The death of newspapers?

It seems that every day, there's a new article on whether newspapers are really dying. I of course prefer the ones that take a more optimistic view. I liked this interview with Bob Woodward, who says he and his former Washington Post editor, Ben Bradlee, believe newspapers will survive. It's hard to stay positive under my current circumstances, but reading that one of my heroes believes my industry has a chance makes me feel better.

[via Romenesko]

Read more On "The death of newspapers?"!

A victim of the newspaper industry

It has been far too long since I've posted here. The ethics policy at the paper where I work requires having the editor's permission if you're going to have a public blog, and before I could get permission, the editor resigned.

But, thanks to the economic crisis and the state of the newspaper industry, I am no longer employed at said paper. I was laid off today. We actually were informed of the impending layoffs about three weeks ago and I knew that because I'm the newest person in my position, I had a big target on my back. Through a rather long process, the union members agreed to some concessions involving the 401K and holiday pay and that cut the number of layoffs, as did the generosity of the people in the newsroom, many of whom volunteered to reduce hours and/or take unpaid time off to try to save jobs. It worked -- I lost my job, but I'm the only one in the newsroom to go. It's depressing and I'm freaked out, but I'm happy that all the reporters get to stay. We have some great people who do excellent work and frankly, the paper needs them.

Truthfully, the three weeks of not knowing whether I was going to be able to stay was way worse than getting the news. I didn't tell many people about the layoffs when we first found out because I didn't want to jinx it. But honestly, I'm relieved that I finally just know.
So tomorrow I will go to an unemployment office for the first time in my life and hope that the check will be enough to live on until I find a new job and move out of this town. I was given a severance that's more generous than what the union contract required, so there will be enough money in my savings account to pay for the move. I won't be staying here -- there aren't any other media jobs (at least not the type I want to do) and I didn't want to be here forever anyway -- but it will do until I find a new job.

The thing that makes me sad is that while I have gone through phases of questioning what to do with my life, nothing feels as right as being a working journalist. It's an industry I am passionate about and one that I believe is essential to the maintenance of the entire democratic system. It's hard to even consider leaving that behind. People will say "You have to be flexible and look in other industries," but this is something that I love and something that I want to do. I may have to be flexible about what type of journalism to do, but leaving media behind in general is not an option. If nothing else, I went very far in debt for a master's degree and damnit, I'm going to stay in the field that degree is in.

On to update my resume and think about possible freelance opportunities.

Read more On "A victim of the newspaper industry"!

John Edwards

In recent days, the Raleigh News & Observer in North Carolina has been criticized for "ignoring" a story that has surfaced alleging that John Edwards fathered an illegitimate child with a former employee. The "source" of the original claim was an article in the National Enquirer that cited anonymous sources only.

The only two stories the News & Observer ran were about Edwards' refusal to speak to reporters recently in Washington, D.C., and another about the fact that there is noth father listed on the birth certificate for the baby in question. This is discussed in a column by the paper's ombudsman . The paper's executive editor is quoted as saying: "I don't view the National Enquirer as a credible source of news."

This "story" has me so upset that it's hard

to come up with a response that doesn't involve a lot of cursing and sputtering about the sheer stupidity and gullibility of anyone who believes that a single word in the Enquirer is worth even a second of real journalists' time. Readers, and apparently those on the "blogosphere" have been critical of the paper's refusal (and the "refusal" of other media outlets) to pay as much attention to the story as it would to, say, the Larry Craig Scandal.

Here's the difference. Larry Craig was arrested. There are public records to prove that he was arrested. The sources are on record with real news sources. Larry Craig gave a press conference and "resigned" in the wake of the scandal. Whether or not he actually did the things he is accused of and whether or not he meant those gestures as a sexual proposition is up for question, but the fact that he was arrested? Is NOT. The fact that he was arrested for propositioning a male police officer when he is known for anti-gay stances? Not up for question.

The John Edwards story is something that was printed in a TABLOID. The National Enquirer has been the target of libel suits by several public figures, is known for paying sources for information, and many of its stories have been proven to be false. It is not a newspaper, its stories are not legitimate news and its employees are not journalists.

It is NOT a reliable source for news, and ANYONE who thinks the real media should be covering anything that appears in the Enquirer doesn't know enough about journalism to understand that, and no real newspaper should be bowing to pressure from people who believe that any other media outlet should waste their time reporting on Enquirer stories. I don't know if I should be angry or scared by the fact that people who would consider the Enquirer to be a reliable source of news are allowed to vote. Real journalists are entirely correct for ignoring anything that appears in a tabloid rag and until reliable information surfaces in a respectable media outlet, I would be sorely disappointed in any newspaper that bows to reader pressure to cover the story unless something surfaces to indicate this is in anyway reliable.

Should the media be paying some attention to this? Probably. Reporters should always be keeping their eyes and ears open. Should they be jumping at the chance to cover the "scandal" just because the Enquirer wrote a story? NO. Should they assume that John Edwards' refusal to answer questions comes from anything other than annoyance at the fact that anyone would consider the Enquirer to be a real news source? Hard to say. When a source refuses to answer questions, it generally makes my reporter sense tingle, but I don't blame Edwards in this case.

Read more On "John Edwards"!

Stopping to enjoy some music

When I lived in Washington, D.C., last summer, one of the things I loved was hearing all the street musicians who would perform in or near the Metro stations. I love music and wish I had the nerve or talent to perform in public like that. I have nothing but respect for other musicians and some incredibly talented people played right there on the street. It helps that my favorite musical group, The Coats , got their start singing on the street corner in Seattle.

I didn't always give money to the performers in DC, although I wanted to — I simply don't carry cash and rarely have so much as a quarter on me — but I tried to stop and listen. The first night I was there, while waiting to meet a friend outside the China Town stop, a young man played the saxophone. Another time, just a few blocks away, a man played a brilliant percussion routine on buckets and pots and pans. The effort left him soaked in sweat and drew a large crowd — I was told he played there regularly.

Several times a week until the day the Metro cops chased them away, a group of four men sang old Motown standards A Cappella late at night.

Of course, I was always traveling on the Metro on weekends or at times of the day when people are in less of a rush, but at least a few people stopped for the musicians I saw.

Today, I found a link to a story about what happens when a world-class musician plays in the station during the morning rush hour . The Pulitzer-winning article by Gene Weingarten appeared in the Washington Post Magazine in April 2007. For the article, Weingarten convinced Joshua Bell, a world-class violinist who people pay hundreds of dollars to see, to play inside the L'Enfant Plaza Metro station at rush hour. They discovered that very few people would stop, even for one of the most talented musicians in the world, playing some of the most beautiful music ever written on one of the best instruments ever made (a Stradivarius violin). It's a wonderful article and made me quite sad. Perhaps growing up in the leisurely pace of the Northwest has made me more willing to take time to stop and enjoy the good things in life, or perhaps my own musical training makes me feel compelled to stop and acknowledge when someone is really talented or even when they're not, but are putting themselves out there for the world to judge. Read this article and play the clips — at the end there's one that lets you listen to the entire performance, which you should do. How anyone can hear something that beautiful and not stop, even for a minute, astounds me. I highly recommend taking time out of your day to listen the clip of Bell's performance. The music is just exquisite. Music that beautiful always makes me tear up, and the idea that people could just pass by amazes me. Anything even close to this makes me freeze in my tracks, almost physically unable to keep walking.

It should be said that I found this via a Poynter link to another column in which Weingarten writes that after receiving the Pulitzer for his "original" work, he discovered that a Chicago newspaper had tried the same "stunt" in the '30s, also with a world-class musician. The second Weingarten column is also interesting, but more from a journalistic standpoint

Read more On "Stopping to enjoy some music"!

Hard at work

In the time since I last posted, I've started my new job. In this position, I'll be working primarily on Web content, including new blogs that my paper is rolling out. It's pretty exciting. In the meantime, I'll try to post a few articles here and there. I meant to post this weeks ago when I found it linked in one of my Poynter.org emails.

The Gazette, a paper in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, did a two-week daily series on a prostitution ring in rural Iowa. The whole thing was discovered when a 13-year-old girl who had been kidnapped and forced into prostitution escaped (with the help of the girlfriend of the man in charge) and started talking. The series is quite long -- I think several of the stories could have been condensed -- but it's an interesting piece of investigative journalism and I like the way the project was presented online.

The reader comments tend toward the negative, asking why the paper would devote so much time to something the readers felt was sensationalized, but there aren't enough of them to really make a judgment about what the majority of readers thought.

I asked in our Power Journalism class if the Internet would lead papers to move away from time-consuming investigative work, but pieces like this are proof that that doesn't seem to be happening.

Read more On "Hard at work"!

You know you're a journalist if you ....

The first item on this list was added by yours truly prior to posting the list here. I did not submit it to the site where I found the list.
* corrected the grammar on this list before posting it.
* feel stupid when you can't come up with something more creative than your co-workers.
* like to hang out with your right-brained friends because you're the "wild one."
* aren't concerned with losing your job because it's such a piss-poor field you know they would be doing you a favor.
* understand where the term "starving artist" derived.
* talk in "headline speak" for shits and grins.
* correct your church bulletin with a pen during the service or mark up any newsletter that comes in the mail while you're on the phone.
* insist on explaining to everyone where the grammar mistakes are in any publication or sign.
* actually understand the correct use of commas, semicolons and colons.
* hope you don't get an assignment that requires a lot of driving because your car might break down.
* enjoy reading your dictionary and quizzing your co-workers and friends.
* read an e-mail several times before sending it and making at least three editing changes.
* are pressured into making a list because two other journalist-types already have.
* play Scrabble and go for the word that is the most impressive, rather than the highest scoring.
* kept all the books you read in college but haven't touched them since.
* point out that someone made a grammatical error and your friends/significant others just smile and nod.
* silently deride your reporters' stupidity every time you find a mistake.
* hear about a murder on TV and sigh with relief when you realize it's not in your "coverage area."
* are bothered by the fact that you can't come up with anything clever enough for a list about what writers/journalists actually do.
* mock incorrect grammar while allowing yourself any and all "creative" uses. You are, in fact, a professional.
* are able to attribute your misspellings, such as "independance" or "milenium" to your editors' lack of skill. It's the whole point of having editors, right?
* have ever figured out how much more income you could bring in as manager of Taco Bell.
* have been prescribed at least three different anti-depressants.
* have seriously considered joining the peace corps but couldn't for fear of being stationed nowhere near a Gap.
* like to eat out but don't order wine or appetizers because you can't afford it.
* have ever spent more than three hours in a cafe and used your debit card to pay for your $1.69 grande coffee.

Read more On " You know you're a journalist if you .... "!

We're sorry about all the trees

In about two weeks, I will join the ranks of real, professional journalists when I start my new job at a mid-sized daily in the Pacific Northwest. Those of you who know me personally of course know where I'll be working, but I want to be careful not to mention the name of the paper here. I will have to leave Eugene, which is sad, but I'm thrilled to have a "real" job at last.

In the meantime, what I post here will be determined by whether my paper has a policy on blogging. This was the topic of As newspapers today's "Everyday Ethics" column. start taking on summer interns and young employees, the author writes, it is important for papers to decide what their policies are on personal blogs. More and more of the college-aged employees/interns are going to have them, and it is better to set a policy than for anyone to be surprised. The writer also suggests that the interns themselves be upfront about whether they blog. I certainly hope I'll be able to continue blogging in one way or another. Here are some of the suggested policies from the column:

# Write one. Maybe start a blog about policies. But do it now. It's way too late to claim that blogging is just too new of a phenomenon to merit a policy.
# Reconsider your policy if it states: No personal blogs. Telling a 20-year-old he can't blog is like telling a 50-year-old she can't write a holiday letter. You won't win that one.
# Consider what you're comfortable having employees discuss in public:

* Nothing about the newsroom at all? That might be unrealistic.
* Nothing about stories in development? That seems fair.
* Nothing that puts the company in a negative light? Sure, you've got a right to require that, but you might define negative carefully.
* Nothing about sources? Good idea. Journalists who say things about their sources that they wouldn't put into their stories are treading in dangerous territory.
* Nothing embarrassing or negative about your colleagues. (I had a young journalist once ask me if she crossed a line by blogging about a fellow reporter's bathroom habits. Yes, I told her, I thought that was rude. Maybe not unethical, but definitely rude.)

# I counsel journalists who keep personal blogs to employ a no-surprises rule. Always let your boss know if you have a blog. Ask for guidelines, if they don't exist. Never say anything in the blog that you wouldn't say out loud, to the primary stakeholders. This could all be included in a policy.

I also found a fun feature on Poynter in which journalists were asked to submit possible six-word mottos for the profession. My favorite is the title of this post. I may be concerned about the environment, but the one thing I'll be "wasteful" about is newspapers. I recycle them, of course, but I need the paper. After I move, I'll be reading three papers regularly: the one I work for, the large daily in the area, and the weekend New York Times

Read more On "We're sorry about all the trees"!