Press ignores Palin's First Amendment Ignorance

Let the record show that I can find no reference on-line to a major newspaper's reporting directly on Sarah Palin’s frightening ignorance regarding the First Amendment.

(On Friday in a radio interview, Palin suggested that press criticism of her was a violation of the First Amendment. Anyone who has taken middle-school civics knows that the right to voice and print such criticism is precisely what the First Amendment protects.)

I am reminded of the truism that our freedoms of speech and the press only have meaning if we use them. Why is the press refusing to use its freedom to inform the public about Palin’s appalling ignorance of the Bill of Rights?

How could it be that it is no longer newsworthy when a major party candidate for the second highest office in the land twists beyond recognition a basic principle on which the nation was founded?

Could it be that editors believe that most of the public doesn’t care about the First Amendment and whether Palin understands it?

Could it be that the majority of the American people themselves don’t understand or value our very first freedoms?

If that is the case, we are a nation in deep, deep peril. When the press doesn't call our leaders on matters as grave, we all will ultimately pay the price.

It is noteworthy that Palin’s comment is all over the blogosphere. New Media trumps Old. Incidents like this suggest that the death of newspapers may not be that great a loss.

Loose ends: the States of War and Journalism

About that Army recruiting sign at the Sunset Boulevard and Capitol Highway bus stop.

Based on honking and thumbs up signals at our Friday evening peace vigils at the corner, I’d say that sentiment against the war runs about 85 percent in and around Hillsdale. One way to pull the plug on this war is if no one signs up to fight it.

So should Tri-Met confer with communities before selling advertising on transit display space in neighborhoods? Should, for instance, the Hillsdale Neighborhood Association be able to nix Tri-Met advertising for an “Adult shop” (a curious term, that), Wal-Mart or Army recruiting?

The other perturbing aspect of the advertising is that we, the taxpayers, are paying for it. But then we are paying for all of the Bush war misadventures, including contracted torture, privatized armies and new military bases around the globe.

A recruiting ad on a bus shelter is admittedly small change. Still, we have to begin somewhere — why not at the local bus stop?

Regarding the plight of “Old Media” and journalism education.

I’m sure the irony of my relying on “Old Media” for my updates on the demise of “Old Media” hasn’t escaped readers. Consider me a transitional figure. Unlike people under 30, “Honored Citizen” that I am (another curious term), I get my news from print. And like piker interested in disseminating his or her prose, I write about media and (too) many other issues largely on-line.

I probably have another year to go as a newsPAPER reader. I still like the way turning pages gives me just an instant’s moment for reflection. It can make a difference.

Finally, as someone who has taught journalistic writing for nearly 40 years, I believe there will always be a need for journalism courses in high schools and colleges. Journalistic writing teaches students to write for a diverse, unseen audience — certainly more diverse and unseen than their solitary teacher. I tell my students to write for me only as an editor, not as their teacher. Their real readers inhabit the world beyond the classroom.

The discipline of journalistic writing also demands clarity and conciseness, qualities sorely missing in much writing today. Significantly, the Web demands those qualities even more than print does.

Further, the craft of journalistic writing teaches the young writer how to reach readers where THEY are, not where the writer is. For many young people, that is a huge developmental leap — and one to be encouraged.

Finally, journalistic writing teaches accuracy, healthy skepticism and fairness.

Even though journalism may be in crisis (it was always thus), its skills are in great and growing demand and should be taught widely, vigorously and unapologetically.

Journalism's death and resurrection

The New York Times reported Tuesday morning that fewer mid-career journalists are applying for prestigious sabbatical fellowships. The reason: They’re afraid that they might not have jobs waiting for them when their sabbaticals end.

Case in point, in an adjacent Times story: The San Francisco Chronicle’s management is slashing away at the newsroom. In mid-May bean counters announced they were cutting about a quarter of the newsroom staff — 80 union and 20 management jobs.

So what’s going on? A short answer: falling advertising revenues and readership.

And Craig’s List. Classified ads were once the bread and butter of the newspaper business. No more. The real buying-and-selling action is on-line, and it’s free. (Confession: I just bought a motor scooter on Craig’s List and have sold a half dozen old typewriters there.)

So, with dwindling revenues to pay for the news, where are we going to go for it in the years (months and weeks ahead), and who is going to pay for it and will it be reliable?

In a sense each of us will end up editing (selecting) our own news from the gaggle of news and information (and rumor and hearsay) on the Web.

Perhaps we need some “Good House Keeping” seal of journalistic approval. Someone is bound to try it. But let’s face it, the Press has always been a grab back at best. And dead wrong at worst.

Consider how Mainstream media caved to public pressure and patriotism (some might call it jingoism) and gave George Bush a free ride after 9-11. If ever a vigilant Press was needed, it was then. Instead we got flag-waving, chest pounding and drum beating.

So the news never comes with guarantees. “Reader beware” then, now and forever. Never mind which medium — print, TV, radio or the Web.

Back to those fellowships going begging from pink-slip phobia. The Times quotes Boyce Rensberger, head of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowships at M.I.T, saying: “I feel a little queasy encouraging young people into journalism. It’s such a precarious business right now.”

I think Rensberger means “Old Media” journalism is a “precarious business right now.” Actually, it is moribund. As for “New Media” journalism, it's mysterious. No one has come up with a business plan that produces both profits and excellence.

Maybe this new media gives us the opportunity to finally break the business-model mold. How about not-for-profit news that answers not to advertisers or stockholders, but only to the public — a vigilant, demanding and, yes, outspoken public.

Significantly, that’s exactly the kind of public that the interactive, burgeoning Web is attracting and making possible.

Precarious?

Try “revolutionary.”

Another news media turning point

Here's further evidence of the shift from old media to new media.

Yesterday's New York Times carried a story about a Boston community newspaper that has begun running blog items in print.

Until now, newspapers ("old media") were considered the legitimate news source that provided content for "new media" web sites to disseminate.

With the Boston development, news now originating on-line is being legitimized by dissemination through print, the "old media."

The reversing trend is certain to continue until the newspaper-reading public fully migrates to on-line information.

Some of the reason for the reverse flow of information is found in the observations of John Wilpers, the editor-in-chief of BostonNow, the free-distribution daily that is printing the blogs. He says, in the words of the Times' article, that in publishing the blogs he is addressing "the news industry's biggest problem: an inability to connect with the communities it covers."

That's worth rereading...a newspaper with an "inability to connect with the communities it covers." How, one might ask, does a newspaper cover a community it doesn't connect with?

In the new digital age, the "inability" is the direct result of falling newspaper revenues leading to newsroom cuts. So newspapers are turning to free, on-line (and amateur) reporting.

In return, the news bloggers get additional exposure for their sites and keep the rights to their material. According to the Times story, they also get press credentials (or legitimacy through access to sources) and advice on how to increase traffic to their sites.

In the short run, the papers' principal obligation is maintaining quality control and the integrity of what they print.

In the long run, this latest development is simply a stopgap until the screen technology matches the portability and former profitability of newspapers and drives "old media" out of business.

At the rate newspapers are losing readers and revenue, "the long run" should be no longer than five years.