MSNBC: Your Inauguration Juggernaut?

We currently stand less than a week from Inauguration Day, and the excitement is palpable, repeat, palpable.

I remember watching the last two inaugurations on TV, flipping around the different news channels to see each one's unique coverage of this historic event.

It seems that if MSNBC has its way, however, a lot fewer people will be flipping around from channel to channel this January 20, thanks to two very intriguing agreements.

The first is between MSNBC and Screenvision, which will put the network's coverage (free of charge) in 27 theaters across the country. For us in Utah, the closest options would be Denver, Phoenix, or LA. No love for the SLC.

The second agreement is between MSNBC and Starbucks. The coffee chain agreed to broadcast MSNBC's inauguration coverage in 650 stores nationwide.

Why such a big push by the Peacock News Network? To keep up the momentum that made it cable's fastest-growing channel of 2008.

"We have to get our product out there and expose it to more people," said MSNBC president Phil Griffin.

In our class, we talked so much about questioning the motives of the major news networks. Were they providing news for the sake of informing the public, or to boost ratings and advertising revenue? At first glance, it appears that MSNBC is doing just that.

Looking at it another way, however, one must remember the historicity of this particular event. This will be an inauguration unlike any other in our history. Not only is it for an African-American, but it is for a change that many people have wanted for some time. As such, should MSNBC be lauded for its attempts to make this event as accessible as possible?

One more factoid before I sign off:

Even after repeated charges of left-wing bias throughout the campaign, there will be an interesting wrinkle in MSNBC's coverage, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are slated to anchor the goings-on from Washington. Hmmmmmmmmm......

Jon Stewart's Explanation of Rupert Murdoch

Over the Christmas break, I wandered into a Barnes and Noble and found an intriguing book. I almost bought it, but then I remembered I'm a poor college student with little money to spare (for now).

It's called The Man who Owns The News: Inside the Secret World of Rupert Murdoch, and is written by Michael Wolff, a writer for Vanity Fair. The book delves into Murdoch's media empire, as well as his personal life.

As we discussed in our class, Murdoch's vast media empire includes The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the venerable Fox News. Pretty powerful guy, right?

Not if you ask Jon Stewart.

Wolff appeared on The Daily Show last night as he and Stewart discussed the book and the source of Murdoch's power.

Wolff claims that Murdoch is "is the most powerful man for the longest period in our era".

Stewart, who famously and frequently takes jabs at Fox News, says that Murdoch is not inherently powerful himself, but is merely a tool of powerful people.

"The leaders in power can always find a Rupert," Stewart said.

So, what do you think? Are Rupert Murdochs born or made? Could any of us in our class become a media mogul by sheer work and determination, or do we have to be chosen by the powers that be? Would we even want to yield that kind of power or be subject to that kind of scrutiny?

I reckon I'll have to read the book to find out for myself. In any case, it looks like another interesting ideological debate between Jon Stewart and Fox News. Let's get it on!

Did Kathy Griffin Say What I Think She Just Said?

Happy 2009 to everyone! I spent my last night of 2008 in my apartment with my girlfriend and one of my roommates and his girlfriend. We flipped channels around until settling for CNN's live coverage of the ball dropping in Times Square. Your hosts: Anderson Cooper and Kathy Griffin.

The unintentional comedy was through the roof, but that's not necessarily a good thing for supposedly serious journalism.

We cringed throughout the broadcast as Griffin's grinding voice seemed to be on autopilot, while poor Anderson Cooper tried in vain to keep the show from coming off the rails with his fake, patronizing laugh.

After the ball dropped, CNN stayed live for another hour to watch celebrations from the Central Time Zone, particularly from New Orleans, where correspondent Sean Callebs seemed to hate the "belligerent" revelers, some of which flipped off the camera.

The performance of hip-hop artist Lil' Wayne, which had been plugged at the beginning of the show, was full of backup exotic-looking dancers in neon outfits, thus leaving it mostly audio-only on the broadcast.

Then, hip-hop artist Coolio was interviewed in Las Vegas, proclaiming he would go down as one of the top 10 performers in the history of hip-hop.

It was also during this hour that those exiting Times Square made their dislike for Griffin a bit more vocal. CNN went to break, but not before Griffin let out this verbal blast to her hecklers. (WARNING: Griffin's remark will probably offend) For those who don't want to click the link (I don't blame you), she made a vulgar remark about what she deemed an appropriate line of work for those who ridiculed her. The exchange was conveniently left out of the replay a few hours later.

Besides the fact that CNN is due for a hefty fine, and that Kathy Griffin probably won't be back next year, why are the cable news channels allowing themselves to broadcast New Year's Eve as if they were Carson Daly or Dick Clark?

We flipped over to Fox News, who had their overnight crew partying just as hard as those in the crowd. MSNBC just played the feed for NBC's celebration hosted by Carson Daly, probably the best move among the big cable news networks.

How can this be considered journalism? Even if CNN doesn't intend for it to be journalism, why do they send a legitimate journalist to anchor their coverage?

The final verdict: Unprofessional, but unintentionally funny.

The Coach and The Sportswriter

The semester is over, but da blog rolls on! Frankly, this story to me was too big NOT to blog on.

Anybody who follows sports knows that the NFL's Detroit Lions are on the verge of history. Bad history. They lost Sunday to the New Orleans Saints 42-7 to fall to 0-15 with one game to play in the season. No NFL team has finished a season winless since it was expanded to 16 games in 1978. To add insult to injury, a pesky flu bug has passed through the team. (Sick of losing?)

After Sunday's game, Lions head coach Rod Marinelli held his post-game press conference. Columnist Rob Parker of The Detroit News was there. Parker has asked Marinelli throughout the season about his defensive coordinator, Joe Barry, who is also Marinelli's son-in-law.

This question, however, was markedly different.

Parker asked, "On a light note, do you wish your daughter would have married a better defensive coordinator?"

Marinelli ignored the question in the moment, but the sense of a personal attack has been a talking point throughout the sports media. I was listening to the Dan Patrick radio show when Adam Schefter of the NFL Network made an appearance and blasted Parker for becoming the story rather than reporting it.

Parker published an apology in his column Monday, saying that his relationship with Marinelli is "different". He also added the following:

"What might have seemed like a personal attack wasn't...Who knows, Marinelli, a straight shooter who never goes off script, might actually have given us a funny quote. He didn't. My attempt failed. And because of that, my attempt at humor may have seemed slighted, cruel, and even insensitive. For that, I apologize."

Parker also appeared on ESPN's "First Take", a morning show which he frequently contributes to, to explain his position. (Click the video)

Marinelli finally broke his silence Monday, saying Parker crossed the line "big time", saying that going after his daughter was out of bounds.

"I just think anytime you attack my daughter, I got a problem with that -- in a room of stink, and as a man, and it was premeditated," Marinelli said. "I think there's something wrong with that, yeah."

When asked if he had read Parker's apology, Marinelli responded: "I didn't read it, I was just told a little bit about it, and I don't accept anything."

Marinelli also told the media that any attempt to stir him up, as he believes Parker intended to do, is futile: "I can shoulder anything you bring -- easy. I can shoulder anything you bring."

In our class, among others, we talked frequently about the relationships between journalists and those they cover. Did Parker assume too much about his relationship with Marinelli? Is Parker's question be out of line, no matter how close he and Marinelli would be?

Da Final: Blog Edition

1. The Question of Objectivity
News judgment is a complex and mysterious process of triage that is left to journalists to perform
“The Big Picture, page 69

I had a particularly interesting experience with this idea firsthand while writing the benchmark article a couple of weeks ago. Without going into too much detail, I had a hands-on lesson acquainting myself with the need to be fair and balanced on the benchmark’s subject matter.

One side of the issue was, to me, laughably ludicrous. So, at first, I found it difficult to phrase the descriptions of that side without showing bias. I took a step back and realized that Professor Worsham and whoever else wrote out the explanation for the Benchmark probably felt the same way I did. However, they did all they could to present the information in such a way as to help us write about it objectively. I do not believe they would have assigned us this particular topic for the benchmark if they did not think we could be objective about it.

With this perspective in mind, I put my personal differences with the opinion aside, and wrote what I believe to be an objective article. I suppose I’ll know by the score I receive on it and whether or not I get into the program. Regardless, I feel a lot more confident in myself and my objectivity after the assignment.

That’s the way I hope it will be out in the real journalistic world. I hope that whoever assigns me my stories will know who I am and know what I am capable of. Since I am seeking to enter the sports journalism world, I know that objectivity will be key. So many national sports analysts are accused of “homerism” or rooting for the teams they either played on or are from. I want to try and avoid that perception on air, but that doesn’t mean I can’t root for my Cubbies.

2. The Question of Excellence
Ideals of excellence exist to raise standards of human achievement, or at least to keep us from slipping toward chaos or depravity.
“The Big Picture”, page 129

A lot of people, as “The Big Picture” points out, connect excellence to the sheer number of people who visit a web site, subscribe to a magazine, or pay to see a movie. For example, the #1 movie at the box office this past weekend was the remake of “The Day the Earth Stood Still”. It received almost universally bad reviews, particularly when compared to the original. Yet because it sold $31 million worth of tickets over three days it becomes, as movies.yahoo.com reported, “an environmental as well as a political statement" according to Chris Aronson, Fox's senior vice president of domestic distribution. Huh?!? Since when did Keanu Reeves make any kind of statement beyond “I know kung fu” or “I am an F-B-I agent”?

I thought the most profound aspect of defining excellence in journalism comes from what “The Big Picture” described as “The Three Graces of Journalism”: Truth, Context, and Independence. All three are interconnected and inherently dependent upon each other. In any case, vigilance allows each of these to be amplified in order to use journalism as a means to its principal end: to inform the public of what is going on around them and allow them to decide what they will do about it. Excellence in journalism, I feel, must do both, even though most modern journalists only focus on the former nowadays.

In observing the website for KUTV Channel 2 in Salt Lake City throughout the semester, there was nothing to necessarily distinguish it as significantly “excellent”. There was the news of the day. There were polls seeking viewer input. There were blogs from the sports anchors and meteorologists (although none from the regular news anchors…hmm). But the thing more prominent than these to me was the ads. Ads were everywhere: big ads, small ads, ads as big as your head. Obviously, the businesses advertising on the page see it as excellent, otherwise they wouldn’t advertise there. Again, that excellence seems to be driven more by the number of visitors to KUTV’s site than the regular everyday news content of the site. Does that mean excellence is defined in our day by the number of ads a publication or newscast has? If so, heaven help us.

3. The Question of Truth
The most obvious precondition of good journalism – or even of mediocre journalism, for that matter – is truth.
“The Big Picture”, page 45

There’s an old-timey hymn in the LDS hymnbook which I really like, but we hardly ever sing. It’s Hymn 272, which is called, “Oh Say, What Is Truth?” I quote the second verse:

Yes, say, what is truth? 'Tis the brightest prize
To which mortals or Gods can aspire;
Go search in the depths where it glittering lies
Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies.
'Tis an aim for the noblest desire.

Since it’s in an LDS hymnbook, it’s safe to assume the “truth” referred to should have a capital “T”. Absolute truth is a concept we Mormons feel like we have a pretty good grasp on.

The quest for “journalistic” truth, although different, should inspire the same level of urgency. But we ask ourselves, “Oh say, what is journalistic truth?” In “The Big Picture”, truth is described as having two faces: getting it right and getting it all. Without it, there is no such thing as news; we merely engage in gossip, rumors, etc. Trouble is, we find ourselves in a news world appearing to be more concerned with viewership than depth of truth.

Another bout between truth and modern journalism is the willingness of the modern news viewer to act upon the “truth” they are given. If one merely allows news to come to them and nothing is done with that news, there may be an increase in knowledge, but not necessarily intelligence. Intelligence is defined in chapter five of “The Big Picture” as “our relative ability to assimilate, store, process, and apply knowledge” (85). Since the spectrum of “news” has been broadened (or lowered, if you’re a Koppelite), the modern news viewer’s knowledge likely follows the same pattern. The trouble comes with regards to the depth of this truth, and how it inspires change. When was the last time you or I were truly motivated to act by a news story we saw? What about for the regular John or Jane Doe?

4. The Question of the Future
The reality is that the abundance of news and ubiquity of choice do not necessarily translate into a better news environment for consumers.
“A New Model for News”, page 37

Old media is dying. There’s no getting around that. As we covered explicitly in class, the internet is the considerably less-than-silent killer. As the rising generation gets more tech-savvy, their news-gathering potential is limitless. However, though the generation itself is rising, some aspects of it are not. Rather than intimately connecting with an artist through a whole album, we pick only the song or songs we want from iTunes or Pandora. Instead of reading a whole newspaper or magazine, we head to Huffington Post, NYTimes.com, etc.

In the process, the depth and breadth of journalism is drying up, leaving behind it a shallow reservoir of headlines and recycled updates. I found the study in the AP’s “A New Model for News” eye-opening as I considered my own news viewing habits, particularly since I began this class. For whatever reason (perhaps you, Dr. Cressman) I started getting the Daily Herald delivered to my apartment at the beginning of the semester. At first, I was pretty excited getting the newspaper because I loved getting the paper at home growing up. However, I surprised myself when I hardly picked it up. When they started to pile up, we threw them out. When I wanted my news, I got on my handy laptop or (after Election Day) on my BlackBerry. The newspaper I once ran out to get every day was now just a nuisance.

What does this mean for my future? I still feel secure. Web sites still need people to write their content, after all. In fact, having done a lot of web writing this semester between my 239 blog and my e-magazine for my 101 class, I’ve come to enjoy it. I could comfortably write for a web site after experiencing what I have this semester. A quote from “Journalism 2.0” (page 8) really helps fortify these optimistic feelings:

This is a book about people, not technology. Sure, there’s a lot of technology in
the pages to follow, but if you boil it all down to its core, its essence, you’ll find
people trying to extend a noble and grounded craft into a new and unpredictable
landscape. And it’s the people who matter, not the latest software or Web site. If
the people in this equation learn how make technology work for them, the rest is
just details.

Amen, paragraph from a book I downloaded as a PDF. Amen.

5. The Question of Conduct
Ideology is a complicated blend of personality, experience, and principle.
“The Big Picture”, page 124

*I will always remember that I represent myself, my family, Brigham Young University, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

*I will respect and admire the history of journalism, and seek to capture the vision of those who pioneered its virtues.

*As a sports journalist, I will recognize that truth is just as much what happens off the field, court, or rink as what happens on it. The quest for both is essential.

*I will seek to be loyal to my readers, my employer, and my sources.

*I will remove myself, whenever possible, from covering a story in which I could not escape blatant subjectivity or which would compromise my moral standards.

* I will be flexible and receptive to the changing innovations and advances in technology with respect to how it impacts journalism as a whole and my job as a journalist.

*I will seek to live up to a quote by the late journalist and author David Halberstam: “Being a professional means doing your job on the days you don’t feel like doing it.”

Mugshots: The Next Big Thing In Journalism?

An article on CNN.com caught my attention this morning which discussed the journalistic value of mugshots.

Wait, mugshots? You mean, the usually awful pictures they take of you when you are arrested?

Yep, the very same.

The CNN article notes that the use of mugshots in journalism is spreading, particularly in areas with high crime rates. For example, on the home pages of such newspapers as Newsday (New York City) and the Palm Beach (Fla.) Post, there are links to mugshots of those recently arrested in the area.

The Palm Beach Post deputy managing editor, Tim Burke says the feature attracts several thousand clicks a day.

"It's just another way to get readers online," Burke said. "There's low risk and a high level of consumer saleability."

The article also explores a $1 Clearwater (Fla.) publication called "Local MugSHOTS", one of many weekly magazines filled with, well, local mugshots. It has a circulation of 250,000 in nine states.

Its publisher, Max Cannon, sees it as a public service, particularly in low/middle income communities.

"The publication seems to sell best where the crime takes place," Cannon said.

But couldn't one (myself) make the argument that this is just another form of sensationalistic journalism?

John Watson, associate professor of journalism at American University in Washington, DC was also interviewed for the article, and made a similar argument.

"Here's a bad guy. Is that a public service? Maybe if you look at it with a very jaundiced eye," Watson said. "If you were really doing a public service, you'd point out specifics."

CNN notes that "some publications, such as Local MugSHOTS, offer only names and charges, The Palm Beach Post adds the date and time of the arrest. Newsday provides a few paragraphs of details regarding the incident."

Imperfect though it may be, Watson sees the value in mugshot journalism.

"We like being frightened without being in actual peril," Watson said. "These are pictures of monsters who actually exist, and we can look at them from the safety of wherever we are, and they disappear when we close the book."

That may be true, but is just another example of giving the public something they want rather than something they need, as Ted Koppel would argue? Is this new journalistic fad because of the simplified tastes of the reader or the need of publications to entertain in order to attract readership? Is it both?

Statsaholic.com Shows Newspapers Playing Catch-Up Online

In my Comms 101 class last night, our professor, Robert Walz, introduced me to a website that I find fascinating. It's called Statsaholic.com, and it allows you to enter domain names and compare the web traffic between sites. For instance, you could discover whether Google or Yahoo! gets visited more from month to month (It's pretty close).

So, with respect to our class, I first started by comparing different newspapers' websites:

USA Today beats the NY Times in unique visitors per month regularly, but the Times is narrowing the margin, especially in November. Both got about 15 million unique visits (UV) each during November.

In a more local context, The Salt Lake Tribune surpassed the Deseret Morning News this past summer, and hasn't fallen back behind yet. They each get around a 1/2 million UV per month.

Moving to TV news, CNN.com takes FoxNews.com and msnbc.com behind the proverbial woodshed. Not even close.

Since we have talked in class about the future of journalism and its online nature, I thought it important to compare the TV news sites to newspapers sites and news on sites like Yahoo! and Google.

Not even close.

In this comparison between the #1 site in three categories of journalism (Online= news.yahoo.com, TV= cnn.com, Newspaper= usatoday.com), Yahoo! News and CNN are doubling up USA Today in regards to unique visitors. You'll also notice that CNN once had a sizable lead on Yahoo!, but Yahoo! has closed the gap, even taking a small lead in the late summer.

Speaking locally, the top TV site in SLC, ksl.com, also doubles up on sltrib.com.

So, what does this mean with regards to our class?

That if the internet really is the future of newspapers, then they really need to beef up their online content. What do newspapers need to do with their web sites to close the gap?