Oooh ... this newspaper hearing is going to be good tomorrow.

[beachmom]

Check out who will be at the hearing:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0509/Kerry_chairs_Future_of_Journalism_hearing.html

Wednesday's first panel, beginning at 2:30 pm in the Russell Senate Office Building, will include Sen. Ben Cardin, who recently introduced a bill to allow certain newspapers to apply for non-profit status.

The second panel includes some well-known names in the media world: Arianna Huffington, David Simon (The Wire, Baltimore Sun), Marissa Mayer (Google), Albert Ibarguen (Knight Foundation), Steve Coll (New America Foundation), and James Moroney (Dallas Morning News).

They got "The Wire" guy to come!! I am watching Season 3 right now, but a later season concentrates solely on the newspaper business.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/bowden-wire

The Angriest Man In Television

Behold the Hack, the veteran newsman, wise beyond his years, a man who’s seen it all, twice. He’s honest, knowing, cynical, his occasional bitterness leavened with humor. He’s a friend to the little scam, and a scourge of the big one. Experience has acquainted him with suffering and stupidity, venality and vice. His anger is softened by the sure knowledge of his own futility. And now behold David Simon, the mind behind the brilliant HBO series The Wire. A gruff fireplug of a man, balding and big-featured, he speaks with an earthy, almost theatrical bluntness, and his blue-collar crust belies his comfortable suburban upbringing. He’s for all the world the quintessential Hack, down to his ink-stained fingertips—the kind of old newshound who will remind you that a “journalist” is a dead reporter. But Simon takes the cliché one step further; he’s an old newsman who feels betrayed by newspapers themselves.

For all his success and accomplishment, he’s an angry man, driven in part by lovingly nurtured grudges against those he feels have slighted him, underestimated him, or betrayed some public trust. High on this list is his old employer The Baltimore Sun—or more precisely, the editors and corporate owners who have (in his view) spent the past two decades eviscerating a great American newspaper. In a better world—one where papers still had owners and editors who were smart, socially committed, honest, and brave—Simon probably would never have left The Sun to pursue a Hollywood career. His father, a frustrated newsman, took him to see Ben Hecht’s and Charles MacArthur’s classic newspaper farce, The Front Page, when he was a boy in Washington, D.C., and Simon was smitten. He landed a job as a Sun reporter just out of the University of Maryland in the early 1980s, and as he tells it, if the newspaper, the industry, and America had lived up to his expectations, he would probably still be documenting the underside of his adopted city one byline at a time. But The Sun let David Simon down.

I recommend the entire article. By the way, unrelated to newspapers, David Simon also made "Generation Kill" about the Iraq War, also well worth seeing.

Guys, watch David Simon tomorrow. I foresee fireworks.

[karynnj]

1. It does seem like this will be an amazing hearing

As it concerns newspapers, it is also likely to get a huge amount of coverage.

[beachmom]

2. The funny thing is that Atlantic article is critical of Simon.

Yet with the Globe close to shuttering, I would say Simon is right. The article is criticizing Simon for using fiction ... to make stuff up. Um ... that's the point of fiction. Simon would have stayed at The Sun, had they not gutted the place (very typical of newspapers these days). I feel like the Atlantic writer was looking for an angle. But with newspapers dropping like flies, his article strikes me as a vanity piece where he can show himself to be Objective while missing the real story. The problem is the editors who Simon hates were the Atlantic writer's friends. Well, his friends collaborated in gutting a newspaper.

Oh, and I may add the Google guy coming is huge, too. That was my worry, that that side of things wouldn't be as covered. I am less thrilled with Arianna Huffington, but I'll be interested to hear what she has to say re: her funding of investigative journalism.

[beachmom]

3. The hearing is going to be broadcast live on c-span 3 at 2:30 PM tomorrow:

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=163100

There has been increasing discussion of the government's role in saving journalism recently. On Monday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about The Globe closing and told reporters, "I don't know what, in all honesty, government can do about it ... Obviously believes there has to be a strong free press ... I think there's a certain concern and a certain sadness when you see cities losing their newspapers or regions of the country losing their newspapers."

In April, a House subcommittee discussed "A New Age for Newspapers." In March, Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin introduced "The Newspaper Revitalization Act," which would allow newspapers to become tax-exempt nonprofits.

Cardin will speak at Wednesday's Senate subcommittee hearing, as will:

Marissa Mayer
Vice president, search products & user experience
Google Inc.

Alberto Ibargüen
President and CEO
The Knight Foundation

David Simon
Author, TV producer and former newspaperman

Steve Coll
Former managing editor
The Washington Post

James Moroney
Publisher and CEO
The Dallas Morning News

Arianna Huffington
Co-founder and editor-in-chief
The Huffington Post

The hearing is scheduled to be televised live on C-SPAN 3 beginning at 2:30 p.m. ET on May 6.

A little more detail on the panel above. This is going to be a good hearing. I recommend setting your DVRs for stun. :)

[karynnj]

4. Not related to the hearing, but to the topic- Eugene Robinson has an interesting Q&A related to this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/05/01/DI2009050102592.html

[beachmom]

5. It says on the c-span schedule that it won't start until 3:23:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=schedule

Definitely on c-span 3, though. 3:23 PM to 5:53 PM.

[karynnj]

6. WSJ article (that is openly available) on Kerry's views

Newspapers may be facing tough economic times, but easing the ban on cross ownership with broadcasters won't save them, the chairman of a U.S. Senate telecommunications panel said Wednesday.

"When you look at how fast technology is moving - how the economics of news delivery really work in an age where everything you read in ink can be found on the Web faster and cheaper and further from where it is printed - well, you are whistling past the graveyard if you think that relaxing cross ownership rules will save newspapers," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet.

<snip>
"As a means of conveying news in a timely way, paper and ink have become obsolete, eclipsed by the power, efficiency and technological elegance of the Internet," Kerry's statement said.

<snip>
The hearing raises several questions about a news business increasingly driven by the Internet. Will online journalism sustain the same values as traditional journalism? Will the emerging media be more fragmented? Who will fund in-depth investigative projects?


http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090506-714634.html

(The WSJ completely missed the bigger points, seeing the big question as allowing consolidation - Titling it US Sen Kerry: Relaxing Ownership Rules Won't Save Newspapers )

This does show that his concern is journalism, not newsprint.

[karynnj]

7. Even the AP article is good

"As a means of conveying news in a timely way, paper and ink have become obsolete, eclipsed by the power, efficiency and technological elegance of the Internet," Kerry said in prepared remarks. "But just looking at the erosion of newspapers is not the full picture; it's just one casualty of a completely shifting and churning information landscape."

Kerry, chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, said newspapers resemble an endangered species. The panel was scheduled to hear from Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., who has proposed allowing newspapers to choose tax-exempt status and operate as nonprofits similar to public broadcasting stations.

Papers would no longer be able to make political endorsements, but could report on all issues including political campaigns. Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax-exempt, and contributions to support coverage could be tax deductible under Cardin's plan. Cardin has said his bill is aimed at preserving local papers, not large newspaper conglomerates.

<snip>
Will the emerging news media be more fragmented by interests and political partisanship?" Kerry asked. "There also is the important question of whether online journalism will sustain the values of professional journalism, the way the newspaper industry has."


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gU_ib8va3SFreAiKqPuVC2C3zkgwD980RDKG1

[beachmom]

8. A story on Huff Puff is pretty prominent on the page there right now:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/john-kerry-newspapers-end_n_197869.html

WASHINGTON — Layoffs, closings and cutbacks have turned the nation's newspapers into an endangered species as readers and advertisers rush to Web sites and blogs, a top lawmaker said Wednesday.

Hours before a Senate hearing on struggling newspapers, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said steps must be taken so the news media can stay diverse and independent.

"As a means of conveying news in a timely way, paper and ink have become obsolete, eclipsed by the power, efficiency and technological elegance of the Internet," Kerry said in prepared remarks. "But just looking at the erosion of newspapers is not the full picture; it's just one casualty of a completely shifting and churning information landscape."

Kerry, chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, said newspapers resemble an endangered species. The panel was scheduled to hear from Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., who has proposed allowing newspapers to choose tax-exempt status and operate as nonprofits similar to public broadcasting stations.

Papers would no longer be able to make political endorsements, but could report on all issues including political campaigns. Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax-exempt, and contributions to support coverage could be tax deductible under Cardin's plan.

Cardin has said his bill is aimed at preserving local papers, not large newspaper conglomerates.



MORE at the link. It is written by a Huff Post writer, I think.

[fedupinBushcountry]

9. You can watch it live here:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.LiveStream

[beachmom]

10. AP report on hearing:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gU_ib8va3SFreAiKqPuVC2C3zkgwD980VPEO0

Senate hears a dim forecast for newspapers' future

Written before the hearing ended, btw.

[beachmom]

11. Good clip from NECN:

http://www.necn.com/Boston/NECN-Extra/2009/05/06/Senator-Kerry-talks-Twitter/1241638900.html

Good clip of David Simon:

http://www.necn.com/Boston/NECN-Extra/2009/05/06/Former-Baltimore-Sun-reporter/1241641082.html

[beachmom]

13. In case anyone is interested in what I am blathering about with The Wire,

someone JUST WROTE a diary about it. Lots of You Tube clips of the show to check out:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/6/728417/-Hamsterdam

[beachmom]

12. Best article I have read so far was in the Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22204.html

Here is a good part:

Following the testimonies, Moroney, voicing the concerns of many newspaper executives, said that the way the Huffington Post uses content of The Dallas Morning News "isn't a fair use."

Senator McCaskill (D-Mo.)-a self-described "huge fan" of "The Wire"-addressed Simon over a shared concern about the depleting resources for investigative journalism at the state and local level, despite Huffington's talk of her own site's new investigative fund.

Simon joked about whether he'd ever run into a Huffington Post reporter doing the less-glorious leg work of attending a Baltimore zoning board hearing, before talking about how without such coverage, "it's going to be a great time to be a corrupt politician."

Laughter sounded in Room 253 of the Russell Office Building as Simon continued addressing the Senators.

"I really envy you," he said.

[Muttocracy]

14. I only heard part of the hearing but caught that - it was a great moment

Simon kept bringing it back to the real difference between small-town-reporters and national bloggers that Huffington kept glossing over.

[TayTay]

15. Simon sounded self-serving to me and unable to admit things have changed

Simon correctly dated the demise of newspapers to the advent of Wall St entering the news market. He also mentioned that papers like the Baltimore Sun were very profitable in the early 90's, often with returns of 30% or more, and STILL had their news room staff cut. The Wall St analysts were squeezing every penny during the good years and monetizing the news.

There is zero chance of "beat reporters" coming back, irrespective of Internet intrusion into the news. The people who owned newspaper and news companies abandoned things like "beat reporters" 15-20 years ago. Simon's complaints to Arianna Huffington sound to me like Simon is attacking the wrong messenger. The Huffington Post has nothing to do with Simon's complaints about the newspaper barons and their ignorance of journalism. The turn away from hard news and in depth local news predates the Huffington Post by over a decade.

No one is willing to pay for beat reporting, therefore it will either die or adapt to the new environments. If people want and value that service then a new way of doing it has to come about. That new way may well be the citizen journalists that Huffington talked about. It sure as hell is not going to be the major newspaper organizations unless the model changes. Right now we will continue seeing news covered more and more as gossip. It's cheaper to produce.

[beachmom]

16. I agree. I was disappointed that David Simon was so behind the times

on the potential of the internet. He actually totally is one of his characters on the show -- McNulty. McNulty is "good police" and actually improved some things in the police dept. But he was so damned stubborn and undiplomatic that he really only temporarily made things better, and often did not see the big picture in fixing things or just would shoot off his mouth and destroy what he was trying to fix. Simon is the same way. He is still angry at what happened at the Sun, and looks at the world of journalism and media around him with suspicion and contempt.

Still, I think his lament was worth an airing. There is nothing wrong with taking a moment to mourn what has been lost. But the truth is that you need to sell what you are writing somewhere. People love the corruption stories, but a lot of beat reporting leads to nothing interesting. I do feel a beat reporter should have covered the city of Wasilla though. THAT would have been good copy. Based on my experience writing diaries on DailyKos, "serving the public interest" often doesn't sell. The diary I wrote yesterday was largely ignored or people would comment on why there was a hearing, who cares, etc. In short, they weren't buying what I was trying to sell, for FREE. Yet this morning, Morning Joe did discuss this issue and show a clip of the hearing (with David Simon, who did say something funny about how corruption was now going to flourish). THAT could be sold. But not the chore of actually having to watch the entire hearing and comment on it. Only Karynnj and I did that.

Certain issues sell in certain places. The newspaper story is more popular in MSMland. Less so on the blogs. I hate to say it but local issues are oftentimes very dull and boring. I think it would be a case of charity to have to cover my city, for example, as nothing happens here, and years of work may lead to zero exposes. Baltimore is maybe more interesting, but if corruption is the norm, even THAT gets boring.

A lot to think about.

[TayTay]

17. There is a model for local reporting

And people care incredibly about how issues are reported locally. The growth area for blogging is in covering local school committee and zoning and housing board events.

http://orangepolitics.org/">OrangePolitics is a hugely successful blog that only covers politics in Orange County, North Carolina. The editor doesn't cover national stories. The editor of Blue Hampshire told me that there are a lot of pols in NH who have no idea what Daily Kos is, but they sure as hell know Blue Hampshire and how many times there names have been on that blog and in what stories and so forth.

In a lot of ways, Huffington is the wrong person to speak for Internet news. I actually dislike HuffPo a lot. I find the site terribly designed, difficult to navigate and the emphasis on "celebrity" writers to be misplaced and often embarrassing. I wish they had Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo instead of Huffington. (Then Josh could have been made to answer the accusations of sexism that Politico made against it in an online article published within the last week. That was interesting.)

There is a huge growth market in local news on the Internet. There are lots of people who do know what local zoning rules mean and who is making money off of those rules. There are people online with expert knowledge of local rules and conditions and those folks have an audience. Local issues, by definition, are never going to attract a huge audience or get any mentions on the big blogs. That does not mean they are not out there doing their thing.

[beachmom]

18. Well, I will tell you how it is here:

A couple times a week, there is a free newspaper dropped at my driveway. It covers the local area. It is not very good, and they actually run Bill O'Reilly's syndicated column, for which even conservatives wouldn't read online. I would throw it directly in the trash, but then they had a pic of my daughter in it which I missed (I found out a week later from her). So now, I make myself go through it, but this is not a paper that is going to really hold powers that be accountable.

There are a few decent blogs in GA, but it's all hit and miss. Nothing like you describe in Orange County. In general, the GA blogosphere is dominated by Erick Erickson of Red State fame. He is feared somewhat by local pols. He is also a hack. He recently called David Souter a goat f***ing child molestor on his Twitter. I would prefer a paid beat reporter at the AJC to him. There is a guy who covers the GA legislature, but I think he missed the secession amendment that got slipped in. A political reporter at the AJC caught that one.

I am less hopeful than you, Tay. I don't see that future of great local blogs. People need to be paid. I think Blue Mass Group sucks. When it is not infuriating, it is hopelessly dull. And seeing that I am from the area originally (over the border in Conn.) and because I like JK know a bit about Mass. politics, that says something.

As to Huff Post, it's not my favorite. They do once in a while have a good story or at least some good LINKS to a good story. I do check it though. Honestly, sometimes it's better than DailyKos, at least in terms of variety. I don't care about celebrity stuff, as long as there is enough hard news. I mean the celebrity stuff is what gives Huff Post the hits, and then at least once there, people can see some more serious stuff.

I would have preferred Jeff Jarvis at the hearing. He is the one who has examined the issue. I will give Arianna credit for bringing up a lot of Jeff's arguments.

[TayTay]

21. If there is no interest in paid beat reporters or money for them in GA

then they will cease to exist. Journalism is expensive and has to be paid for. Writers expect to be able to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. If there is no market for this in GA, then there is no force that can make it spring into life.

People get the government they want and deserve. Usually political forces build up over time and force change. You saw this happen in VA, but it didn't happen over night and it didn't happen evenly everywhere in the State.

This is how it happens in the corrupt parts of all states, including mine. People tolerate corruption until it affects them. That is the way it has always been. There is nothing that anyone from any other state or region can do to make the people of GA care about their own politics. (Nor can others make MA folks care, etc.) This is built organically over time. Or not. People get the govt they deserve.

[beachmom]

20. Thanks for the scoop on that Politico article on TPM. Here it is for

those who are interested:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F946AA5E-18FE-70B2-A8BADEEA2F4E8C43

I can imagine quite a few internet start ups are also like "boys' clubs" as well. The liberal blogosphere STILL is dominated by men. Maybe that is the other reason why I give Huff Post a look every day. That's a woman owned business.

[beachmom]

26. Gawker.com makes the same argument:

http://gawker.com/5243523/david-simon-dead+wrong-dinosaur

What David Simon wants, I want as well: extensive coverage of local, state and federal government (even if that means no reports for 6 months until a story can be put together). However, it hasn't happened in newspapers for a long time at least on a consistent basis nor is it happening on blogs/independent sites either. Yes, you can always point out examples, but they are exceptions, not rules. That was my point. I am not talking about GA per se, but I would argue that these things are MOSTLY not being covered across the country, with some exeptions here and there (more concentrated on the West Coast, apparently).

And it depends on unpaid individuals. Sometimes they can't do it anymore for whatever reason, and they will not be replaced. I also read that the local TV channels don't have as many resources as newspapers. And bloggers have less resources than the local TV channels. It is getting worse and worse.

My only complaint with David Simon is that he thinks we can go backwards to a bygone era that in fact never existed. Not going to happen, David.

But if you look at what has happened to music, I am not optimistic at all with the future of journalism with the exception of covering Washington where economies of scale can make it work. Music is in decline, as record companies have declined. John Mellencamp wrote a piece on Huff Post where he sounds like David Simon, citing mistakes the music biz made before the internet. That is true, but that doesn't change the fact that music is in decline. Sure there are hits, and there are places to listen to music. But it will never be like it was before. So it will go with news. The internet did not replace in the case of music, at least not yet. I have seen nothing where there are totally awesome great internet web radio where you can listen to it in your car. Hasn't happened yet. Satellite radio has been a response, but they are currently in trouble. I Tunes has not been a great deal for the music biz, and I see no renaissance. So, as far as pessimism goes, I am with David Simon.

[Muttocracy]

23. I'll have to watch the whole thing. I really worry about coverage of local government in NYS

so maybe that resonated with me. NY has lots of layers of local government and so few people run for office, vote on measures, attend local meetings, pay attention to what's happening. The old newspaper model has been failing for a while, but I hope a new business model can arise. Several local papers in Southern Tier NY have merged their reporting across multiple cities and it's making them worthless because they get basic facts and context wrong. The "news" is often old. Better investigative reporting is being done by weekly free newspapers, who seem to be surviving via advertising somehow, but since they're weekly, they're not as responsive. They might be able to transition into better online formats though.

[beachmom]

19. So sue me I liked this Dana Millbank piece. He doesn't make fun of JK for once,

but I do think he covers the mood of the hearing about right. He points out everyone's flaws in the debate. Too funny -- best coverage from Politico and the snarky WP columnist. Go figure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050603969.html?hpid%3Dnews-col-blog&sub=AR

Some Senatorial Tears for the Ink-Stained Wretches

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, May 7, 2009

They came as if to their own funeral.

Reporters from Hearst, USA Today, McClatchy, the Dallas Morning News, The Washington Post, the Washington Times and the Boston Globe -- their employers in varying stages of decline or death -- took their places at the press table for a Senate subcommittee hearing yesterday titled "The Future of Journalism."

"I hope I get laid off," one of the reporters could be heard telling a Senate staffer, "so I can get the severance."

A newspaper industry official introduced James Moroney, publisher of the Dallas Morning News, to Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.). "He's a real, live newspaper publisher!" the official marveled.

The eulogies were read.

Go to the link to read the rest, so WP can get paid 40 cents or whatever.

But, I would say this is the best round up of what happened. Good Morning Silicon Valley:

http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2009/05/newspapers-salvation-google-gadgets-and-gumption.html

[karynnj]

24. I like his summary

Especially the 2 last paragraphs. The snark makes it run to read and I hope pick up what I think he is trying to say.

He understood what the Columbia Journalism blog completely missed. The point of Kerry trying to get the Goggle VP to really answer how the money is distributed is that that is key to any internet business model for paper's. The Google VP actually first went off on a tangent instead explaining how Google tries to select what is wanted - ie pictures of a dog, dogs for sale etc - that was completely not what Senator Kerry was asking. Eventually, she kind of ended up describing less clearly with no numbers what sounded like what Kerry said. Put that with his questions to the internet people of what the value to them was of the content on MSM sources.

The root of a solution, if there even is one, might be that the compensation model change. This of course won't happen unless it is seen as in the vested interests of the companies like goggle. Only when faced with losing access to much or all of that content would they consider paying themselves less and the actual content people more. So, putting together the value to them and the talk of limited anti-trust waivers, there may be pressure to have some kind of tiered payments - where a newspaper article will earn more.

This might not be feasible. The DMN guy computed the number of hits needed - 30 times what he gets - to carry the cots of the newsroom. The hard thing is that to help him would require paying something like at least 10 times as much. Then if they either ceased printing or raised the prices with the intention of moving more people online and in the case of those still buying the print copy increase revenue. I have no idea how doing that will impact the number of hits. If half the people are already reading it on line, moving them could then double the number of hits. Getting him to $20 out of his $30 - and this is with getting 10 times as much! ( more ad revenue might flock to the internet as newspapers disappear.)

[beachmom]

22. More links, if the topic interests you:

http://www.memeorandum.com/090507/p49#a090507p49

http://www.memeorandum.com/090507/p23#a090507p23

[beachmom]

25. Good "old media" analysis of Google testimony:

http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-would-google-do-about-newspapers.html

The writer dissects everything the Google VP said. Interesting.

[beachmom]

27. WSJ to start charging micropayments:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/55deae06-3dc2-11de-a85e-00144feabdc0.html

WSJ plans micro-fees for online articles
By Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson and Kenneth Li in New York

Published: May 11 2009 03:00 | Last updated: May 11 2009 03:00

News Corp plans to introduce micro-payments for individual articles and premium subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal's website this year in a milestone in the news industry's race to find better online business models.

"A sophisticated micropayments service" will launch this autumn, Robert Thomson, editor-in-chief of Dow Jones and managing editor of the Journal, told the Financial Times.

The move will position the Journal as the first big newspaper title to adopt a model many are studying cautiously as they seek to reduce dependence on plunging advertising revenues.

It comes as John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator leading congressional hearings on the future of journalism, told the FT it was conceivable that publishers could be given limited exemption from antitrust laws to discuss online models.

...

Mr Thomson said the Journal saw an opportunity in its US metropolitan rivals' weakness, adding: "We're going to move in on each of the big cities."

It has begun marketing campaigns in cities such as Detroit and San Francisco, where local publications are struggling, having moved to broaden the title's appeal by playing up local political and sports coverage on its website.

Several newspapers, hoping to replicate the success of business newspapers in charging for web content, are working with Journalism Online, a venture developing micro-payments and subscriptions.

I don't know if it will work for Murdoch, but if they are going to dominate the internet the way they dominate cable TV (still), this is not good.

[ProSense]

28. Another commentary on the hearing

Commentary: News can outlast newspapers

By Julian E. Zelizer
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. His new book, "Arsenal of Democracy: The Politics of National Security -- From World War II to the War on Terrorism," will be published this fall by Basic Books. Zelizer writes widely about current events.

(CNN) -- Last week, Sen. John Kerry convened a discussion of the troubled state of journalism in America by way of a hearing by the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet.

In Kerry's home state of Massachusetts, the Boston Globe is barely surviving. Several major metro papers have closed down, and there are indications that many more could soon follow. Experts have been warning in recent months that much of the newspaper industry may not survive.

While the end of the metro newspaper would constitute a huge blow to journalism and the political system, realistically there might be nothing that we can do. The popularity of news on the Web and the potential of mobile devices such as the Kindle makes it difficult to see how we can sustain news in print -- unless electronic delivery can produce enough revenue to support the cost of newspaper staffs.

Sometimes technological innovations and consumer preferences cause changes that are irreversible. The industry has seen other important shifts in the way that Americans receive their news, such as the advent of television news in the 1950s and 1960s.

But the real issue is not whether we can save the newspapers, but how we can create the best Internet news system possible. As Kerry said in his opening statement: "There also is the important question of whether online journalism will sustain the values of professional journalism, the way the newspaper industry has."

more

[beachmom]

29. This Economist article really adds to the conversation.

I'm not even going to excerpt it. Just go over and read it:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13642689&source=hptextfeature

They cover all bases.

[beachmom]

30. This is a good post, too:

http://www.welovedc.com/2009/05/14/the-newspaper-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-7780

[karynnj]

31. The WSJ chimes in with an obnoxious attack on the Senator

Twisting beyond recognition, Kerry's use of the phrase, "fourth estate", that has always meant a FREE press, to suggest it meant that the press was part of government. I doubt the writer was that stupid and ill informed - just that he was hoping readers were.

Here is an excerpt and the link:

Ink-stained Politicians
Newspapers shouldn't get—or want—a government bailout.

That wisdom apparently doesn't extend to Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who held a hearing on the future of newspapers -- and how the federal government can help. "If we take seriously this notion that the press is the fourth estate, or the fourth branch of government," Mr. Kerry said in a prepared statement, it's time we consider its importance to democracy. Talk about a Freudian slip. Newspapers becoming the "fourth branch of government" is exactly what people most fear from any hand extended to save an independent press.

Mr. Kerry is especially worried about the Boston Globe, which admires him greatly and was recently threatened with closure in a showdown between unions and its owner the New York Times Co. In its most recent endorsement of Mr. Kerry last October, the Globe enthused that "The case for reelecting John Kerry would be strong under any circumstances . . . the country needs his voice more than ever."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124242512977025161.html

Here is what I wrote - but I doubt they will print it. (It is moderated)

Ink-stained Politicians completely distorts Senator Kerry's hearing in the Communications Sub-committee of the Commerce Committee. I watched the entire hearing on CSPAN. There was not witness or one Senator who recommended a bailout in any form. The types of help even talked about were things like a limited relaxation of anti-trust laws to allow the newspapers, as a group, to negotiate better compensation from news aggregators, like google. No newspaper, individually has the leverage to do this. It is completely reasonable to have a hearing in the Commerce Committee when systematic structural changes has put an entire industry in peril. Here is a link to the hearing - http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=285745-1

The phrase, "fourth estate" was used as long ago as the 19th century to refer to a free press, with the idea that it was necessary in a democracy as a check against the government. Senator Kerry has always spoken of the importance of a free press. He co-sponsored Senator Lautenberg's 2005 bill, S266, defined as "Stop Government Propaganda Act - Imposes a civil penalty on a senior official of an Executive branch agency who authorizes or directs funds appropriated to such agency for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States."

The fact is that this hearing was clearly planned before the Boston Globe was in trouble - probably as soon as Kerry was given the chair of that sub-committee. In addition, while the Boston Globe has always endorsed Senator Kerry, their coverage of him also includes low points on their side - such as when their reporter, given the first question when Kerry announced he would be treated for cancer, attacked the Senator's honesty and integrity for not telling him 2 weeks earlier when he had rudely asked why he looked so bad.

Now, does the WSJ have any vested interest here? Maybe that they would benefit if serious papers in various cities collapsed.

[beachmom]

The editorial board of a newspaper is separate from other parts of the paper.

The WSJ should know this already. The truth is Kerry gets a lot of unfair coverage in the Globe as we know. They write these awful innuendo snark articles about him, then their editorial board endorses him. Sorry, but this sets up people to think poorly of the Senator. The set up is the Globe is "in the tank" for the Senator, yet when they write scathing articles, people think, "gee, even the Globe who is in the tank for Sen. Kerry thinks he is an idiot!".

I actually have thought about the situation, and frankly, I think the Globe is getting what it deserves. They suck, didn't even cover the Tony Blair hearing (before the hearing they put up a post with two paragraphs plus a cut and paste of Kerry's opening statement which could be had on the SFRC site without the Globe's help, thank you very much), and deserve to fail.

In fact, these monopolistic papers need to face reality: their model no longer works, and more and more of us are not willing to pay for their mediocrity. If the AJC died here (but they kept something on line), I would not shed a tear. Newspapers have tried to be everything to everyone, and given the example of how both I and the WSJ think little of the Globe is why they are going the way of the dinosaurs. I think this country needs good journalism, not dinosaur newspapers that seem to combine arrogance and spinelessness when faced with right wing bullying. Let them die.

There was no call for a bailout for the newspapers, and let's keep it that way. NO BAILOUT.

Whoops -- forgot to tell you Karen that you put together a nice letter. But these idiots will see what they want to see. They declared war on the "liberal media" years ago. The difference now is I think at least half the left has given up on newspapers, too. It was the Iraq War that did it, and even the way Kerry was treated during the swiftboating.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[karynnj]

33. Very thoughtful article on the hearing and the issues around it

Short theme - legislation created the playing field where Google et al have succeeded. Legislation often does define the way business works. It then goes through some ideas - some vaguely alluded to in the hearing.

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_2_0_t&usg=AFQjCNH7T2Ao1BBhjF-qkl6o9f-EIFXGdA&cid=1352137573&ei=iYgPSujmCqXmNbXLik8&rt=STORY&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2009%2F05%2F15%2FAR2009051503000.html

[beachmom]

34. Markos is vigorously against these proposals:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/17/732381/-Clinging-to-a-dead-biz-model-for-dear-life

I'm going to read through it all now. But I have to say that I am beginning to really get worried that the newspaper industry is ready to declare war on US, the consumers. They'll say it's against Google, but frankly, Google has been doing what we want. But ... let me read on before I say anything more.

[beachmom]

35. Okay, you guys -- this would quite literally put a ton of sites out of business

in order to prop up mediocre newspapers:

Federalize the "hot news" doctrine. This doctrine protects against types of poaching that copyright might not cover -- the stealing of information not by direct copying but simply by taking the guts of the content. While the Internet has made news vulnerable to pilfering because of the ease of linking from one site to the next, the hot-news doctrine has limited use because it is only recognized in a few states.

Now that many news aggregator sites have taken "linksploitation" to a commercial level by selling ads wrapped around the links they post, Congress has the incentive it needs to pass a federal law protecting hot news. Such a law would give publishers an additional source of legal leverage outside of copyright to demand fair compensation for the content they create.

This would mean, if somebody posted a breaking news item on DU, then Skinner could get sued. This is utter crap. This goes completely against the concept, advocated by Kerry, of openness on the internet.

This jerk is saying we are "pilfering" their crap simply because someone will want to discuss or point to a NYT article that just broke.

[karynnj]

36. Keith Olberman has a Daily Kos Diary referencing the Markos one

I agree with you that things proposed by the WP are not good. I didn't see the ramifications of some of the proposals. What I think is good is that there is beginning to be a real discussion. Those proposals err in killing the freedom of the internet - but the current rules might need some changing to keep real news in an era when things are moving to web. The thick is to get a good balance.

His comment about the risk of vanity presses, owned by people like Richard Mellon Scaife could outlast the better papers.

[Mass]

37. Well, at this point, both sides are defending their business with a lot of disingenuity.

Newspapers understand that the internet has changed the way business is done. They cling to their business and want to defend it. (I started to read the editorial, but stopped quickly, because while they had some good points, the column was very self serving, which is not surprising).

On the other side, blogs and internet business, small and big, corporations or not, are allying themselves (even when it does not make any sense - Google will kill the small sites when they will think they can kill the business. Some day, Blogger will cost a fee -- as any service should --. And some day, just a few big information website will still exist, playing the same games the print media are playing. I remember the way the Internet boom started nearly 20 years ago. Either the companies got big, either they got acquired by the brick and mortar companies that existed then, or they disappear.

But, for now, they all ally to refuse to recognize that getting this information that makes them exist has a cost and that somebody has to pay for it. Good reliable information requires reporters that are dedicated to it and reasonably unbiased. This requires money. There are 2 basic ways this money comes from: readers or advertisement. From experience, we know advertisement has a cost when it comes to freedom of the editorial line. If one of your big customer is Total, you're less likely to spend a lot of time talking about global warming, and if it is a pharmaceutical company or an insurance company, it is less likely to argue against high medical costs.

In addition, I hope that people are going to think about the monopoly Google is starting to have. A few days ago, Google had an outage that took them a few hours to repair. It was a real eye opener for me of the problem Google was starting to present. During this few hours, many information sites were unreachable, as well as bank sites, and other sites. This is a real problem and will be one all along if something is not done.

So, while I am neither surprised nor shocked that WaPo is trying to defend his business and that people like Ariana and Markos are doing the same on their side, none have the customer interest at heart. Hopefully, somebody will start to think at the very multiple problems that this situation brings. In my opinion (and this is all it is), the problem is bigger than what happens to the newspaper industry. It is the center of our democracies and has existed for a while now:

- Who find the information? How is this financed? How are these people trained and what are their ethic standards?
- How is this information distributed to the public? How do we control that one or two poles do not control this? How is the distribution financed?

These are still the most important questions, in my opinion.

[beachmom]

40. NPR and PBS have shown how a nonprofit with government backing can work.

I have read that Jim Lehrer has not had to lay anyone off during this difficult time, and that his audience, although small compared to the networks, remains steady. I think that is because serious news seekers will always stick with a good quality service even if snappier things happen on the internet.

I certainly am willing to pay for certain news: I subscribe to a couple of magazines and do donate to PBS/NPR. What I am not willing to support is poor products like my local newspaper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution (which is down I believe 20%). However, if I lived in either the DC or New York area, the WaPo and the NYT, with all their flaws, are very high quality products, and worth subscribing to since you would get your local, national, and international news all at the same time.

So, in short, the internet has meant that I read the NYT much more than I ever would had it not existed. The other thing that is coming out (which is disturbing) is that a lot of young people read or watch no news at all no matter the medium. That is more troubling.

[Mass]

41. The examples you are quoting are a perfect illustration on the difficulty of financing a paper or a

TV show. During the Bush years, there has been multiple examples of how ideology was interfering with PBS editorial line (at least as much as with print paper). They have also come to rely more an more on "sponsoring", which is the other name of advertisement (at least in our area), and it has also altered what we are seeing (and The NewsHour is a fairly good example of that. While they are still better than most, they have become a lot of the usual BS when it comes to reporting, with relatively little investigative work, largely relying on AP news feed and other papers investigative work, and interviews to make their point. The only good thing is that these pundits are a lot more academic and knowledgeable than on cable news), and PBS certainly do not fit the need for local news (in Massachusetts at least), which is the one that is the most affected by the current crisis. If my local paper fall -- and it is already a weekly paper, as most in the area -- , no paper in the next state is going to cover its life. I can read international and to some point national news on the web, but what about what happens in our little town and can be as or more important for our daily life and we need to be informed. This is what I am interested in right now: the right to have access to the news I need. Reading Huff does not give me that.

As for young people reading or watching no news, there may be a different problem, starting with education (1 kid in college and 1 in high school and I have seen them study a lot of Shakespeare and other classics, but reading papers and learning how to read them "critically" is another issue (Thanks to NCLB).

I am not advocating government bailout. In fact, I am very much against govt giving money to papers. I am just suggesting the problem is a lot harder than both print paper and blogs make it, and that there is a discussion that is very complex. I see some internet media (HuffPost, dailykos, and probably their Republican equivalents, that I do not read) become as bad as their cable and print equivalent. I see companies like Google become de facto monopolies. Just saying "Do nothing" is not the solution. Just giving money to traditional media is not the solution, and, as far as I can see, these are the two solutions that are being advocated by most, because those who are talking about it have financial interest in this fight and not necessarily the best interest of the customer in sight).

I do not think we are that far apart. It is just that I want to hear more on how these news will be investigated, before I hear how they will be delivered.

[beachmom]

43. The way I see it, we are going to go through a bad period where

local newspapers die, yet nothing on line truly comes close to replacing them (notably local news). But, I am an optimist that over time somebody will see a niche has not been served, create a new business model (for profit or non profit), and we will start to get better stuff. I think the internet has far more possibilities than TV. I also don't think Google will start to charge for things like blogger, because what makes the internet rule over TV is the interactivity and the idea that ANYONE with something to say can do so publicly and cheaply. Google knows that is where the power is, so changing that would essentially take away from what attracted people to the internet in the first place. They could have charged from the beginning but chose not to. I just can't see that changing.

Just for different thoughts on the topic, I watched Jeff Jarvis on c-span book tv this weekend. Many may not agree with him, but I do think his ideas should be added to the mix:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=285078-1

Jarvis seems to have a similar reaction as Markos to that op-ed:

http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/05/16/first-stop-the-lawyers/

Ha, I love this quote from a commenter on WaPo:

A lesson worth remembering is at the turn of the 20th century people had a transportation problem…and the solution turned out not to be a “faster horse”…but a Ford.

And one should note that the Ford didn’t arise out of the “Horse Industry Revitalization Act”.

[Mass]

38. Amusing. How do you copy a full paragraph inadvertently?

May be things like that are part of the problem? MoDo thinks she is too famous to follow the law.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/thejoshuablog/2009/05/ny-times-maureen-dowd-plagiari.php?ref=fpd

UPDATED: NY Times' Maureen Dowd Plagiarizes TPM's Josh Marshall

...

Amusing. In my world, this could not happen to a better choice. MoDo has long ago stopped having any ethics in her work (remember the quote she invented during the 2004 campaign about Kerry and elitism) and Josh is one of my favorite blogger, probably because he does he work well, with some ethics and journalistic standards.

[beachmom]

39. Thanks. Someone needs to get this kind of info to Kerry.

There is a CW that the old media has journalistic ethics and the new media does not. Obviously, it's not that simple.

[beachmom]

45. Glenn Greenwald addresses the claim that blogs are mere parasites:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/18/parasites/

Someone needs to ask David Simon about this:

It's difficult to quantify, but a large percentage of political reporters, editors, television news producers, and on-air pundits read political blogs or other online venues now. Many do so precisely because blogs are a prime source for their story ideas. Contrary to the myth perpetrated by establishment media outlets, there is substantial original reporting, original analysis and the like that takes place on blogs. That's precisely why so many journalists, editors and segment producers read them. And while some are quite conscientious about identifying the online source of the material they use -- The New York Times' Scott Shane recently credited Marcy Wheeler for a major, front-page story on torture and previously wrote an article hailing FireDogLake as having the best coverage of any news organization of the Lewis Libby trial -- credit of that sort is still rare enough that it becomes noteworthy when it happens.

The tale of the put-upon news organizations and the pilfering, parasitical bloggers has always been more self-serving mythology than reality. That's not to say that there's no truth to it, but the picture has always been much more complicated. After all, a principal reason for the emergence of a political blogosphere is precisely because it performed functions that establishment media outlets fail to perform. If all bloggers did was just replicate what traditional news organizations did and offered nothing original, nobody would read blogs. And especially now, as bloggers and online writers engage in much more so-called "original reporting" and punditry, the parasitical behavior is often the reverse of how it is depicted. The Maureen Dowd/Josh Marshall episode is a particularly vivid and dramatic example of that, but it is far from uncommon.

[Mass]

42. John Nichols, who is far from being my favorite columnist at the Nation, has an interesting take

on the hearing. I guess I will have to read Nichols more carefully in the future (and agree with him surprisingly a lot).

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_nichols18_05-18-09_FREBCPG_v12.40741e7.html

Simon frankly acknowledges that there may not be a cure. Kerry called newspapers “endangered.” Simon said, “I don’t know if it isn’t too late already for American newspapering. So much talent has been taken from newsrooms over the last two decades and the ambitions of the craft are now so crude, small-time and stunted that it’s hard to imagine a turnaround.”

...

Much was made of the supposed clash between “old-media” Simon and “new-media” Huffington. The New York Times spilled digits about it, with an unsettlingly defensive post by Eric Etheridge. And Jane Hamsher wanted everyone to know that “Online News is Not Arianna Huffington’s Dastardly Plot to Destroy the Newspaper Industry.”

The truth is that both Simon and Huffington are right, as this writer, University of Pennsylvania Prof. C. Edwin Baker, Bernie Lunzer, of the Newspaper Guild, and Ben Scott, of Free Press, explained during a more nuanced hearing organized several weeks ago by the House Judiciary Committee.

The key is to find a way to make sure journalism survives even if newspapers do not, and, frankly, neither Simon nor Huffington — nor any of their fellow presenters at the Kerry hearings — had much to offer in this regard.
...
There will be time for the debate about solutions. For now, it is not just useful but necessary to be clear about the cause of the crisis in American journalism. On this point, what Simon says is spot on.

It wasn’t the Internet. It isn’t the current recession. It was a lousy newspaper-ownership model that saw civic and democratic values replaced by the rapacious greed and commercial calculations of big media companies.

[beachmom]

44. Good article. Still, I think entrepeneurial capitalism is going to be

a big part of what happens next. I really have no idea how you can regulate this industry. I mean, what kind of regulation would he have suggested back in the '90s? Maybe some basic journalist ethics, but you can't MAKE someone cover a zoning board meeting.

[beachmom]

46. Okay, I'll admit when I get something wrong:

This was a pretty good piece of investigative journalism by the AJC (I said they never do investigative journalism):

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2009/05/10/oxendine_campaign_funding_governor.html

On the left side, they even explain how the story came about. VERY interesting. Take that, David Simon.

[beachmom]

47. Why Arkansas's Democrat-Gazette charges on line subscriptions:

So people keep buying the print version:

http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/2009/05/between-little-rock-and-a-hard-place.html

Newspapers charging on line subscriptions is not a long term solution. David Simon mentioned this paper as a profitable paper because it charges on line. But I don't think this will work for most papers:

Demographics: Little Rock is a fairly conservative market with an older population and a fairly low level of broadband Internet penetration. That may give a built-in edge to print, at least for now.

The paper only has 3400 subscribers which yields $200,000 in revenue a year. That is not a business model that is going to work. Plus:

But there's an even bigger reason why the Democrat-Gazette's model may not be the ideal for all of those who are clamoring for paid news Web sites: Hussman's core motivation of protecting the print product. Too many paid-news advocates (especially from the editorial side) push for the subscription model, I think, because they see subscriptions as a potentially lucrative new source of revenue at a time when print ad revenue is nose-diving and Web ad sales are stagnant, at best. Just turn that subscription spigot on, they think, and the money will come flowing in. Huzzah!

It's not that easy, as Hussman's 3,400 online subscribers and $200,000 in annual Web subscription revenue demonstrate. Indeed, as I've written before, it's quite likely that the sharp decline in traffic that would be caused by a newspaper site's switch to a paid-subscription model would cripple Web advertising revenue by a dollar amount far greater than the pennies coming in from subscriptions. Checkmate.

[politicasista]

48. Sounds like it was a good hearing, though there is room for improvement

I was reading in JET magazine a blurb about how there wasn't an AA face that was represented on the five-person panel testifying at this hearing on the future of journalism.

Barbara Ciara, president of the National Association of Black Journalists called it "disgraceful that the discussion didn't incorporate the perspectives of America's increasingly diverse population."

I found another statement that sounds like there was some open dialogue too. :)

http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/tag/senate-hearing/


The layoffs in journalism have hit AA really hard. The American Society of News Editors found that Black journalists are losing jobs at a greater rate than any other ethnic group. More about it here.


In addition to the big and small name newspapers disappearing and/or cutting back, there is a campaign now to save black radio.


Hope no one is thinking that I am saying that Kerry and fellow sens of this committee should pander to NABJ, but at least they are making themselves be heard about the problems out there and hoping they can get their spot at the table in future hearings.



Haven't posted in a while. Hope everyone is doing well. :hi:


Back to lurk/read mode now. :hide:























edit for word

[beachmom]

49. Actually, the only media where there is talk of a bailout is minority owned media:

http://www.rbr.com/media-news/washington-beat/14712.html

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) has been joined by two key committee chairs in seeking help from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner for troubled minority broadcasters. They want to help otherwise sound radio and television businesses in the category make it through to an economic upturn.

Clyburn is joined by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), among others. Also signing a letter that went to Geithner, according to TheHill.com, were Reps. Bobby Rush (D-IL), Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Gregory Meeks (D-NY), G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Bennie Thompson (D-MS).

“While many jobs are at stake, a more important principle — the government’s fundamental interest in promoting a diversity of voices, including service to underserved communities — is severely threatened,” they wrote.

They want minority owned stations, which they put at about 7% for full power radio and call negligible for full power television, to get access to capital, one way or another. They mentioned creating a credit facility such as has been used for auto makers, but specific to this group, or setting up a program that would provide bridge loans.

Kerry already said this will not be the last hearing. Hopefully, people will actually contact his committee about this. Still, I think there are so many competing interests that you will never end up pleasing everyone.

From the press release:

NABJ Board Member Charles Robinson, who attended the hearing, told Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) after the hearing that diversity needs to be a part of the overall discussion and a more diverse panel should be part of future discussions. Robinson also told the Senators that NABJ was available to help draft a diversity component of any future legislation affecting the newspaper industry.

The recently released 2009 ASNE newsroom diversity census is disconcerting for revealing that black journalists are losing their jobs at a greater rate than any other ethnic group, but it is especially disturbing that minority ownership or representation in newspapers was not a topic at Wednesday’s discussion.

Of the five panelists, there were no black representatives and only one minority. It is disgraceful that a discussion on Capitol Hill about the future of newspapers can happen without doing more to incorporate the perspectives of America’s increasingly diverse population.

1. There was diversity as there was a Latino there (the Miami Herald guy)

2. Next time they should have a black rep., but I disagree that the first hearing not having one is a "disgrace". A bit over the top rhetoric IMO. I also read that all working reporters did not dare be on the panel for fear that they would be perceived as biased in the government's favor. So that would mean someone prominent and smart like Tavis Smiley would decline an invite.

3. Since they told Kerry directly, it seems to me the message has been heard.

[politicasista]

50. Ok, and thanks for that link

And the extra information about the latino from the Miami Herald being there.

I do agree "disgrace" was over the top. I think she was talking about how appalled she was not to see someone that looked like her (or us) on that panel.

I think she may have felt that the committee doesn't understand the problems that AA journalism and AA newspapers are facing. In other words, they don't want the Senate committee, Congress, and/or Capitol Hill to turn a blind eye to what is really happening. Especially now that Black Entertainment Television no longer carries news.

Stories about AA journalism doesn't get as much coverage or press as Huff Po (Arianna Huffington), The Wire guy, or other big name journalism outlets.

But, I agree that you can't please everyone. The Obamas are finding that out also. And no to Tavis and his inflated ego.

[beachmom]

51. I do think AA blogs have made some strides though

I really like the following blogs:

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/

(good blogroll, too)

I am not sure what the solution is to black media, though. The internet definitely seems to be the long term solution, but getting everyone wired is key. I didn't know BET no longer had news.

[politicasista]

52. Yep. There has been progress

And those links you link are good. JJP is good. I have been reading them of late. They have separate blogs for issues and Obama stuff (without all sensationalism and rants that populate other progressive, left leaning blogs.).

Another good blog I have been reading is Cynthia Gordy's blog at Essence.com (also a member of NABJ and WH press group). It's about the First Family, but she covers other issues without all the "he can do no wrong" posts. In other words, fair and balanced. Essence.com was the only one that got a small blurb about why Kerry was in Africa.

Yep. BET got rid of their news after 2003 or 2004. They covered some of the DNC, election night, the Inauguration, and tape-delayed Obama's prime time press conferences, but there hasn't been any real news programs. A bunch of hip-hop videos, stereotypical shows (though Sunday Best is good), and edited black movies/shows. The network went downhill after Bob Johnson sold out to TPTB and the black community.


Yes, getting everyone wired is the key.