Kathleen Parker's November 1, 2009, article on the Real Clear Politics Web site is a breath of fresh air.  Parker reviews a book by Alex Jones titled Losing the News.  Jones' book breathes "oxygen into the collapsing organ of the Fourth Estate" and for journalists waiting their turn at the guillotine he is "the governor's midnight call of reprieve."  He predicts that newspapers will develop the new business models necessary to survive, and that they should stay true to their "authentic self."  "Web culture -- fast, irreverent, crude and subjective -- is one kind of creature. Traditional media are different and should stick to what they historically have done best. Crucial to survival will be a renewed commitment to community, to corporate citizenship and social responsibility, and above all, to quality."

It is refreshing to hear such a positive vision for the future of journalism and Parker's article makes me want to go out and buy Jones' book as an antidote to the steady diet of gloom and doom that is being offered by so many.  You can read the article for yourself at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/01/saving_the_news_98970.html

On November 27, 2009, Michael Gerson posted an article on the Web site "Real Clear Politics."  It is as as its headline would suggest -- a mournful obituary for the profession of journalism.  Not especially uplifting or encouraging, however, it does yield an interesting take on the print vs. Internet debate.  Quoting Princeton University professor Paul Starr, Gerson points out that, "After the captive audience for network news was released by cable, many Americans did not turn to other sources of news. They turned to entertainment. The viewers that remained were more political and more partisan. 'As Walter Cronkite prospered in the old environment,' says Starr, 'Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann thrive in the new one. As the diminished public for journalism becomes more partisan, journalism itself is likely to shift further in that direction.' "  

I don't believe I have read that particular interpretation of the situation before -- specifically that Americans replaced news with entertainment and that the ideological polarization evident today is because those who were left were the most partisan and politically entrenched.  I don't know whether I agree with this take on the situation or not.  What do you think?

The full test of Gerson's article can be found at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/27/the_strange_sad_death_of...

To say that J. I. Packer is a heavyweight in evangelical theology is an understatement.  Author of the influential book, Knowing God, Packer has been writing with clarity and decisiveness for over 50 years, as well as teaching at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia.  I am always interested in hearing what people of influence and "weight" have to say about modern technology, and found my curiosity piqued when I read an article about him in the December 5, 2009, issue of World magazine.

When asked what his advice would be to web devotees, he had this insight: "I am always amazed at the amount of time people spend on the internet.  I'm not against technology, but all tools should be used to their best advantage.  We should be spending our time on things that have staying power, instead of on the latest thought of the latest blogger -- and then moving on quickly to the next blogger.  That makes us more superficial, not more thoughtful."

His comment is worth some thoughtful reflection.  Do blogs have "staying power"?  What separates superficial blogging from thoughtful blogging?  Is blogging making the best use of the Internet as a tool?  

Read the article about J. I. Packer at: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16150

I subscribe to a magazine, World, whose goal is to provide "Today's news with Christian views."  I've always enjoyed reading it; it is well-written and takes an honest look at current events from a Christian perspective.  The publisher and editors strive for journalistic integrity and generally manage to be pretty even-handed in their analysis of what is happening on the cultural and political scenes. 

I'm not sure why, but it took me by surprise when I found reference to Downie and Schudson's report, "Reconstruction of American Journalism," in the November 21, 2009, issue of World.  Nickolas Eicher, the publisher, shares the predominant view that the ad revenue model of financing news-gathering is in serious trouble and may never recover.  He is not discouraged, however, because he sees opportunity knocking for magazines like his -- a nonprofit enterprise with loyal subscribers and less reliance on ad dollars.  With reference to Downie's recommendations that taxpayers subsidize news reporting, and "The Nation Associates" who help fund The Nation, Eicher envisions a reader-funded future.  The vision is of deep journalistic reporting, funded less by ad venue and more by supporters.

It will be interesting to follow World's progress in forging this new future and to see whether this strategy becomes an effective way to meet the cost of publication.

Eicher's article can be found at: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16062

As I was preparing my latest essay for Media Management class, I came across a blog by Pete Ashton.  HIs blog of June 5th, 2009, caught my eye because it addresses a question we've been discussing in class: Is blogging journalism?  

In this blog entry, Ashton works to understand why he blogs.  Is it a means to an end or is it an end in itself?  He proposes that many times blogging is simply a way to process an event or an idea -- similar to "talking it out" with another person.  Once you've hashed it out, you no longer have the need to discuss it.  Sort of like blowing off steam or getting it out of your system.  Other times, blogging is simply conversation for the sake of conversation.

He comes to the conclusion that motivation and satisfaction "seems to be the thing.  You blog when you have a need to do so, because for whatever reason you can't satisfy that need to understand something in any other way."  I think journalists sometimes write for the same reason -- to work through something, to understand it and to share that understanding with others.  So, in that respect, blogging can be journalism.  

By W. McCahill  (Newser) – High-ranking executives at both Facebook and MySpace confirm that the companies are in talks over some sort of content partnership—a development that isn’t a big surprise to at least one observer. Formerly intense competitors in the social-networking sphere, Caroline McCarthy writes, now “Facebook’s the one providing the platform for the content; MySpace is the one providing the content itself.”

While MySpace can boost its claim as “a pop culture hub,” McCarthy adds on CNET, “for Facebook, meanwhile, you could take this as a ‘look, we've won’ move. After all, it’s a validation of the power of the social network’s content platform that a company like MySpace—which used to dwarf Facebook in size—would want to use it for distribution.”

News Corp. says that Hulu , its jointly owned free online video site, will start charging fees for access at some point in the future.

Chase Carey , News Corp.'s president and chief operating officer, says subscription fees could come as early as 2010. Carey made the remarks during a conference in New York on Wednesday.

News Corp. says it hasn't decided what form the subscription model would take and right now is concentrating on delivering a good experience for users.

Hulu has struggled to make money despite its popularity as an ad-supported online site for TV shows and movies.

Melinda says: Media aggregates take many forms, including entertainment.  News aggregates seem to be able to raise the necessary online ad revenue.  I wonder why an entertainment aggregate like Hulu can't? 

Read more: http://newsok.com/hulu-could-start-charging-access-fees-in-2010/article/3411117?custom_click=pod_headline_technology##ixzz0V0VGsV2G

Recently, Matt Drudge and his Web site, Drudgereport.com, made "metanews."  The Drudgereport Web site contained a link to a recent article posted on Politico.com and that article was about -- you guessed it -- Matt Drudge and his Web site.  It seems that Matt Drudge has posted numerous links to stories about the weak dollar and there are those who are concerned that the high visibility Drudge is giving this issue could exacerbate the problem.  Tom Rosenstiel (name sound familiar, Media Management classmates?) of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism acknowledges that, "There's no question that Drudge can alter what people are paying attention to."  And, according to the article, the people paying attention are powerful and influential.

This puts news aggregators in a new light.  No longer are aggregates simply "lamprey eels feeding off another entity" or "pilferers" who steal content ("Stopping the Presses" CBS News Sunday Morning story).  They could now be officially considered agenda-setters.  In that role, could they influence critical issues of national importance, knowingly or unknowingly?  And if so, what principles will guide them? 

To view the article, click here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28530.html

Wow -- NBC has a new "Artist in Residence."  The New York Times reports that Bon Jovi has made a two-month pact with NBC to appear only on NBC Universal media outlets.  The singer has a new album (they're still called albums?) coming out in November and the deal with NBC is an attempt to maximize exposure in a "shrinking media environment."  Among other appearances, Mr. Bon Jovi will appear on the "Today" news show and "NBC Nightly News" with Brian Williams.  NBC has indicated its intention to make this a regular feature of its broadcast and cable channel programming.

NBC Universal is one of the entertainment-journalism conglomerates that Kovach and Rosenstiel describe in "The Elements of Journalism," where journalism has become simply content -- news-of-the-day side by side recording-artist-of-the-day.  This development is evidence of journalism's subsidiary status inside corporations whose business is fundamentally grounded in other purposes.  As Kovach and Rosenstiel warn, the First Amendment is in danger of becoming merely a "property right establishing ground rules for free economic competition, not free speech."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/arts/television/15bonjovi.html

Have you ever had your mouth washed out with soap?  I have.  When I was in grade school, one of my weekly chores was to "shake" the throw rugs that were scattered in various places around our house.  This involved taking all of the rugs outside and shaking the dirt and dust out of them.  It was an unpleasant job, especially if you failed to note which way the wind was blowing.  One week I was especially reluctant to complete this chore and let a word slip out that immediately caught my mother's attention.  I quickly found myself in the bathroom with a bar of soap in my hand, and then in my mouth.  Gagging, I silently vowed never to say that word again -- even if my mother wasn't around.

So, I was especially interested when I came across a story about "potty mouths" in the White House ("Bleeping White House Better Watch Its Mouth" - see link below).  According to the story, the recent "unusually high naughty word count" is not because previous administrations have used more verbal restraint, but because the media are now reporting it as news.  The article goes on to say, "Intense competition and online clip culture have changed" how so-called colorful language is handled.  One reporter stated that reporting curse words used by our country's leaders lends authenticity and helps readers understand the person better.

What do you think?  Is this practice mere sensationalization or does it provide a sense of "reality"?  Should it be encouraged or nipped in the bud, so to speak?  I know what my mother would say!

(http://www.newser.com/story/71476/bleeping-white-house-better-watch-its-mouth.html )