A cause that deserves some play

This is the top of the CNN.com home page today. As you can see, there is a picture of unemployed people (mostly mid-career white guys) standing in line to apply for jobs. Next to that picture and story is a photo and article about the growing protests against Wall Street, our gridlocked government and a variety of other social and economic issues.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I support any movement that is going to shine some light on the gross unfairness of what has become a corrupted, rigged-for-the-rich system -- a system that has led to catastrophic unemployment rate and the loss of the American Dream. I also support the media coverage.

While the Tea Party on the far right seems to focus only on one or two issues -- abolishing taxes and supporting gun ownership -- these protesters on the left have a broader sense of what has really caused the collapse of America and what it will take to restore hope. And it isn't more guns or less government intervention.

I applaud this coverage and high-visibility display by CNN and hope other media outlets will give these current movements as much publicity as they gave to the Tea Party and protesters abroad.

Along with the 99 percent finally waking up, maybe the mainstream media has also awakened to the fact that they don't have to go overseas to cover chronic injustices. Perhaps the media will put a little less time into covering one American girl's battle to beat a murder rap in Italy and place more prominence on what is becoming massive movement that addresses issues that impact virtually every citizen of this country.

As prudent news judgment and smart story selection continue to slide, the media has been late on a lot of important and relevant stories in the last decade. Underplaying and overplaying stories is an epidemic in more and more newsrooms and is a factor in creating fertile ground for abuse of power to grow in government and society in general. Missing the boat on the unemployment crisis is quite ironic for an industry that has been as hard hit as any in terms of job loss. I often wonder if a more responsible, competent news media could have prevented a lot of economic pain, not to mention two wars, if it had concentrated more on watchdog journalism instead of pouring limited resources into what is essentially fluff.

Perhaps if editors, news directors, writers and photographers would return to covering news that matters most to our way of life -- to our very existence as a nation -- they would not only help inform an apathetic or often misinformed public, but they would help themselves in restoring the once-positive image of journalism.

Damage done by Irene coverage

Media hype was at a fever pitch last week. It would be easy to blame an uncooperative Hurricane Irene or the forecasters who misread the storm, but once again the fault lies within the newsrooms and corporate offices of America, particularly on the East Coast -- the center of the universe for big media.

While the storm certainly created some nasty weather and flooding, it didn't warrant the closing down of New York City more than 24 hours ahead of the first drop of rain. Imagine the damage that did to the local economy.

By the time the storm reached Washington, it was barely a Category 1. Damage where I live, about 20 miles west of D.C. and over 100 miles away from the Atlantic Ocean, was practically non-existent. Didn't even need to reset a single blinking clock in my house. I know others are suffering without power, but with the way the media was warning us, you would have thought the entire electrical grid was going to collapse.

While I can forgive forecasters for erring on the side of caution, I am not so understanding of media outlets that produced around-the-clock coverage of a storm that was clearly, even to a layman's eyes, no Katrina in strength or in the angle of approach. It lost steam as it traveled up the coast, partially over land that zapped its energy long before it hit NYC.

Politicians were falling all over each other to appear like they were the most-concerned public officials, offering tough-love warnings into any TV camera they could find. But in this case, was all that tough love genuine, or were they using the storm to gain much-needed points in this increasingly combative political environment?

I was particularly bothered by the panic in New York. When I was growing up in and around the Big Apple, New Yorkers prided themselves on being tough and not reacting to every storm like it was the end of the world. Yes, unlike people in Washington, we went to school or work when it snowed. We knew how to drive in the rain and didn't freak out whenever storm clouds gathered. We didn't cancel Woodstock because it rained for three days. We laughed at the rest of the country that seemed soft.

But this is a different time, even for New Yorkers. This is an era of media hype that is driven by news organizations' struggle to survive. This is an era where politicians are desperate for more favorable poll numbers and where lawyers are lined up to sue any state or municipality that appears negligent in preparing citizens for an attack by Mother Nature.

I have written about media hype several times in this blog. I believe the lack of seasoned journalists in newsrooms is contributing to the loss of perspective in how the news of the day is played. Ultimately, this will hurt readership or viewership, but the empty suits don't see it that way right now. They pretend to be long-range thinkers, but their vision is often clouded by falling profits. The corporate types that run big media are not making news decisions based on anything other than money. Many of them have never worked in a newsroom in their lives. They often come from the business side or advertising ranks of TV or print journalism. That was all fine and well when newspapers and evening news broadcasts had big profit margins and the suits didn't interfere in editorial operations.

Then came the recession.

When I was a young reporter and editor, I always had to make a strong case to get a story on the front page. Inevitably, there was a veteran news and/or managing editor who acted as gatekeepers. Truly big stories with proper attribution, facts and significance to the general public went out front, lesser stories went inside. It was the editor's call, not mine, not the circulation director's or even the publisher's. Period. Regardless of my whining, it was their choice where my story was played, and I respected that and learned a great deal about news judgment from their decision-making process. We didn't ignore less important stories. We just didn't waste a lot of time or prominent newsprint on them.

We didn't panic the public just to sell newspapers, and we certainly didn't buy into what politicians or so-called "experts" were telling us if it couldn't be backed up with relevant facts that checked out. But the gatekeepers are mostly gone now -- retired, laid off or dead -- and the rules of the game have changed. Now it's all about quantity versus quality. More news delivered faster trumps a objectivity and accuracy in the minds of the business leaders running news organizations.

The age of tabloid journalism and 24-hour news channels changed the profession even before the recession hit. Everything became "breaking news" even if it wasn't fresh or particularly significant. Now, with the web, it's all about speed and flash, which is why typos are so abundant online.

A Category 1 hurricane isn't anything to take lightly, particularly if you are in the path of it, but it isn't worthy of the coverage Irene received. Ditto on the East Coast earthquake last week. If the media continues to hype these kinds of stories, one has to wonder what news coverage will look like if we experience a real catastrophe.

As the media chases the low-hanging fruit and eye candy (I can't look at another TV reporter standing in the rain with a microphone or a toppled gas station canopy), more significant stories and investigative pieces are being overlooked. Budget cutbacks and layoffs have gutted newsrooms and practically done away with watchdog journalism. The checks and balances that existed in most newsrooms are pretty much gone. The game is now to bombard viewers and readers with trivial information, air the same video footage over and over, and dial up a fancy Flash graphic or two in order to drive web traffic.

This is what for-profit journalism has become during bad economic times. This is, in part, the reason we got the non-stop garbage coverage of a relatively weak hurricane. It wasn't just that the media hyped the coverage, it also gave us nonsensical tips about how to pass the time if the power goes out in our homes or what to do if a tree falls on our cars. It was just ridiculous fluff. But it probably kept people tuned in.

As reporters stand outside in the middle of a storm preaching to us how dangerous it would be not to listen to their warnings (does something seem odd about that that you?) they are not digging through documents in city hall or chasing down tips about corruption in government. While they show close-ups of some fallen bricks after a minor earthquake, they neglect to do the type of journalism that can improve society.

I came out of the post-Watergate era, when people went into journalism in order to make a positive difference, expose injustice and inform the public in a manner that wasn't influenced by dollars. Heck, just talking to someone from our own advertising department was taboo back in the day. The newsroom was separate from all revenue departments for a reason.

I wasn't interested in sensationalizing rain. I was more driven to expose the truth about corruption on the board of education. I wanted to shine a light on problems like homelessness and animal abuse. I sought out the underdogs in society and tried to bring their stories to the front page. I tried to entertain people with columns, features and sports stories. For me, it wasn't about what the executive offices wanted. It was about what I thought our readership wanted or needed to know. If I and everyone else in the newsroom did our jobs, circulation would increase. But that wasn't our primary goal or only focus.

So what I am seeing now in the mainstream media sickens me because I know that without the mass media fighting the good fight, it will be much easier for crooks to hide and for an already apathetic public to stick its head into the sand even deeper. The media resources spent on the quake and Irene last week did not serve journalism or the public very well. Perhaps TV ratings and news website traffic spiked, but what was really accomplished other than creating hysteria at the grocery stores and panic from ailing seniors in New York being transferred from hospitals in preparation for storm surge that never came. In fact, as the media continues to cry wolf in order to boost profits, I wonder if the public will become dangerously skeptical about future storms with much more merit than Irene.

Are things looking up for newspapers?

I have been seeing some positive signs regarding the revitalization of the newspaper industry. That's certainly good news for seasoned guys like me who are looking for a way back into the business or related professions. There are thousands of unemployed journalists with a lot of talent out there -- victims of the recession -- so the competition for good jobs will be intense even if newspapers do rebound. But at least there are some signs of life and hope for those with ink (and pixels) in their veins. Too many good folks are either out of work or are pulling double and triple duty in newsrooms across America. A strong, credible media -- one that doesn't just run on fumes and interns -- is a must for this country. Read the latest from Editor & Publisher.

UPDATE: More good news.

E-media slow to react to California quake

I got an early report of the earthquake near the Mexico-California border today via an e-mail from a friend who lives in San Diego. When I turned on the television to check the cable news stations, there was virtually no information about the quake except on CNN where the downsized B-team was evidently working the Easter holiday shift. Not exactly stuff that would make Walter Cronkite proud.

The latest trend in the media is to let average citizens do the journalistic legwork while allowing most journalists to have the weekend off. That strategy, however, is no substitute for getting images from professional photographers and eye-witness accounts from trained observers/journalists. I saw none of that in the first few hours after today's quake. What I did see was amateur video taken by housewives and children that failed to accurately depict the event and a CNN anchorman who didn't seem to have a grasp of basic geography. It was frustrating to watch a newscast that lacked the most basic information.

As the aftershocks were mounting, FOX News continued to ignore the story entirely, leaving me to think that newscast was prerecorded. When the smiling anchor on FOX finally acknowledged the quake, she didn't seem to comprehend the potential newsworthiness of it and quickly returned to other news that was nothing more than scripted fluff and rehashed stories from the previous week. She didn't appear nimble enough to switch gears. But she had a great smile. And through the aftershocks, the mainstream Web sites weren't on top of the story anymore than TV talking heads.

You would think that after some catastrophic earthquakes lately, a quake near a major U.S. city would draw a greater sense of urgency from the electronic media. This should be when e-media is at its best. I've heard a lot about newsrooms allegedly being 24/7 operations in this new technology age -- about media companies being more competitive than ever. Yet, I saw little evidence of that today. The news out of Southern California trickled to the East Coast today like back in the days of old teletype wire machines. Where was the immediacy and journalistic credibility in the early hours? Tomorrow's traditional newspapers will probably have it covered, particularly in places like San Diego and Los Angeles, but the electronic media was slow to react today, leading me to wonder about the staffing and leadership at these news outlets.

This wasn't a Haiti-type earthquake. Maybe there was no need to call in Brian Williams to man the desk at NBC or get the webmaster out of bed to redesign the home page. But it was another indication that while the storytelling tools of journalism improve, the actual timeliness, professionalism and accuracy of electronic media leaves much to be desired.

Are the crazies getting crazier?

When a family man in his 50s crashes his plane into an Austin building, we read his suicide note, label it a "rant" and determine he was crazy so that we can quickly move on to watching our reality shows or tune in to the latest concerning Tiger Woods.

When a professor shoots her colleagues, the media digs into her past and finds examples of behaviors that quickly and neatly explain why she did what she did this week at an Alabama university. Most folks conclude she must be crazy. The television news wraps up the story in 60 seconds and we switch over to the Jersey Shore to see what the "Situation" is up to. Talk about crazy.

We don't like to think about tragedies like these too much. We just want a tidy explanation to soothe our uneasiness. Simple labels and resolving sound bites on the evening news or home page to alleviate worries that the world might be going to hell. We want to be assured that these are just isolated incidents and not some affliction that is spreading throughout humankind like a virus.

Then there are the more common disturbances we witness and quickly classify before moving on to the next thing. Watch this video news report about a fight that occurred at a Chuck E. Cheese near Memphis. At first, it seems like a Saturday Night Live skit. Here's a sound bite: Stupid people do stupid things. Of course, the reasons behind this incident and the ignorance displayed during the interview, aren't as simple as that.

Let's face it, we're not a shining example of an enlightened species.

The universe probably looks down on us with a degree of disappointment. We run around brawling over parking spaces and shooting everything that moves, including some of the most beautiful creatures on Earth. We kick older people to the curb, like their wisdom or values can't possibly benefit us. We abuse drugs, alcohol and anything else that makes us feel good for a few moments. And the crazies get into fights at Chuck E. Cheese.

We were put on this planet for a reason. I don't know what the specific reason is, but I am guessing it has something to do with evolving to a higher state of consciousness. I think we're built with the potential to be more aware -- aware that tigers are nearly extinct, that education matters, that holding a door for an old lady is still a good thing -- so that we can move forward in our collective development. Are we living up to that potential or just becoming more crazy?

Anyone with an opinion about anything beyond the flavor of the day runs the risk of sounding like someone getting ready to fuel up the old Piper Cub. I guess I should be more careful not to "rant" about society's ills, even during a week where it seems rather obvious to me that there are growing stress fractures in the foundation of our society.

Turn down the anti-Obama volume

I have been listening to talk radio and reading what the pundits are saying in the newspapers since President Obama's State of the Union address earlier this week. I am not sure why so many of these folks seem so eager for Obama to fail. To my way of thinking, we all fail if any president continually stumbles. We elected Obama to succeed and should judge him on performance. So far, that performance has been below average in my opinion.

Critics have a right to question many of the president's decisions and cabinet choices. It's his first year and first years are rarely good for any president. I suspect many Obama appointees won't make it through the first term. I think some of his advisers have been a disaster. It appears Obama didn't select his people wisely. As any kind of executive or hiring manager, hiring is one of the most important tasks. You have to have the right people in order to get things done and to enhance the credibility of the administration. You also have to fire people who show a pattern of incompetence.

But more disturbing than the critiques and political rhetoric are the comments by some talk show hosts like Michael Savage, portraying Obama as an threat to this country, an enemy of America. I don't agree with a lot of what Obama has done (and not done) in his first year, but I don't feel he's intentionally working against Americans. I generally like Savage's radio show because he goes after both sides with equal gusto, unlike a Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. He's a native New Yorker who just seems to make a lot of sense to me, and does it in a way that is entertaining to someone who grew up with a father with a similar viewpoint and style. Still, I wish he'd pull back a bit on the bulls eye that he's place on Obama's back.

The danger in escalating the personal hatred on talk radio is that there are unstable people in this country who might get wound up and try to do something about Obama that could end in tragedy. I wish those who disagree with Obama would turn down the volume and just make their cases based on facts and not personal attacks. Of course, those same personal attacks occurred on the left when President Bush was in office, so maybe this is payback.

Lately, it seems we've lost our ability to debate the issues in a respectful manner. Not only does that raise anxieties, it also takes the focus off the things that need to be fixed. I understand the desire to be loud and get noticed in an increasingly competitive media, but I don't agree with inciting folks who can't process it.

Unreliable news: A recipe for collapse

Here's an interesting article about how downsized newsrooms and the outsourcing of reporting/editing can lead to inaccuracies, journalistic ethical problems and credibility issues in the stories we read or watch on television/online: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/business/media/18papers.html?hpw

Credibility is worth its weight in gold to most legitimate media companies. It's the lifeblood of newspapers like The New York Times. The public is well served by media that strive to get it right. So if the trend of errors and embarrassing mishaps continues, it could mean another financial setback for mainstream news organizations. An unreliable product is not a recipe for success. Without the professional newsroom gatekeepers, almost anything the public reads or views will be suspect and less attractive to customers.

Lack of media coverage part of the problem

An update to the last post. A quick survey of four mainstream media home pages right now shows zero stories about the dire unemployment situation. Only the Wall Street Journal has any mention of unemployment, and that is in a small story about how jobs will impact the 2010 election. I checked CNN.com, USA TODAY, The New York Times and WSJ.