Below the Fold

Death Becomes Moussaoui -- Now What Becomes of Us?

Before I started blogging, before I went into PR and marketing communications, I spent several months of my journalism life talking to convicted murders on Death Rows throughout the United States, and many more months writing about the experience for a book. I was a capital punishment expert, a frequent guest on radio talk shows and an op-ed columnist for newspapers and magazines.

The book was published in 1994 – and I have spent the last 12 years trying to put the topic behind me. Then something like the Zacarias Moussaoui verdict happens and I find myself back in that world of perpetual darkness.

I no longer comment or write about capital punishment and respectfully decline when asked, which almost always is in the days and hours before a scheduled execution. It’s not that I don’t care, it’s just that it takes more intellectual and emotional energy than I can afford. Public affairs consulting taught me to fight the battles I can win, and the death penalty is a losing battle no matter what side you’re on.

But there is another high-profile death penalty case in the United States, arguably the most high profile and most significant since capital punishment was reinstated in the mid-‘70s. The defendant has all but begged for death during the trial’s guilt phase and there is little doubt he will get what he’s asking for.

I am not going to change my mind and comment on Moussaoui – nevertheless, the case reminded me of a final argument that a California defense attorney delivered to the jury in a death penalty case. The speech didn’t make it into the book, but I kept the transcript and thought I would share it now.

The following does not necessarily reflect my views on the Moussaoui case, and I certainly don’t expect you to agree – but I do expect you to think.

“Let’s imagine something for a moment…I hope it never happens, but let’s imagine it.  You have gone into the jury room, you have deliberated and you have reached a verdict.  You come out here with the verdict, the judge asks if you have reached a verdict, you say yes you have reached a verdict.  You hand the slip over to the bailiff, who gives it to the judge, who gives it to Judy, the clerk, and Judy the clerk is now asked to read the verdict.  And the verdict that is read says, ‘We the jury sentence (defendant) to death.’  And at that moment Mr. (defendant) has a heart attack and slumps over.  That’s not very far fetched when you think of the enormity of those words as they come out and somebody has just told you that you are to die.

“He slumps over in his chair, falls down.  What would happen?  First thing that would happen is the clerk would probably reach for the phone and call an ambulance.  The deputy, the bailiff in the courtroom, would leap up and try to do some kind of life-saving efforts.  If there was a doctor, he would rush up and he would try to resuscitate or to help the man who is lying on the floor having a heart attack.

“Let’s think about it for a minute.  Let’s think of the absolute absurdity of that thing.  You have just said he is to die, he’s in the process of doing it, and now everybody is running around to save his life.  Why is that?

“It is because it is instinctive in us to go for life and not to go for death.  It is because that’s the way we are, because life is sacred, because we believe in life, and because that man is a human being…it is why we believe in saving life and it is why we would reach out and try to assist the man who is lying there on the floor having a heart attack.”

Moussaoui media death penalty capital punishment Terrorism 9-11

“Unbundled Journalists” Revisited: Reporters -- and Good Journalism -- are What Matter Most

If the web is alive, as Newsweek proclaims, then conversation is the oxygen that makes it so. But conversation also has a nasty habit of making you think, and a recent comment from John Cass of Backbone Media has had me thinking to the point of obsession, like that song you can’t seem to get out of your head.

In a comment on my post titled “Unbundled Journalists: Every Reporter is a Freelancer – and a Brand,” Cass said in part:

“I honestly don't know if a journalist can survive a change of brand…I think that while media institutions are successful when they give more freedom to journalists, it’s the combination of talented individuals and a company that provides a structure that supports a journalist is really the winning combination,” Cass said.

My position in the column was that journalists today are, in the words of Terry Heaton, becoming “unbundled.” I wrote that “the same self-publishing and social networking tools that are empowering consumers today are also allowing reporters to break the surly bonds of their media masters…In this new model, reporters, not newspapers or networks, are the brands.”

I still believe this to be true, but Cass makes a good point: Does a journalist need the structure and stability of an organization to be successful and credible? Sure, CNN gives Anderson Cooper the freedom to blog, but would he have as much of an audience or impact if he left CNN tomorrow and launched “AndersonCooper360.Blogspot.com”?

Switching media teams can be disastrous, as Scott Baradell pointed out in his comment on the same post. Tucker Carslon hasn’t been the same since his banishment to television news purgatory, also known as MSNBC (“hell” is the exclusive domain of Fox News.) When Rocketboom has more daily audience than you, the fall from grace is pretty much complete.

Yet the ability of journalists to transcend their media containers comes down to the journalists themselves. First of all, people like Tucker Carlson and Nancy Grace are not journalists, they are personalities and "hosts"– they need the security of news organizations to do their shtick, otherwise they become nothing more than irate AM talk radio callers.

Bill O’Reilly is a journalist – he was a pretty good one back in the day – but his “brand” is inexorably tied to Fox. It’s possible he could go the syndicated television route and not lose his core audience, but O’Reilly without Fox would still be like a shark without his teeth.

Nevertheless, some journalists have personal brands strong enough to make it work.

Award-winning journalist Frank Deford writes for Sports Illustrated, broadcasts for National Public Radio, reports for HBO and publishes books and freelance articles. He has written screenplays for movies and television. Frank Deford could publish on napkins and he would still attract an audience.

Bill Moyers became a stronger brand by leaving the world of corporate television news and focusing on public broadcasting and publishing. And let’s not forget one of the biggest “journalist brands” of all, Walter Cronkite.

The larger question, I believe, is can a journalist that is just starting out today create a personal brand without the initial support of a large mainstream news organization. In other words, if Deford began his career as a blogger and citizen journalist, would we all know his name and his work?

Part of the answer again depends again on the journalist. It also depends on what we will consider to be “mainstream media” in the near future. With more than 60 million users, who’s to say the next great journalist won’t come from MySpace (which is owned by Fox.) The next media star may come from Blogburst, or rise to prominence via Newsvine.

The path for the next generation of journalists is unclear. But a path exists – and good journalism will find its way.

Newspapers Media News Media Journalism mainstream media News Broadcast News Citizen Journalism Branding CNN Tucker Carlson MSNBC frank deford Journalists reporting

One More Question: Helen Thomas Wheels A Final Blast of Truth to Power

Journalism used to have icons, larger-than-life figures that blasted through television screens and tore through newsprint like banshees. They went on missions not assignments, were driven by purpose instead of paychecks, and remained dead serious when someone referred to their roles as fulfilling a public trust.

Those days – those journalists – are gone. But this column isn’t about nostalgia – I still believe journalism’s best days are ahead, and that shifts in society and advances in technology are paving the way to changes we can only imagine today.

But if the past is prologue, then yesterday’s journalists are more relevant now than ever – which is why when Helen Thomas asks a question at a Presidential press conference, every journalism student and budding citizen reporter in the country needs to listen and learn.

Helen asked President Bush a question this week. It may be the last question the former United Press International reporter and now syndicated columnist asks a sitting president, given her age and this president’s aversion to the press and to her. Her tone and directness may make you cringe, and it should – not because of what she says, but because what she says is something the rest of the Washington press corps should have said much earlier.

Following is a brief except of the exchange between Helen and President Bush, courtesy of Editor and Publisher:

THOMAS: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

BUSH: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect…

THOMAS: Everything…

BUSH: Hold on for a second, please.

THOMAS: -- everything I've heard…

BUSH: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second…

THOMAS: They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.

BUSH: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained…

THOMAS: I'm talking about Iraq…

So, is Helen Thomas a pain in the ass? Yes, she is – a wonderful, dedicated, unabashed and unforgiving pain in the ass. That’s her job, no matter what the president, what the party or what the generation.

Administrations change, but good journalism should not. I have met Helen several times (we both worked for UPI and lived to tell the tale) and she is as sweet when not working as your grandmother. But like your grandmother, she will get in your face if you step out of line.

In a world of journalist celebrities, Helen Thomas is an icon – and a reminder to professional and citizen journalists everywhere that if we don’t hold our leaders accountable, who will?

Helen, I’ll let you have the final word:

“Reporters and editors like to think of themselves as watchdogs for the public good,” Thomas says in her forthcoming book about the Washington press corps. “But in recent years both individual reporters and their ever-growing corporate ownership have defaulted on that role. Ted Stannard, an academic and former UPI correspondent, put it this way: ‘When watchdogs, bird dogs, and bull dogs morph into lap dogs, lazy dogs, or yellow dogs, the nation is in trouble.’ ”

Newspapers Media News Media Journalism helen thomas News Broadcast News Citizen Journalism Journalists

San Jose Mercury News: Paper Turns to a Little PR – and Pride – To Save Itself

Hell hath no fury like the heartfelt kvetches of ink-stained wretches.

Save The Merc, a web site published by employees of the San Jose Mercury News, is appealing to the local community for salvation, or at least support in their bid to save a “vital civic institution.” They want readers to sign a petition and are reprinting positive stories and quotes from third parties (thanks to Steve Rubel for the link.)

Sounds a lot like PR to me – and while it may not be enough to convince new owner McClatchy, it should convince those of us who still believe in newspapers that campaigns such as these are not about protecting the past, but rather about preserving the future. 

As the site makes clear, newspapers have faces. And some newspapers don’t only write about the fabric of community, they become part of the tapestry. They are not just papers but symbols, and to lose that is to lose more than something to read with your morning coffee.

The employees are not against the sale per se – they just want to be sure the new owner looks at the big picure and not solely the bottom line (which by the way, is still profitable.)

“We believe that newspapers should make money for their owners and investors; the Mercury News does,” the site says. “But we believe the purchase of our newspaper company must not damage our newspaper's long-term responsibility to the community we serve. We believe that newspaper owners must balance their expectations for profits with their civic obligation to provide robust news coverage.

“Our industry faces challenges. The means of communicating with readers are changing rapidly. We would welcome an owner who understands the opportunities of the Internet and the challenges it poses for newsprint, and is willing to make long-term investments in personnel and in new technologies.”

Will other McClatchy orphans like The Philadelphia Inquirer try a similar tact to save their papers, possibly their jobs? Moreover, will any of it matter, or will efforts like Save The Merc become footnotes once the final chapter in modern newspaper history is written?

Whatever the outcome, one thing is clear: The San Jose Mercury News is not going down without a fight. And as news consumers who believe in community journalism in all forms, neither should we.

Newspapers Media News Media Journalism mainstream media News PR public relations Journalists

McClatchy San Jose Mercury News

Death by Google: What News Must Do to Earn Back its Brand

CARNAGE IN IRAQ, tears over missing teens, stories of lost hope in New Orleans.

Cue the music. Run the graphics package. Lights, camera, action.

We have seen this so much we have come to expect it – the “big” news story arriving with its own jingle and logo. Newspapers do the same with special sections, charts and point-of-purchase ad strips.

President Bush may have coined “War on Terror,” but the news media branded it.

I am not opposed to these tactics in general. In a world of boundless choice, branding is essential. If you want to get the public’s attention, you need to bang the drums and get Wolf Blitzer to report live from the scene, because if Wolf or Anderson Cooper is there the story must be important. Those guys don’t put on the trench coats and get their feet muddy for stories about universal health insurance.

As I’ve said before, journalists today have more “brand value” than media organizations. Sure, people still read the New York Times because it’s the New York Times, but in the post Jayson Blair and Judy Miller era, we read the Times with newly opened eyes. We know the checks and balances that assure one of the strongest brand promises in journalism history are fallible, and that reporters today have much more control and influence that perhaps we once thought.

But does the branding of news go deeper than the journalist? What about the story itself?

Google News, Not “Google’s News”
Go to Google News and search for “Iraq.” You see results from media outlets throughout the world, from China and Australia, from the United Kingdom and the United States. But there are no stories produced  by “Google.”

Now go to Yahoo! News and look at the home page. With the notable exception of correspondent Kevin Sites and his  “HotZone” coverage, the content is predominantly from wire services and newspapers, a homogenous mix of news and opinion virtually unrecognizable from the other.

On the Internet, all news media look the same.

I know there are exceptions to this and I admit to oversimplification to make a point (I used to be a columnist, I can’t help it.) For example, the same Google search on Iraq brings up the “Healing Iraq” blog, an inspired exercise in citizen journalism.

Nevertheless, most of the news online is without character or spirit, much less brand. Google doesn’t display newspaper mastheads or cable TV-style graphics. The consumer is reading Google News, but it’s not Google’s News.

The only thing left to brand – to give a media outlet any identity to the news consumer – is the story itself. The story, therefore, becomes the brand.

Making a Final Stand
The news story is a media organization’s last line of defense, the best path toward preserving a unique identity and voice.

If I go to the Washington Post online, then the Post can open its brand doors and invite me in right away. If I find a Post article via Google I still go to the Washington Post web site, but my first encounter with the Post is from Google – so my relationship now is with Google, not the paper.

The brand becomes more diluted when I read news alerts via RSS; with full-text feeds I never have to visit the Post web site. Then there are e-mail alerts, SMS (text messaging) and other modern conveniences that deliver information and nothing more. News is adrift.

Maybe this is a long-winded way to say that yes, the future of news is all about content – that stories about Iraq, Aruba or Katrina need to stand up without the crutch of multimedia fanfare. Maybe we need to put more stock into what the news is telling us, not who is delivering the message. Maybe we need to demand context and perspective, not jingles or graphics packages.

Maybe newspapers aren’t dying – maybe news is. And maybe it’s not too late to save both.

Newspapers Media News Media Journalism mainstream media News Broadcast News CitJ Branding CNN cable news yahoo google google news public relations Journalists

citizen journalism

The Chosen One: Richard Edelman and the Path to the PR Promised Land

I was glad to hear Richard Edelman say that journalists are no longer Gods (thanks for the heavenly tip, Media Orchard). I assume he meant print media and not CNN's Anderson Cooper, who not only is a God, but also, as we learned from his Hurricane Katrina coverage, can walk on and well as through water.

I stopped being a God – err, I mean full-time journalist – years ago, and let me tell you, it’s been tough (I sometimes freelance, but that’s just to make my mom happy.) As a journalist, I could quote unnamed sources, steal from press releases and get into all kinds of events for free without any repercussions. Now that I have a blog and a real job, I’m expected to quote everything, give credit for everything, and pay for my own food. Mortality is a bitch.

So Edelman says it’s payback time. The gates have come down and journalists have to play by our rules. Blogs killed the media star, he says.

Not so fast.

It’s only been a few days and already I’m as sick of the Edelman-WalMart discussion as I am with any blog post that begins “___ is dead.” The New York Times article that started the whole thing was a bigger "dog bites man" story than the “news” of Iran telling the IAEA to stick it where the plutonium don’t shine.

Nevertheless, I feel I need to go on record and come to the defense of John Wagner, Neville Hobson, and the very few other PR professionals who think that Edelman’s hired bloggers were too loose with the truth.

Semantics or Subterfuge?
Following is a partial transcript of what Edelman employee Marshall Manson wrote in an e-mail pitch to blogger “Bob” of Crazy Politico’s Rantings:

"Hello. I hope you’re well. I just wanted to drop you a line and introduce myself. I’m a blogger myself (I contribute to Confirm Them and Human Events’ blogs among others), but for my day job - I do online public affairs for Wal-Mart…"

As Neville and others have noted, that’s not exactly full disclosure, although it’s better than what a lot of other PR people would do. Nevertheless, Edelman expects more. As he said after the article appeared:

"PR firms must be very conscious to abide by some very clear ethical standards, so that we do not compromise bloggers. First, we must always be transparent about the identity of our client and the goal of the PR program."

Again, for most PR agencies, this thin layer of grey would be just fine. Hell, most PR agencies don’t use blogs at all. The fact that we are even having this discussion represents a huge leap for the industry (remember Richard, if they are shooting at you, you must be doing something right.)

But Edelman Public Relations is not “most” PR agencies – it is the PR agency when it comes to blogs. It is the PR agency because Richard Edelman himself has worked tirelessly to make it so, speaking and cajoling and hiring PR bloggers and non-professionals to rid the world of PR evil and deliver us all to salvation.

So should we hold Edelman to a higher standard? Yes – because Richard Edelman is the one who set the standard in the first place.

The Chosen One
Journalists may not be Gods, but Richard Edelman is the Moses of the PR world, and not just because he is a nice Jewish boy from Chicago or because he recently hired another nice Jewish boy from New York.

Edelman’s agency was among the first to launch a web site in the early ‘90s and incorporate the Web into media relations (and by the way, did it better than most everybody.) He has set the bar and repeatedly raised it, all while maintaining his agency’s independence and his own maverick spirit.

Edelman positioned himself as our leader, the Chosen One who would wrest us from the bondage of traditional public relations and deliver us to the Promised Land of the New PR. Other agencies and practitioners look to him for guidance and some try to emulate his tactics. We don’t know where the Promised Land is, but we assume Richard Edelman will get us there.

So when his employees violated the spirit of his blogging commandments, if not the letter of the Law, Edelman should have smashed the proverbial tablets. We all know perception is reality, and the perception, right or wrong, is that Edelman’s chosen bloggers have sinned. They should be admonished, forgiven, and then set back on the path Edelman has laid out for them, because they are doing the right thing – they just need to do the right thing better.

Now what about journalists and their role in all of this? Do journalists (or at least the New York Times) have double standards when it comes to “transparency” and disclosure? Do they hold bloggers to higher standards than themselves?

Yes – and no. It depends on the journalist. But on this issue it doesn’t matter.

Being less than genuine or compromising your own values is no more “right” just because some journalists behave that way. PR should hold itself to a higher standard, not lower itself to the one that already exists among many in the media.

I’m glad that firms like Edelman are reaching out to bloggers and I wish others would do the same. But as PR professionals we should err on the side of too much information and not leave any room for debate. Blogs give us more power, but we must not let that power morph into arrogance.

You’re right, Richard. Journalists are no longer Gods – and neither are we.

PR Public Relations media journalism walmart edelman blogging new pr

“Unbundled” Journalists: Every Reporter is a Freelancer – and a Brand

In a previous post I said that newspapers have failed because they have lost their brand identities. Newspapers – not all, but the majority – sacrificed voice for profit, and ended up with neither.

But that’s only part of the story. In fact, I buried the lead.

Newspapers – and broadcast media – used to be the brands that mattered. Reporters were “employees” who served their organizations – their only outlets for expression were through their employers, and if their employers didn’t agree, then that was the end.

Editors ruled. But not anymore.

The same self-publishing and social networking tools that are empowering consumers today are also allowing reporters to break the surly bonds of their media masters. Just as forms of media are now unbundled (see Terry Heaton’s insightful work in this area), journalists, too, are becoming unbundled from mainstream news organizations.

If every citizen is a reporter, then every reporter is a freelancer, able to speak his or her mind in multiple formats directly to and with the audience. Reporters don’t work for organizations anymore – they work for us.

•    Do you watch CNN or do you watch Anderson Cooper?

•    Do you read “the NBC blogs” or do you read Brian Williams?

•    Do you subscribe (via mail) to BusinessWeek or do you subscribe (via RSS) to Stephen Baker?

Journalists rule.

In this new model, reporters, not newspapers or networks, are the brands. If they left we would follow. Our relationship and trust network involves them, not the organization for which they work. They are the brands that matter.

With Brand Comes Responsibility
Brands, however, are earned through practice, not conferred via circumstance. Modern trends and shifting demographics put reporters in the driver’s seat, but it is up to journalists to maintain and grow that trust network. It is up to them to prove that our trust is well placed and has not been merely transferred to another group of false prophets.

Here’s how:

• When you get a story wrong, say that you got it wrong. Not a year later (New York Times), but when you first discover that you blew it.

• Recognize the difference between “journalism” and “coverage.” You were trained to think and ask questions, not take dictation. Anyone can take notes – your job demands more.

• Be in your own audience. You don’t write about institutions, you write about people – you are always writing about people. If you separate yourself from your audience and don’t involve them before, during and after your stories, then you are doing a disservice to all involved.

• Don’t confuse analysis with opinion. We need you to provide insight and context – we can get the “news” from Yahoo, what we need is the perspective and meaning. You can do this without proffering an opinion (yes, you can.)

• Cover stories that need to be covered – no matter what. Yes, some cartoons can be offensive. But when people start dying because of them, that’s a story – pictures and all.

I believe journalists are up to this challenge; it is in their genetic code. It is time for them to switch that journalism gene back on and take their brand responsibility seriously.

Newspapers Media News Media Journalism mainstream media News Broadcast News CitJ Branding CNN NBC BusinessWeek Journalists

Blogging Tip of the Day: Be A Great Failure

The best hitters in baseball fail about 70 percent of the time. The best three-point shooters in basketball miss more than half of their shots. Yet these players epitomize perfection in their fields.

So why is it so different in blogging?

It wasn’t so long ago when blogging was little more than novelty. Few PR and marketing pros knew about it, and those who did couldn’t lift their heads out of Bacon’s long enough to care. Of course some started blogging, and soon others followed. They blazed the early trail that the rest of the field is now stampeding.

This is a good thing overall. While you don’t need to have been a reporter to be a good PR person, you can’t be a good blog consultant if you don’t blog yourself. Blogging is experiential – you can’t learn about it only from conferences and other blogs. It’s not just about being credible when pitching a client, it’s about being able to deliver on your promises of what blogging and the greater social web world has to offer.

What’s not so good, however, is the belief that there is a “perfect” approach to blogging, that all posts should contain a certain standard criteria or that anything less than five posts a day is conduct unbecoming of the blogosphere. If “blogs are people,” as Jeff Jarvis says, then blogs should be just as varied, just as unpredictable, and just as imperfect.

Failure is as much a part of blogging as success – and just as difficult to quantify. Posts I thought would shake the world went virtually unnoticed, yet a passing joke I made about Matt Lauer being gay gets at least a few clicks every day. That’s either a sad comment on the human race or on my writing, but either way it’s not good.

Nevertheless, failure doesn’t stop me from blogging. In fact, I prefer the failure of a blog post to the failure of a newspaper column. Back when I was a columnist and reporter, I had to wait days to redeem myself from a crappy newspaper story, but with my blog I can atone in real time. Blogs are the most forgiving communications tools in history  -- they are designed to absorb defeat and encourage endless second chances.

You know, if blogs are people, then maybe those people are moms. No matter how much you screw up or make a fool of yourself, your mom, just like your blog, will always be there to make you feel better.

Oh, and if you’ve made it this far, please forgive me – this was not my best post. But hey, there is always tomorrow.

Public Relations media PR blogging blogs

Citizen Journalism An Antidote to Mainstream News Media, In Any Language

Question: Which U.S. media observer said the following:

"The news seems very similar from one media organization to another -- as if reporters have stopped doing their jobs and are just sitting in their offices, taking press releases and publishing them in the papers."

Answer: None.

The quote is from Israeli journalist Michael Weiss, who founded Israel's first major citizen journalism web site, Scoop. Weiss made his comments in a Journalism.co.uk article, in which he also said that he is “skeptical about the value of an industry operating with a high level of cross-ownership,” and what he sees as “homogenous news content with a heavy public relations influence.”

Will the experiment work, ala OhMyNews in South Korea? According to the article, Scoop already has 400 citizen reporters. Not bad for a start-up in a country with only 2.5 million Internet users.

"I think we have a huge advantage: everyone can write about everything, so if you were actually there and don't think that's the way it was, then you can write your own perspective about the issue," Weiss said in the article.

"More and more people will do that - writing their own point of view and adding comment to other stories - and this will be the best tool for bringing 'reality' to the stage."

The real question, however, isn’t whether Citizen Journalism will work in Israel, the United States or anywhere else. The real question– or the sad truth – is whether citizen journalism will more and more be viewed as an antidote to today’s news media, rather than as an enhancement.

journalism media citizen journalism mainstream media blogging israel citj public relations ohmynews

news media

New Rules for the Modern Journalist

Few would argue that institutional journalism has lost its way. But journalists are not institutions; they have minds, ideas, passion, prejudice and purpose. They have the tools necessary to bring journalism back from the abyss – but not the will.

That’s too bad, because for journalism to regain its conscience and credibility – to save itself – it can’t look to the institutions. Only journalists can save journalism, and so far they have failed.

There are some exceptions of course; there always are. Nevertheless, it’s the rule I’m concerned about, as are many ordinary citizens who eat from the trough of homogenized news, forced either to swallow the muck whole or seek alternative forms of information nutrition – some healthy, some not.

And despite the rise of the Internet and blogs, most Americans still get their news the old-fashioned way – via the mainstream mass media. And the news we get is less representative of what Americans want to know about, and more representative of what those in power want Americans to know about.

Yet I am a believer. I believe there is still time to reshape mass media for the modern age and make real journalism matter again.

The Rules
The best journalism schools teach the Chicago Manual of Style, reporting techniques and how to write a tight headline. These are all important – but the rest of what they teach, by and large, is crap.

Why? Because no matter how good the teacher or the program, the rest can’t be taught. This is the difference between vocation and profession – between good stenography and good journalism. The former requires training; the latter requires talent, drive and conscience.

The latter is what matters. And for journalism to matter, modern journalists need to live by the following rules:

• Be accurate, not objective.

• Be honest and open – when you are right and especially when you are wrong.

• Be responsible for your sources, your stories and your actions – editors won’t protect you, nor should they.

• Listen to your audiences and learn from them – as Dan Gillmor says, they know more than you do.

• Stop reporting the news – start sharing it.

• Name names.

• Don’t be led – lead instead.

• Ask questions – then question the answers.

• Celebrate change; abhor conformity.

• Reach people where they are, not where you want them to be.

• Be a citizen first, journalist second.

• Follow your heart, not just the story.

• Be right, not first.

• Be there for the First Amendment, or it may no longer be there for you.

Newspapers Media News Media Journalism mainstream media News Journalists