The New Journalism: Wall-to-wall opinion?

The Housing Authority of Portland’s campaign to spend $40.5 million to raze and rebuild Hillsdale Terrace in a dank, nearby gully is troubling enough.

Even more troubling is how the story was covered in The Oregonian. Or I should say, how it wasn’t covered.

Instead the story “broke” in an Oregonian Op-Ed opinion piece opposing the project. The “Guest Column” was written by former HAP Commissioner Ray Hallberg. His strong opposition to the project was the opening volley in a ping-pong match of biased rebuttals and letters to the editor.

The Oregonian was satisfied to let advocates and critics thrash away at the issue from their opposing and biased perspectives.

On the paper’s web, OregonLive, the back and forth continued, but without the writers’ own conflicts of interest ever being revealed.

The Oregonian offered nary a story about Hillsdale Terrace. Zilch. No neutral voices, no experts and no Hillsdale Terrace residents were heard from. In essence the issue was treated like some kind of bloggers’ dust-up or TV chat show shouting match.

If the Hillsdale Terrace boondoggle (my bias) is worthy of so much space on the Op-Ed page, doesn't it deserve some real reporting and a story?

Is this kind of “coverage” we can expect from the journalism of the future?

Questioning a Question

“If newspapers die, can democracy survive?”

That was the question the City of Portland put to three journalists on a panel at the club forum Friday. The Governor Hotel ballroom was packed with those eager to hear the answer.

The question was utterly bogus — a blatant tease.

Newspapers as we know them are dying, no “if” about it.

The good news is that journalism is more alive than ever. It’s just taking a different form. You just have to search around a bit to find reporting you can trust.

And sometimes, it results from your own legwork.

If you have the time and desire, you can search for information and report for yourself. It's kind of fun. Let ten million journalists bloom! In the Internet age, Reporting 101 (in academia it’s called “information literacy”) should be required for all high school seniors.

As for the survival of democracy, it was struggling in this country long before Craig’s List and the Internet pulled the financial rug out from under traditional newspapers.

If democracy is so dependent on newspapers, why have newspapers done such a miserable job of exposing the flaws in our democratic system? Everything from big money influence, to our archaic Electoral College, to inane political commercials, to politicized election officials, to hanging chads, to rigged computers, to sound-bite campaigns.

That said, the strongest newspapers will thrive as journalistic institutions on-line. They will be even greater influences than they are in ink on paper. More people will read them on-line. They will still drive the “public awareness” agenda. And the public will enter the discussion and contribute to the reporting.

And as The Oregonian’s Executive Editor Peter Bhatia pointed out Friday, once on-line, the on-line remnants of lesser newspapers will focus on the local and the hyper-local, i.e. Neighborhoods. Once again, calling all citizen reporters!

Finally, the financial structure of the newspaper industry (and American media in general) has always been suspect. Have you ever wondered why the real estate and auto sections of The Oregonian are produced by the advertising department? Or had you noticed?

Once upon a time, independent journalists actually wrote unvarnished critical stories about houses and cars. They happen to be the two most expensive purchases you will make.

No longer. Why? Take a look at the pipers calling the tunes. (Significantly, product reviews are everywhere on the web.)

Why did it take so long for government and the media to catch on to the financial mess we were in? Ever see any credit card ads in the newspaper? Corollary: Do banks contribute to political campaigns?

Why does the Lehrer News Hour not go after the oil industry? Look who sponsors the program.

No, it’s time to push the pause button on the media and take a long, hard look at them and how they are paid for. Study up. Read about press barons and media conglomerates. Check out the role of advertising in our mediated Culture of Debt and Consumption.

“If newspapers die, can democracy survive?”

We might as well ask, “If cows fly, will we invade Sweden?”

Going with what we had

My journalism class (Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Class of ’69) is approaching its 40th reunion at the end of this month. The e-mail traffic has been frenzied in preparation.

It’s good reading with this group, which, as you might expect, knows how to turn a phrase.

Several have recalled that eons ago in the school’s writing classes, we were reminded, as deadlines loomed, “to go with what you’ve got” — for better or worse.

Back then it usually was worse, but never mind.

Forty years on, my classmates are ordering sweatshirts that read: “We went with what we had.”

I won’t bore you with specifics, but what we “had” since graduation was pretty darn good.

That said, 40 years ago none of us imagined that our own retirements would be accompanied by the retirements of newspapers themselves.

All of which led one wag to suggest that the words on the sweatshirts should read:

"What we had — went."

Blogs for Budding Journalists

Today a student asked me THAT question again: Is there a future in a career in journalism?

I was a bit quicker to respond than the last time I was asked just a couple of weeks ago.

“As long as there is a need for clear, concise writing and fair and accurate reporting, there will be a need for journalists.” Then I added, "Whether journalists actually will be practicing journalism, is another question." (Two more newspapers tanked today.)

I was pleased to see that my answer didn’t deter her.

"I know I need 'clips' to get into graduate school. Where can I get published?”

The community college where I teach shut down its student newspaper several years ago. It was a poor excuse for a newspaper. Each sophomoric (literally and figuratively) issue displayed its lack of professional guidance and administration support.

It was, in short, an embarrassment.

Then an idea struck me. “Do you have a blog?” I asked.

She didn’t, so I encouraged her to start one. And I went farther. “If you’ll start one, I’ll read it. And if you like, I’ll comment on it. In exchange, you should read mine and comment on it.”

There it was, blogging buddies. Or blogging co-editors. Or co-mentors.

I have no idea what will become of the idea — or her resolve, but my suggestion seemed like excellent advice as a way to prepare for the future of journalism, whatever it might be.

I just googled “blogging" and "buddies” and, of course, got a host of responses. This one seemed particularly helpful.

Journalistic uncertainty

Today I taught my last class of the term, and, as is my custom, I invited questions on anything having to do with journalism.

One caught me flat-footed.

“If you were a student now, would you go into journalism?”

Dramatic pause.

I stared at the floor, looked up and smiled. “I’m not sure what it means to ‘go into journalism’ anymore. It’s not clear what journalism is becoming.”

Nor is it clear what it means to inform, or be informed, at least through journalism.

As a member of the pre-Internet generation, I have some idea of what it once meant. It seems like only yesterday that it had to do with newspapers and magazines and reading. I left it to editors to direct my attention to what was important, and each day I would sidle up to the journalism trough and partake of the news.

Today I don’t see all that much sidling or partaking. In an age of Twitter, blogs and Facebook, I’m not sure whether there is even a particular hunger for the news, at least the news as I understand it.

Gossip, trivia and opinion, yes; but not the news.

What constitutes journalism today? For a few more months, before newspapers vanish entirely, it may still be defined by “the Press” and its editors.

What then?

Like so many others, I believe a new, sustainable journalism model has yet to emerge, and it probably won’t until we are faced with the utter absence of newspapers. At that point, someone, some organization, some foundation or some cooperative will see the need for reliable sources of information on-line. The skills of newspaper reporting will be handed down to on-line journalists.

Alas, how they will be paid remains a mystery.

So, after a false start or two, I told my inquiring student that future journalists must be fully immersed in the changes taking place in communication. They must be flexible and prepared for the next Internet. If journalists are messengers and the medium is the message, then we must be masters of media and not let media master us.

Personally, I’ve had it easy because I am ending my journalism career at the end of a long, stable journalism era. The next generation of journalists will live through many eras thanks to changing technology. That’s a given. And each succeeding era will be shorter.

So the journalist embarking on a career today has a much more complex task than learning how to report and write. The job is more challenging, risky and exciting.

I saw the student who asked the question later in the day and asked him what he plans to do now that he has taken my journalism class.

“I’m thinking of teaching,” he said.

Some uninvited advice for The Oregonian

The Oregonian is shrinking again.

The way it is going about its slow disappearing act — and that’s what it is — says something about why it will continue to fade to nothing.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a newspaper guy and I want to see a major news presence of Oregonian-proportions survive.

Notice that I didn’t say a major “newspaper.” That may not be possible.

But I do want a financially viable Portland news organization to emerge from the turmoil that has hit the industry. It may take some combining of resources and an entirely new methods of funding.

It will certainly take new ways of thinking.

It’s about time. For instance, it’s time for the news to be free of advertising pressures and compromises.

It may also mean the end of petty, cheap-shot competition. Journalism and journalists should have one share, and even cooperative, purpose: informing the public.

Call me crazy, but I believe The Oregonian could be the locus around which this new journalism emerges. Other journalistic “partners” could be Willamette Week, Community Newspapers and OPB.

But The Oregonian, as the big dog, is critical. And if the big dog is dying, things could fall apart quickly.

So what can The Oregonian do short-term to survive?

Here are seven recommendations.

The most recent evidence of the paper’s decline is subsuming the “Business” section into the front news section. The change says, in effect, that the “Business” section isn’t worthy of the reader’s separate consideration. Unlike, for instance, the “Sports” section, which remains very much its own entity. The message is that sports is more important than business.

Hello!

Part of the problem is in the old section’s name, “Business.” The “Business” section has evolved, or should, from being strictly about business to being about the economy. It ought to be “The Economy” section.

Recommendation #1 is to call it “The Economy” and include news about labor and personal finance as well as about business. People are talking a whole lot more about the economy these days than, say, about The Blazers. Which brings us to….

Recommendation #2. If “Sports” is worthy of its own section and massive column inches (a doubtful assumption), “The Economy” certainly is equally deserving. Its substance is nothing less than our livelihood, our well being, our savings, our sense of security.

Come to think of it, “The Economy” increasingly determines “How We Live,” (HWL) which happens to be the name of another section.

Recommendation #3. Call “How We Live” something else like “Time Out” or “The Rest of the Story” (thank you, Paul Harvey) or “UpBeat” but don’t change its content. One exception: move any HWL economy story to the new “The Economy” section.

As it turns out, I spend more time with “HWL” than any other section. That’s because of its daily publication of games. The time-sink for me is Sudoku. The reason: It’s inter-active — like the Internet, which competes for the rest of my time.

Recommendation #4. Keep the “HWL” format but consider using interactive features in other parts of the paper.

Recommendation #5. Put “Sports” at the back of “How We Live.” Clearly sports are an attraction for many folks, mostly hairy chested ones who form symbiotic relationships with sports figures.

The above recommendations likely will do little more than buy the newspaper time to create a new journalism institution. Which leads us to....

Recommendation #6. Start talking with other news organizations and institutions about the future of Portland journalism. Get over bruised or inflated egos and start to put together a plan for serving the public. Consider a quasi-public service, non-profit organization called “The Portland News Consortium.”

Recommendation #7. Challenge your readers and your own old assumptions and habits by dropping useless baggage. It can be as far-reaching as cooperating and converging with other news organizations and media, or as simple, but ethical, as announcing that the paper will cease referring to the University of Oregon/Oregon State rivalry as a war — specifically a "Civil War."