Too Close to Home

The New York Times bureau chief in Jerusalem has a son who joined the Israeli Defense Forces. Should he be reassigned out of concern for potential bias in reporting? The paper’s ombudsman argues yes, while the paper’s editor vociferously disagrees. Good case study for journalism ethics. I agree with Keller. He points out that an ex-Marine is covering the war in Afghanistan. He may have a bias, but you wouldn’t know it from his reporting.

On another note, some people say that Public Editor Clark Hoyt too often carries water for his own newspaper. I think this column proves he’s not afraid to challenge the leadership of the New York Times.

Proofreading game

Check out this online proofreading game. May have to assign this to my journalism students…

The return of the partisan press

Fantastic article from Princeton prof Paul Star about the rise of Fox News and its effects on the political landscape. His verdict — maybe not so bad:

Not since the 19th century have presidents had to deal with partisan media of this kind, and even that comparison is imperfect. Today the media saturate everyday life far more fully than they did in early American history. Fox News, in particular, is in a league by itself. In the absence of clear national leadership in the Republican Party, Fox’s commentators (together with Rush Limbaugh) have effectively taken over that role themselves. Although they have their liberal counterparts on MSNBC, the situation is not exactly symmetrical, because MSNBC’s commentators do not have as strong a following and the network’s reporting is not as ideologically driven as Fox’s.

Of course, professional journalism, with its norms of detachment, hasn’t disappeared, though it’s in deep financial trouble. Leading newspapers, notably TheNew York Times, have a wider readership online and in print than they had before in print alone. Media-criticism blogs and Web sites from varied perspectives serve a policing function in the new world of public controversy. Partisan media are now firmly part of our national conversation, but countervailing forces—not just the political opposition and its supporters in the media, but professional journalists and other sources for authenticated facts—can keep partisanship from controlling that conversation. Although most American journalists assume that professionalism and partisanship are inherently incompatible, that is not necessarily so. Partisan media can, and in some countries do, observe professional standards in their presentation of the news. That is where civic groups and the scientific community, as well as media critics and others upholding those standards, should focus their pressure. Some commentators may be beyond embarrassment, but the news divisions of the partisan media are likely to be more sensitive to charges of unsubstantiated claims and loaded language. The yellow press of the 1890s looked equally immune from rebuke—and for a long time it was—but the growth of professional journalism in the 20th century did bring about a significant degree of restraint, even in the tabloids.

No one can put the old public back together again. Walter Cronkite’s death last July provoked nostalgia for a time when it seemed all Americans had someone they could trust, and that person was a journalist. But it’s not just Cronkite that’s gone; the world that made a Cronkite possible is dead. Now we have a fighting public sphere, which has some compensating virtues of its own. As in the early 19th century, a partisan press may be driving an increase in political involvement. After a long decline, voter turnout in the 2004 and 2008 elections returned to levels America hadn’t seen in 40 years. Fox News and MSNBC stir up the emotions not just of their devoted viewers but of those who abhor them; liberals and conservatives alike may be more inclined to vote as a result. Democracy needs passion, and partisanship provides it. Journalism needs passion, too, though the passion should be for the truth. If we can encourage some adherence to professional standards in the world of partisan journalism, not via the government but by criticism and force of example, this republic of ours—thankfully no longer fragile—may yet flourish.

Read the whole thing — he offers a great history of the partisan press and describes the evolution of today’s fragmented media.

A partisan press doesn’t seem so bad to me. Critics have always complained that the “objective” model never really worked in the first place. So, perhaps we should just drop all pretenses — the New York Times covers stories from the left (the Public Editor already admitted it), the New York Post takes a rightward slant. Injustices perceived from both ideological camps would be uncovered, and everyone leaves satisfied.

Good advice for job hunters

From John Temple, who’s managing an online news start-up in Hawaii:

A gentle reminder: If you’re looking for a job, it’s a good idea to follow directions. A second reminder: Sending an online news service a resume that says your goal is to work at a metropolitan daily newspaper or something other than the job you’re applying for is probably not a good idea. Also, think about customizing your resume for each position. It makes people appear more serious if they seem to understand what we might be looking for. Generic doesn’t help somebody stand out.

A Thousand Naked Strangers

Another great column from my friend the Atlanta EMT. Here’s the opening:

As a general rule life in the hood is not kind to dogs. Nor, for that matter, is it kind to children and old ladies. Then again, there’s a ninety-year-old woman living in The Bluff who regularly sports a t-shirt that reads ‘I Got Skills.’

Rules are made for nothing if not to be broken.

But dogs tend to live a particularly miserable existence. Nearly all are underfed, abused or abandoned and most of the ones lucky enough to have a home spend their lives tethered to a four-foot section of chain, their entire universe narrowed down to a tiny patch of mud.

This neglect makes them aggressive and mean. Social animals simply aren’t meant to live their lives in squalid isolation. So it’s not uncommon for someone to get bitten.

Read the rest.

Regarding the Tea Party movement and demagoguery

I’m having an interesting debate with Ken Edelstein over at Atlanta Unsheltered. Click here to read the exchange in the comments. We’re discussing whether the Tea Party movement is based on purely on baseless rumors and whether left-wing organizations engage in similar activities.

Why Tebow and not gay dating ad? CBS on Super Bowl hotseat

Good overview on the trouble CBS finds itself in after agreeing to run an anti-abortion ad but refusing to air an ad from a gay Web site during the Super Bowl:

By agreeing to show an “uplifting” antiabortion ad and rejecting a Super Bowl-style ad (read: funny) for a gay dating site, CBS is already feeling the effects of its decision to air “advocacy” ads for the first time on Super Sunday.

Working in a tough advertising climate, CBS surprised many Americans by explaining a new policy on advocacy ads after news emerged that it had agreed to show an antiabortion ad featuring Florida QB Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam.

That decision caused an uproar over the ad itself, the sponsor (the conservative organization Focus on the Family), and the prospect of politics seeping into a three-hour block where most Americans are trying to escape from the daily grind.

There are some extenuating circumstances — namely that the Web site may not really have the $2.6 million it costs to run the ad and therefore was really just engaging in a (rather successful) PR stunt.

That said, I’ve yet to read a good explanation for why the anti-abortion ad is OK while the gay ad is improper. Both will be highly offensive to some viewers and both advocate a position on a pretty volatile issue for many people. CBS appears to have opened up quite a can of worms by revising their standards — and I’m unsure how they’re going to enforce their policy without being arbitrary or capricious.

And, by the way, I’m referring to the “Big Game” as the Super Bowl. Come and sue me, NFL.

U.S. May Examine College Bowl System

The Justice Department may examine the inequities of the BCS:

The Obama administration is considering examining the legality of college football’s controversial Bowl Championship Series, according to a senator who had asked for an antitrust investigation.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) said he received a letter from the Justice Department, in which it “outlined the inequities” of the BCS system and said that it is considering whether to investigate the BCS under the antitrust laws. The letter also said that the administration is exploring other options to address college football’s postseason, including encouraging the NCAA to take control and asking the Federal Trade Commission to examine the BCS’s legality under consumer-proteciton laws.

Shortly after he was elected in November 2008, Barack Obama said he would “throw my weight around a little bit” regarding college football’s lack of playoff system. Currently, the BCS stages a national title game between the two teams that finish atop a compilation of polls, while other arguably deserving teams often get excluded. Mr. Hatch, whose home-state Utah Utes were left out following the 2008 season despite a perfect record, has been advocating for changes, too, writing a letter to the president in October asking for an antitrust investigation.

As an alumnus of East Carolina University, a school in a conference that doesn’t receive an automatic BCS bowl bid, I’m quite thrilled with this move. The BCS system creates a two-tier system in college football that makes it difficult to compete fairly.

And for those who argue that the government has more important things to worry about, well, this is important, too.

Go Pirates! Arrrgghhh!

I won’t take the Oprah pledge against cell phones while driving

Oprah wants us to pledge to stay off our cell phones while we’re driving. Not me.

I understand the argument: While on the phone, drivers are more distracted and therefore more likely to get into a wreck. However, I don’t understand why this ban on conversations doesn’t apply to person-to-person communication. In fact, I’d guess that having a conversation with a passenger would be even more distracting than the cell phone variety. I’ve not heard of any efforts to ban conversations while driving. So, I doubt the validity of the claim that cell phone conversations are inherently dangerous.

I will vow to be careful while on the phone — and to use a headset or speakerphone whenever possible so that I can keep both hands on the wheel. But, I won’t take the vow to quit using the phone in the car.

No more limes, please

From a Wal-Mart in-store display:

“For the love of all that his holy, please don’t give me any more limes. I simply can’t hold any more … But, I am having a great time!”