charitable Trust regularly looks at media issues.

The Trust issued the latest in its regular reports on news preferences of the American people.

See the report here: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/574/two-decades-of-american-news-preferences

Sources for story ideas

The Census Bureau does more than just it's Constitutional requirement of counting heads.

It regularly puts out data related to holidays that are useful to journalists looking for story ideas.

Here is their release on Halloween.


The observance of Halloween, which dates back to Celtic rituals thousands of years ago, has long been associated with images of witches, ghosts, devils and hobgoblins.

In the United States, the first official citywide Halloween celebration occurred in Anoka, Minn., in 1921. Over the years, Halloween customs and rituals have changed dramatically.

Today, many of the young and young at heart take a more light-spirited approach. They don scary disguises or ones that may bring on smiles when they go door to door for treats, or attend or host a Halloween party.

"Trick or Treat!"
36.1 million
The estimated number of potential trick-or-treaters in 2006 -- children 5 to 13 – across the United States, down 45,000 from 2005. Of course, many other children -- older than 13, and younger than 5 -- also go trick-or-treating.
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/010048.html>

109.6 million
Number of occupied housing units across the nation in 2006 -- all potential stops for trick-or-treaters.
<http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/historic/histt15.html>

93%
Percentage of households who consider their neighborhood safe. In addition, 78 percent said they were not afraid to walk alone at night.
(Source: Extended Measures of Well-Being: Living Conditions in the United States, 2003,at <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/families_households/009884.html>
Jack-O’-Lanterns and Pumpkin Pies
1 billion pounds
Total production of major pumpkin-producing states in 2006. Illinois led the country by producing 492 million pounds of the vined orange gourd.

Pumpkin patches in California, Ohio and Pennsylvania also provided lots of pumpkins: Each state produced at least 100 million pounds. The value of all pumpkins produced by major pumpkin-producing states was $101 million.
<http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp>
Where to Spend Halloween?

Some places around the country that may put you in the Halloween mood are:

Transylvania County, N.C. (29,780 residents).
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/009756.html>

Tombstone, Ariz. (population 1,571).
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/010315.html>

Pumpkin Center, N.C. (population 2,228); and Pumpkin Bend, Ark.
(population 307). <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet>

Cape Fear in New Hanover County, N.C.; and Cape Fear in Chatham County, N.C. (the townships have populations of 15,711 and 1,170, respectively).
<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet>

Skull Creek, Neb. (population 281).
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/010315.html>
Candy and Costumes

1,198
Number of U.S. manufacturing establishments that produced chocolate and cocoa products in 2005, employing 38,718 people and shipping $13.6 billion worth of goods. California led the nation in the number of chocolate and cocoa manufacturing establishments, with 128, followed by Pennsylvania, with 121. <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/county_business_patterns/010192.html> and <http://www.census.gov/mcd/asm-as2.html> (2005 Value of Product Shipments)

477
Number of U.S. establishments that manufactured nonchocolate confectionary products in 2005. These establishments employed 21,389 people and shipped $7.6 billion worth of goods that year. California also led the nation in this category, with 73 establishments.
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/county_business_patterns/010192.html> and <http://www.census.gov/mcd/asm-as2.html> (2005 Value of Product Shipments)

26 pounds
Per capita consumption of candy by Americans in 2006; it is believed a large portion is consumed around Halloween.
<http://www.census.gov/industry/1/ma311d06.pdf>

2,232
Number of costume rental and formal wear establishments across the nation in 2005.
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/county_business_patterns/010192.html>


August 29, 2007

Are male journalists really that geeky?


Okay, time to lighten up.

We all know that Google Ads are designed to bring in money for blog operators in a cheap and easy manner. Google places the ads based on the content of the blog. So, for example, a blog on deep-sea fishing will get ads for boat charters, resorts, and fishing equipment.

Imagine my surprise while reading Online Journalism Review among the ads for services to search and review articles was one for "Sexy Singles." The blurb for the ad said visitors can see dozens of sexy and naked women.

Because these ads change with with every page view it is difficult to see the ad again. But it really was there. (Note the screen shot on the right.)

So I now wonder: Are male online journalists so tightly connected with geeks that even the Google software thinks they have to resort to sites like "Sexy Singles" to see a naked woman?

What are the ethics of online journalism?

From Online Journalism Review, Annenberg School of Communication, USC.

These principles help separate the good writers and publishers from the frauds and con artists online.
by Robert Niles

The ethics of online journalism are, ultimately, no different than the ethics of journalism. The Society of Professional Journalists has articulated a comprehensive policy of journalism ethics that can help guide any consciencious online writer.
That said, here are some basic qualities that any good online writer ought content ought to demonstrate:

No plagiarism

By now, you've likely discovered that writing is hard work. You certainly don't want someone else swiping your effort and presenting it as his or her own.

So don't steal others' work.

Such theft is plagiarism. It includes not just cutting and pasting whole articles, but copying photos, graphics, video and even large text excerpts from others and putting them on your web page as well.

If you want to reference something on another website, link it instead.

If you are concerned that the page you're linking to will disappear, give your readers the name of the publication that published the page, its date of publication and a short summary of its content. Just like news reporters used to reference other content before the Web. (“In a Sept. 20 report, the Wall Street Journal reported....").

When in doubt, do both. There's no such thing as too much supporting information.

Disclose, disclose, disclose

Tell your readers how you got your information, and what factors influenced your decision to publish it. If you have a personal or professional connection to people or groups you're writing about, describe it. Your readers deserve to know what has influenced the way you reported or wrote a story.

Don't hide whom you work for, or where the money to support your site comes from. If your site runs advertising, label the ads as such. Let readers know if you are making money off links elsewhere on your site, as well.

No gifts or money for coverage

One common way journalists avoid conflicts of interest is by refusing gifts or money from sources they cover. Writers who accept gifts, payments or honoraria from the people or groups they cover open themselves up to charges that their work is a paid advertisement for those sources. Or, at the very least, that those writers are too "close" to these sources to cover them honestly. You can avoid controversy by politely declining such offers.

Most major news organizations do allow their writers to accept free admission to events for the purpose of writing a feature or review. But most of those organizations bar their writers from "junkets," where groups provide free travel and hotel rooms in addition to attendance at their event.

Many companies also send items such as books and DVDs to writers who review them. Items of significant value ought to be returned after the review. Less expensive items, such as books, can be donated to a local school or charity.

If you are writing about your employer, obviously you are accepting money from it. But let your readers know that. Identify yourself as an employee, even if you are writing anonymously, so people know enough about your background that they can make their own judgment about your credibility.

As writers should not accept money from sources, they also should not ask for it. If your site runs ads, do not solicit people or groups you cover to buy ads or sponsorships on your site. Find someone else handle your ad sales.

Check it out, then tell the truth

Just because someone else said it, this statement does not make it true. Reward your readers with accurate information that stands up to scrutiny from other writers. Check out your information before you print it.

Find facts, not just others' opinions, to support your comments. Start with sites such as our guide to reporting to learn how to find real data, not someone else's spin. Make sure that what you are writing isn't merely repeating some urban myth, either.

If you are writing about someone else, call or e-mail them for a comment before you publish. If your subject has a blog, link to it. That link will notify the subject that you've written about them, and will allow your readers to click-through and read the subject's side of the story.

If you want to write satire or spoofs, fine. But make sure your audience knows that what you are writing is not literal truth. Tricking readers won't help you develop the respect, credibility or loyal audience that truthful writers enjoy and rely upon.

Be honest

In summary, be honest with your readers and transparent about your work. If people wonder for a moment about your honesty or your motives, you've lost credibility with them. Don't let them do that. Answer those questions even before readers ask.

And most important is to never utilise your power of press for personal gains or simply annoying someone.

The future of investigative (and regular) journalism

I saw this cartoon today and it reminded me of a discussion I had several years ago with undergraduates at AU.

I had mentioned that to understand what it really means to dig and dig some more for a story, the students should read "All the President's Men." One student actually asked if the book was based on the movie!

I was taken aback that a journalism student would ask such a question but then I recalled that many in our business often refer to the movie as one of the best movies about journalism. (I later found out the student was in the public relations track and was taking a journalism class to help his writing.)

I agree with that assessment. It is one of the best portrayals of our profession to the popular market. However, for future journalists -- electronic, cyber, or print -- reading, reading and more reading are still key. (Just ask my students. They hear how important reading is in every class.)

I think we do our students a disfavor by not pushing them to read.

So far I have been impressed with most of my students. Several are dedicated readers of many forms of literature. They see how noun and verbs are arranged and rearranged to make a dramatic story. Still, it is useful to remind our charges that reading is vital to good writing.
Cheers
Dan

August 27, 2007

Do your homework and write better stories

Poynteronline
Posted, Aug. 8, 2007
Updated, Aug. 8, 2007

Ready to Write the Big One

By Roy Peter Clark (more by author)
Senior Scholar, Poynter Institute



I began my career as a writing coach at the St. Petersburg Times back in 1977. It was the second year of existence for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and the football team, clad in creamsickly orange, lost all 14 games in 1976, and their first twelve in 1977. I would joke with the sports writers: "Well, have you written your big lead yet? You gotta be ready, man. These guys are going to win some day."

That memory crossed my mind as I watched the cameras flash and the fireworks splash across the sky after Barry Bonds hit his famous home run. I wondered how sports writers would meet the moment.

One measure of great athletes is how well they perform in the big games. The same could be said of great journalists. The most memorable work stands at the conjunction of creative talent and amazing circumstance. How well does the reporter write on deadline when challenged by a monumental event?

Such an event was the playoff baseball game in 1951 when the New York Giants defeated the Brooklyn Dodgers for the National League pennant. Bobby Thomson's home run in the ninth inning became the legendary "shot heard round the world." Thomson entered the pantheon of sports legends, while pitcher Ralph Branca became a symbol of bad luck and futility.

Sitting in the press box at the Polo Grounds that day was Red Smith. He had already been covering great sporting events since the 1920s and once pleaded guilty to editor Stanley Woodward's indictment that he was "Godding up those ballplayers." To be sure, there is a bit of hero worship in Smith's classic column, titled "Miracle of Coogan's Bluff," but who could blame Smith for his enthusiasm? Here was a game with two New York teams, a pennant on the line, in the bottom of the ninth, with the world tuned in. Smith begins:

"Now it is done. Now the story ends. And there is no way to tell it. The art of fiction is dead. Reality has strangled invention. Only the utterly impossible, the inexpressibly fantastic, can ever be plausible again."

And here is his famous kicker about the unlucky pitcher who gave up the famous home run: "Ralph Branca turned and started for the clubhouse. The number on his uniform looked huge. Thirteen."

That column is reprinted in my book "America's Best Newspaper Writing" as a true classic. But here is something important to remember: Before Smith wrote his famous column, he was writing a different one, one in which the Dodgers, not the Giants, win the pennant. The Bums from Brooklyn had gone into that last inning with a two-run lead, so, with deadline looming, who could doubt that Smith had crafted the top of his column with a Brooklyn win in mind?

One of my favorite sports writing anecdotes comes out of the 1989 Tour de France, when American Greg LeMond won the world's most famous bicycle race. Sports Illustrated described how LeMond, in one last desperate sprint, took the prize by seconds from the favored French cyclist. At the finish line, French reporters threw down their notebooks in disgust. While many saw this as an act of Gaulish nationalism, journalists understood that these hacks had already written their stories — "French rider wins!" — and would now have to write another.

Writing Tool #42 encourages writers to do their homework well in advance: "Prepare yourself for the expected and unexpected."

As an example, I use this lead by Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times after Justin Gatlin won the 2004 Olympic gold in the 100-meter dash:

His first track event was the 100-meter hydrants, a Brooklyn kid running down Quentin Street leaping over every fire plug in his path.

His second track event was the 100-meter spokes, the kid racing in tennis shoes against his friends riding bicycles.

A dozen years later, on a still Mediterranean night far from home, the restless boy on the block became the fastest man in the world.

Plaschke could not have written this great deadline lead without doing his homework — hours of research in anticipation of who might win the race.

Another great deadline writer, David Von Drehle of The Washington Post, describes how, under the most intense pressure, he falls back on the basics, thinks about what happened, why it matters, and how he can turn it into a story. He must do enough advance work to answer these three questions:

1. What's the point?
2. Why is this story being told?
3. What does it say about life, about the world, about the times we live in?

Let's apply these questions to the home run hit last night by Barry Bonds, the blast that gave him the record for most home runs in a career.

1. What's the point? After a build-up of weeks and months, a controversial athlete, widely suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs, broke one of the sporting world's most cherished records.

2. Why is this story being told? Because it just happened; because it involves a great but controversial athlete; because baseball is still an important part of American history and culture.

3. What does it say about the times we live in? That Americans don't like a cheater, unless he plays for their team; that we live in a competitive culture filled with shortcuts to excellence; that race still plays an important role in how we judge people and their achievements (I'm thinking of the comparisons between Bonds and Mark McGwire, and between Bonds and Hank Aaron).

Now let's see how some of America's current sports writers performed in the clutch:
  • "Don't believe everything you read. They say that about movie stars, politicians, advertisements, and now they can say it about the record books of baseball, where the all-time home run leader, as of Tuesday night — and for the foreseeable future — reads: Barry Lamar Bonds." Read story >>
By Mitch Albom, The Detroit Free Press

  • "Twenty-one years ago, at Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, a skinny, cocky lead-off hitter from Arizona State, a second-generation major-leaguer who had grown up at the knees of the legendary Willie Mays, connected on a pitch from Craig McMurtry.
It was the first big-league home run for Barry Bonds, and there was nothing tainted about the celebration when he crossed home plate, a 21-year-old man with a future that sparkled." Read story >>

By Phil Rogers, The Chicago Tribune

  • "The Baseball Writers Association of America has a rule against cheering in the press box, an unnecessary prohibition if ever there was one, at least as far as the membership is concerned.
If they served up Ted Williams' deep-frozen noggin for the ceremonial first pitch of the World Series, these guys would yawn.

So when Barry Bonds, the most reviled player of his generation, broke Hank Aaron's all-time home record Tuesday night, it's safe to say no cheers had to be muffled along press row."
Read story >>

By Kevin Hench, Fox Sports

  • "He didn't hit them out with a syringe. Say what you will about Barry Bonds and his chemically enhanced assault on the home run record, but keep in mind the cream and the clear and whatever other performance-enhancing drugs he might have used were not some kind of magic potions. He's not at 756 home runs, and counting, just because he found the right pharmacy." Read story >>
By Phil Taylor, Sports Illustrated

  • "Seven fifty-five, the most cherished number in baseball if not all of American sports, lived a good, long, noble life. Spawned from the powerful bat of an aging slugger named Hank Aaron on July 20, 1976, it grew in stature over the years, surviving the occasional challenge and ruling over the record book even as other, lesser records fell. But on a cool Tuesday night near the shores of San Francisco Bay, 755 finally perished at the hands of a relentless, controversial invader from the west named Barry Lamar Bonds. Seven fifty-five is gone. Behold, 756." Read story >>
By Dave Sheinin, The Washington Post

  • "There's a new home run champion of all time, and it's Barry Bonds.

Is he the greatest home run hitter of all time? All who cherish this game will have to search their hearts and answer that question in their own way. But the number is not open to debate, dispute, praise or scorn. The major-league record is 756, and Bonds owns it." Read story >>

Henry Schulman, The San Francisco Chronicle

Not all these stories are equal, of course, but it�s good to see these writers working hard to match their prose to the occasion.

I end with the story of a famous foreign correspondent and novelist, Laurence Stallings, who was assigned in 1925 to cover a big college football game between Pennsylvania and Illinois. The star of the day was Red Grange. Known as the Galloping Ghost, Grange dazzled the crowd with 363 yards of total offense, leading the Illini to a 24-2 upset victory over Penn.

The famous journalist and author was awestruck. Red Smith wrote that Stallings "clutched at his haircut" as he paced up and down the pressbox. How could anyone cover this event? "It's too big," he said, "I can't write it" — this coming from a man who had once covered World War I.

Someone should have quoted Shakespeare to him: "The readiness is all."




http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=128192
Copyright © 1995-2007 The Poynter Institute

August 26, 2007

The future, present and importance of journalism

Steve Klein sent this over for your consideration. Pay close attention to the last two paragraphs. This is why serious journalism is important.

Dan

Read All About It

by Steve Coll August 13, 2007

When there’s big news, the main story on the Wall Street Journal’s front page usually starts with a short, ringing sentence, such as the one that appeared last Wednesday: “A century of Bancroft-family ownership at Dow Jones & Co. is over.” On the left side of the page that day was another signature motif: an in-depth reconstruction of how Rupert Murdoch had triumphed in his four-month campaign to buy the company and the newspaper it owned—the Journal, one of the best papers in the world. The story was gang-tackled by six reporters and came furnished with the Journal’s mandatory scenes of business titans with murky motives negotiating in restaurants. The writers referred to their own company’s chief executive as Murdoch’s “dance partner,” and noted, on the front page, the possibility of a “big payday” for the boss following the sale.

In all, the Journal’s coverage of the sale was a kind of prideful and impressive demonstration to Murdoch of the values, the talents, and the daring of the editors and reporters he will now have on his payroll. The subliminal question that the coverage seemed to ask was, Will Murdoch destroy the Journal? Will he undermine the paper’s values and call that “investment”?

Many journalists, including some in the Journal’s newsroom, assume that Murdoch’s victory will lead eventually to the paper’s diminishment. In a sense, Murdoch has said as much. He favors what he calls “popular journalism.” He has mentioned that he finds long stories about complicated subjects to be rather trying. At his numerous other properties (which include the Post, the London Times, and the Fox network), he has no record of funding the relentless, risk-taking investigative reporting in which the Journal has specialized.

There can be little doubt that a Murdoch-owned Journal will be different, and that some of the changes will amount to loss. Murdoch has voiced skepticism, for example, about the Journal’s peculiar front-page feature stories known as “A-heds.” In this hyperlinked era of multimedia, the A-hed is an almost atavistic institution that relies upon wit and originality but offers no pressing connection to the news of the day. This was the headline stack on one classic: Listening to Prozac: ‘Bow Wow! I Really Love the Mailman!’ Some Are Pushing the Drug To Treat Pet Ailments; Scientologists Are Yelping

It would not be entirely fair to blame Murdoch for the prospective vanishing of such compositions, though—and perhaps, since they sometimes concern drug-addled animals, he will change his view.

Nor can it be considered a surprise that Murdoch succeeded in his quest to buy the Journal. At seventy-six, he is apparently still juiced by the adrenaline that flows from empire creation. He prepared his bid skillfully; he offered a high price in cash for a troubled company; and he had no competitors. The newspapers that Murdoch publishes and the television networks that he operates may be coarse, lacking in public-minded ambition, and craven about their owner’s political and business interests. None of this, however, disqualifies him from throwing money around as he pleases in a democratic marketplace.

The more regrettable aspect of the deal involves the sellers, the Bancroft family. The same civic marketplace that granted permission to Murdoch demanded responsibility from them. Over time, the Bancrofts failed their newspaper—not so much because they sold out as because they did not prevent the conditions that made Murdoch’s offer irrefutable. Their values may have been the right ones, but as a collective they lost focus, lacked vigor, and, in the end, could not resist the blandishments of a cunning suitor.

A decade ago, four American families regarded themselves, correctly, as guardians of public trusts, because they controlled independent newspapers, situated in America’s most influential cities, that were vital to the national discourse. They were the Sulzbergers, who control the Times; the Grahams, who control the Washington Post; the Chandlers, who controlled the Los Angeles Times; and the Bancrofts. Within their separate ranks, the families faced a common challenge: as generations passed and ownership became dispersed among siblings and cousins, it grew harder to act decisively. The Sulzbergers and the Grahams handled the problem by empowering a single leader; the Chandlers did the same for a time, but then fell apart; the Bancrofts never addressed it.

Defiant statements about civic duty issued by members of the Bancroft family during the struggle with Murdoch have made it plain that some of them had a rich awareness of their public role, and were prepared to make financial sacrifices to preserve the company’s independence. But the Bancrofts failed because they proved incompetent in the sphere that belonged to them as owners. This involved the adaptation of their inherited newspaper business model to support deep and independent reporting in the digital age.

The urgency of this mission has been clear since at least the mid-nineteen-nineties. As newspaper circulation fell, computing and telecommunications merged, and the Internet arrived with all the subtlety of a supernova. The business readers and the financial-market participants crucial to Dow Jones lived and worked at the forefront of these changes. Yet for years the Bancrofts coddled a chief executive at Dow Jones, Peter R. Kann, who, although he was a likable man and a talented journalist, could not find a winning strategic path.

As the Bancrofts dozed and Kann floundered, Michael Bloomberg erected a skyscraper of a company on Dow Jones’s front lawn. He did this by pioneering the use of new technologies to profitably speed up and deliver business information. Dow Jones might have recovered from any number of mistakes, but it could not overcome its failure to dominate the profitable sale of electronic financial data. This ultimately laid the company bare for Murdoch, a master of technological change. Crawford Hill, a member of the Bancroft family who works as a biology teacher, summed up this background acutely in an e-mail to others in the family, reported last week by the Journal: “We are actually now paying the price for our passivity over the past twenty-five years.”

No railroad family could forestall the automobile, and no newspaper family can prevent the eventual end of newspapers in their old, accustomed form. Reporting without fear or favor arose from newspapers but is not inherently tied to them or even to the search for a well-turned sentence. Most of what matters about the coming media age is already being decided outside of traditional newsrooms, on YouTube and countless other Web sites, or in the advertising agencies that calibrate Google search results with the mouse-clicking habits of young consumers. Perhaps Google or its ilk will find it profitable or desirable to fund independent, expert foreign correspondence; or to support investigations of corporate and government power; or to train the sort of journalists who feel free to call out their employers’ pay packages on the proverbial front page, although there are no signs of this yet. Or perhaps the Sulzbergers and the Grahams can adapt their public trusts successfully to the new technologies. And even if their efforts fail to become profitable these families might still preserve their newsrooms’ independence by converting them into nonprofit foundations, similar to what the Poynter family did with the St. Petersburg Times, in Florida.

The tenets and the traditions of unfettered journalism are marrow in our constitutional system. The Journal matters most of all because it has been a rare American incubator of the values and the skills necessary to carry out independent reporting, and because the newspaper has continually demonstrated through its stories how the First Amendment is supposed to work. Rupert Murdoch’s vanquishing of the Bancrofts reminds us that even small outposts of besieged values are worth fighting for if the alternative may be their extinction.