Gina:
Thank you for your post. Interesting question and I'll give you my quick 2 cents.

It is obviously a HUGE problem that there is a tremendous void in the true investigative journalists in the media (newspapers, tv, etc.). The fact that Obama was not vetted by the press and has become the leader of the free world is glaring evidence of the lack of investigative journalism. It required Hannity to first uncover Obama's relationship with Bill Ayres, Wright, etc. !!!

Even Tom Brokaw -- who is a big Obama proponent -- confessed during a tv program after he became President that "NO ONE REALLY KNOWS WHO HE IS!!!" (Hey Tom...wasn't that YOUR job and the job of your cohorts during the election??? HELLOOOO!!!???

Wasn't it at all curious to ANY journalist that ALL of Obama's college records were and are still sealed??? What is he hiding (including his birth certificate)?

As another example of why the media is not objective...and that there are no true investigative journalists...

- over the last couple days, the media has been heavily promoting the book Obama received from Chavez which states why the US is an evil country. It is so blatant that major media is pushing this book's sales in the US and it has succeeded in becoming the #2 best selling book in America over the past week or two. The media are effusive about this! Imagine that...they are pushing a book which is extremely anti-US...and they are BEAMING! Yet there is one item they NEVER mention...that is what book is #1 over the past three or four weeks. That book is Mark Levin's "Libery and Tyranny."

I am still amazed to hear how excited that the media is over their accomplishment in pushing the anti-American book Obama was given.

The people who call themselves journalists in the US are now largely advocates for very liberal causes...and we see the result in changing the US to become more socialist. They are NOT INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS and this has led to the rapid decline in news readership ... and a rise in alternative news sources like talkradio and the drudgereport, etc.

Again, thank you for your thought-provoking posting. (I am sure that you'll see others reply -- like Ray -- who will try to trash my reply as being too rightwinged.

When the media decided to chase dollars instead of truth, to turn into venues of entertainment instead of storehouses of facts, that's when we lost true journalism. But don't blame the media. It's a free market and the successful will give the people what the really want.

Stacey, Is it what people want or is it wanted because the media is forcefeeding it to people? The entertainment fodder is easy to get and served up basically free by publicists.

Speaking in terms of the chicken and the egg, the dollars pay for the journalists, and the journalists are supposed to bring in the dollars from people from people who want and need the news. When the dollars go away, so do the journalists. But do you think a "non-profit" type of business model would work?

Ms. Channell-Allen, you bring up an interesting point. Is it not also a fact that when editors run amok (as did Mr. Bing with his "outing" of a writer whose identity was compromised in violation of your policies) they owe the readers an apology? YOU apologized for him, Jeb continues on with business as usual. The result is less credibility for newspapers in general, your in particular.

Resident, We are trying to have an intelligent conversation about the topic at hand, which is funding of journalism. Please move to the thread that was posted a few weeks ago if you would like to beat that dead horse.

The great thing about capitalism is that the consumer decides. The great problem with capitalism is that consumers can and will purchase products that they don't necessarily need (think snake oil) but have been lead to believe they do.

Gina, I think it's both. Fox News, for example, is highly successful because they provided a product that consumers wanted. Consumers tune in to that channel and no one is forcing them to do that. Fox News remains essentially commentary about news, not the news itself. Being highly successful, they become powerful and they're able to even create news (i.e., TEA parties). It's the modern form of yellow journalism. The casualty of this is those that will grow up unable to tell the difference between commentary and real news.

You said yourself in an earlier column that readers need to do more due diligence and that's especially true as the investigative journalists go away and the citizen journalist/bloggers (who do what they do usually for free) increase. The role of the editor is also diminishing and the "crowd" is taking over. You might be interested in this that just came across my Inbox this morning: "Transforming Journalism: What are new business models and entrepreneurial opportunities?" Web Link

Wanted to add... Weeklies/community journalism will also transform. As the larger dailies dry up, more pressure will be on the weeklies to provide the kind of journalism the public used to find in the dailies. There was some chart somewhere that I saw representing how local news is becoming increasingly more important to the public. The Internet helps, as I think your company has discovered. You can publish news to your website at any time of the day and aren't reliant upon waiting for your print deadlines.

Gina, thank you for your thoughtful words. I am stirred to comment my thoughts, too. I strive to be thoughtful as well.

Currently there is a systematic dismantling of our heritage throughout this nation.

Is anyone honestly surprised that the now sacred "liberal arts" degrees have in just a few short generations produce people with alternative ideas and those then comprising subsequent entities that educate the generations?

When you disproportionally emphasize one world view and misrepresent facts to the public, who more often than not chooses to "not get involved" or are too young to know better, we slowly errode the time-honored values and eventually see them diminish. The cycle begins with education and who typically is drawn to educate and "expand the mind". I see a more sinister plot when I know from my own experience how I was afraid to speak out during my eduacational experience only a few short years ago.

There is a reason why values, standards, and morality are important to uphold. When we don't hold to ideals, striving toward them even as we stumble, the fabric of our society unravels. The foundation that we assumed was firming after so much effort and contribution from generations past begins to crumble and who can desire to build on that?

I'm not trying to insert religion here, only using it as an example to draw a parallel to this topic...

When a society promotes the values of being accountable to not only each other but to the Diety, suddenly we improve our behavior. Hence the root word 'cult' in culture. When morality and social norms are deemed questionable at any time and without consequence, where do we draw the line? We abhor that which appears too far off in normalcy now, but then only a generation ago some norms of today were abhorant just then.

It is now that we have come to a place where people in position of influence (journalists, "entertainers", etc) choose to push their personal beliefs, instead of modeling virtue and offering facts not interlaced with opinion.

Why is it now that newspaper organizations choose to support a political leader instead of adequately being the one to question all of them on behalf of society? Just last week one said journalist was praised with a societal award for her part in pulically humiliating a candiate for a political office who wanted to serve this country. Yet no one whinced that the same journalist did nothing to equally invest queries about the counterpart in the political race.

It is important to ask questions when listening to anyone these days because of the propencity of modern values-starved embracing of "relative morality": What feels good to me...what is right for me...what is my reality, etc. Where is the consideration of this citizenry to ask each of ourselves, "what is virtuous and noble for me to do as part of a benefit to this larger group?" I fear it is gone from too many of us and encouraged for those left.

When we indeed purpose to walk away from a set of standards and beliefs, we set ourselves up for failure. We should be more careful than to carelessly and unintentionally give away our rights away because of our fear of getting involved or going against the grain.

A few weeks ago North Korea had a failed launch of a rocket. The state-sanctioned media reported to the North Korean people, however, that it was a success. We around the world knew differently. But how far are we from that point in our country when our own media is so determined to be cautious in their reports of who they favor?

I for one believe in God, country and loving my neighbor as myself. I weigh all my decisions against these values - the ones carefully and diligently cultivatied by my parents. When we relent any of our beliefs, particularly when we do so not necessarily do so with intent, but more scurrioulsy, without intention and diligence at all, it is a terrible thing. Freedom and liberty do not have children or grandchildren - it is something we all are adopted into through determination in every generation.

I think that current journalism practice is an example of a mob-mentality and lack of personal integrity. I am so saddened that we have drifted so far from our country's founding values.

The basic principals set up by our Constitution was to provide a way to become a more perfect union. The implication was to become more noble - not less. We proved that potential under President Lincoln with the abolishment of slavery, then again later with the voting rights to women and finally to all persons regardless of race or creed. That is because that is how God sees us and that is the intention of the Constitution.

How then are two of our nations current Constutional systems, government and freedom of speech - or for our purpose here, freedom of the press, even remotely more noble now that when we first started? Our current "news" sources more often promote political persons who only want to promote themselves. It is a complete cycle of self-indulgence.

I'm saddened that regardless of what I read or listen to in our modern and most easily accessible news sources, that I must always first determine their agenda politically.

I would also say that I disagree with the statement of Stacey above regarding the refinement of news agency's by popularity. If that were true, MSNBC would have died long ago. Instead, those with monetary resources that desire to promote the political agendas espoused on said networks will contine to prop up whatever or whomever they choose - and there are too many that are not wise enough to discern the difference.

I also (respectfully) disagree with Stacey re: Fox news, for the same reason. MSNBC gets my vote for most spin.

In London, the newspapers don't even pretend to be objective. Both main political sides have their own daily 'rag' and are very upfront and rather passionate about their biases.

We used to subscribe to five daily newspapers just to get the full story on major news stories and policial issues. It's easy to see the spin by comparing two articles side-by-side--you really see the differences. It's also quite telling to see *where* each paper places stories. A story which one paper places on the front page may be buried near the bottom of page 7 in another paper (or not run at all).

We finally gave up the SF Chronicle because of their consistent liberal spin, although we really miss their Science reporting. We also gave up the SJ Murky News. We ended up with the Valley Times (for local news), the PW, and the WS Journal (for international and business news). Plus various online sources, of course.

I worry most about those who prefer 'sound bites' instead of a detailed analysis of issues. If your main mode of communication is, say, texting or tweeting, are you likely to seek out the details of how we got where we are, who got us to this point, and the ramifications of the various solutions on different factions or industries or market segments?

Perhaps those who mainly skim a headline and watch a 60-second news segment tend to inherit the partially-hidden bias of the news source. Those who tend to read thoroughly from a variety of sources (print and online) may tend to get a bigger and broader picture, may discover and analyze the discrepancies and/or spin, and may make up their own minds.

I wouldn't know about MSNBC. Fox News is the channel on constantly at the in-laws' house.

Investigative reporting? To what end? To find out the truth and report it to the public? The bad guys are always a step ahead of the good guys. Just like the steroid users are just a bit more sophisticated than the guys who are trying to catch them.
Somewhere along the line here recently, the "truth," became a game or a toy, something to be played with. Two examples: OJ killed his wife, Johnnie Cochran penned a few puns, out-lawyered The People, and OJ was aquitted. What good was the truth? Even with something as serious as murder, the facts and the truth didn't matter.
Then our clever President, the Rhodes-Scholared one, the one with the clever wife, the one we liked, smirked into a camera and asked, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is..."
Our justice system can't lock up murderers, and our President won't hold himself accountable to a definition of "is." God help the media...
(Can I use the word "God?") And did somebody mention a dead horse? I'll take a whack!

The NY Times was once a respectable newspaper with integrity in its reporting, making it a good watchdog. Sadly, this is no longer the case as this newspaper is now a propaganda rag very biased in its reporting and politics...There are many things that go unreported due to this bias.For instance, they report Abu Grab as a front page story for 3 weeks straight when this news broke but how often do you find a story in the NY Times about some of heroes like those awarded Medals of Honor for the courage and brave actions in this war. You need to look long and hard for anything in the NY Times for coverage on things that counter with their agenda which is why I don't use it as a source of news....Perhaps the public is becoming wise, in the marketplace of ideas and reporting, publications like the NY Times and broadcasts like MSNBC may be becoming dinosaurs since they report with the motive to drive public opinions and attitudes rather than just cover the news and report all the facts.

Regarding MSNBC, remember Chris Matthews' public statements regarding Obama...

1. That before Obama was elected, Matthews said he had a "tingly feeling running up his leg" every time Obama spoke.

2. That after Obama was elected, that Matthews now felt it was "HIS ROLE ON MSNBC" to help see that Obama SUCCEEDS.


Some "independent professional journalism" on glaring display here!

GINA...INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM by the mainstream media -- including the main metro newspapers -- DIED during this Presidential election.

Thank you all for contributing to this conversation.

Surprised?, Dominic, Amy, Jack, et. al, I agree that the state of investigative journalism currently borders between sorry and pathetic. However, there is still a semblance of investigative journalism. Just within the past few months the Chicago Tribune and the Sun-Times have done investigative pieces that eventually led to the impeachment of the governor, Rod Blagojevich. However, since that time the Trib has had a layoff of newsroom employees and the Sun-Times has had two rounds of newsroom layoffs and filed for bankruptcy.

My concern is this: If journalism is suffering now, what will happen when there are no journalists willing and able to dig, question and challenge government and other institutions because the media companies can?t afford to pay them. Yahoo and Google are only aggregates ? they don?t do any reporting, just pull it from other sources.

Obviously we here on the PLW Town Square are not the only ones concerned about this. I am going to register for the seminar Stacey referenced earlier. Please keep the conversation going.

Oh, and MSNBC? See my column from Sept. 12, 2008. Web Link

The seminar at Stanford that Stacey referenced looks like a good one. Certainly there needs to be a radical overhaul in the media about quality investigative journalism. I, for one, have no problem with biased sources...as long as people (and/or organizations) reveal upfront what their biases are. Given how important the issues are these days, I find it hard for anyone to remain "independent" and not reveal their values and biases. Most consumers can read people's biases pretty well over time.

Here is a videoclip, for those who have not yet seen it about the sorry state of journalism today. It is a reporter (who has every right to be asking questions as he tries to do) who is handcuffed at USC School of Journalism where Katie Couric is about to receive the "Walter Cronkite Award" for her "unbiased" interview of Sarah Palin! Imagine that!!!

Walter Cronkite was the most liberal reporter who had no competition (like talk radio and other alternative sources) and who may have had a very very major role (whether deliberately or not) in America's defeat in Vietnam.

Here is the AMAZING videoclip.

Web Link

Hi Gina and thanks for starting this string and I have some observations on the issue. When I was a kid our choices were Huntley/Brinkley, Walter Chronkite etc. and they in my estimation were objective and the consummate professionals. I have seen some of their tapes in the last few years and listening to them and watching them it was impossible to tell how they personally felt on an issue and were just reporting the facts.

As I grew up and mostly within the last 15 years reporting or media has evolved from reporting the facts to promoting the cause of the the particular network or personality. Written print is the worst and hence I believe you seeing people wanting to be really educated on the facts and as such they bounce around on the net to validate facts.

I am currently on an assignment in Canada and I have access to CNN, BBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CTV (Canadian television), Fox, and Global. I can tell you that you can flip from channel to channel to follow the same story and each one paints a different story and lend their own opinion. BBC and MSNBC come off as american haters. I would say CNN and Fox are the most consistent in reporting but it seems as if CNN has fallen woefully behind Fox and come off as envious of the network. NBC, CBS, and ABC are now so tainted I do not even flip to the channels anymore.

Gina as a point of clarification I was referring to the young Chronkite. When he got older he became tainted and no longer really read the news but tried to craft I felt.

Gina,

I think the disconnect is that you put weight and credibility in an archaic and disingenuous award like the "Pulitzer Prize". It's an exercise in self-congratulatory elbow-rubbing. Outside of your "journalistic" brethren, nobody cares about them. More people care about the freaking "People's Choice Awards" or the "Razzies".

And the quotes around "journalistic" are deliberate. Newspapers have become attention-whores, substituting sensationalism and propaganda for NEWS. They're competing with blogs, cable TV, message boards, and the entire Internet for relevance... and losing, at least partially because the editors don't restrict the writers to NEWS, and allow it to become commentary. Remember when they used to have an Op-Ed page? Now it's the whole paper.

You know what's sad? The USA Today used to be kind of a joke, because of the lowbrow charts and the simple way of presenting world information. But they might well end up being the last paper standing... "All the news that's fit to print" meant nothing when everyone realized that meant "All the news that fits our world view".

Parent of Two...c'mon. All newspapers are not attention whores and for you to characterize them all that way is silly. I think our local papers do a pretty good job of reporting the news. And when I say local I mean local. Not the SF chron or the mercury. I think the pw does a pretty good job. And the times. I don't think they're all sensationalistic etc. I'll take my local paper overthose any day.

That said, on the original topic, i don't see how local papers can do investigative journalism. They're shortstaffed and working just to cover events that are happening. There's no time to go hunting pulitzers when you have to put out a good product every week.

The MIT/Stanford Venture Lab panels are really interesting. They usually pick out good panelists. Glad to hear you're going.

Gina (et al)...

What is your reaction to the incident I mentioned earlier that occurred at the USC Dept. of Journalism?

Here is the link again...

Web Link

Amy,
I actually saw this earlier this week (the video) and it is what I referred to above. Thanks for the link, it asks for a "Digg" password, but if you keep hitting "cancel" it eventually let's you in. Maybe that is why the others haven't responded.

I was shocked to learn today that Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE (A corporation that is moving in the direction of producing wind turbines for alternative energy - needing goverment subsidies, etc), the same GE that owns NBC/Universal and all the NBC cabel labels (MS, CNBC, etc, so he, and Jeff Zucker, President of NBC, visited CNBC to tell them to stop any criticism of the Obama Administration.

Basicall, NBC news was purposeful in electing Obama. Now they are purposeful to help him succeed and not showing any criticism of his policies. Is anyone then surprised that they are in a business that is seeking major government contracts for alternative energy, the very focus of the Obama administration.

<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='Web Link id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='Web Link bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='oreillyPlayer' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='354' width='385' flashvars='playerId=oreillyhomeplayer&referralObject=4545921&referralPlaylistId=bbeb11095dff273e354ffbd0dfa4c070c9e8730b' />

My Web link above didn't take, try this

Web Link


Go to the talking points section, and click on "Will GE get paid for supporting Obama?"

It shows the terrible guests on NBC cable networks and also the GE CEO getting boo'ed at a GE Investors meeting.

Gina - If you would hire good staff that can do investigative journalism on PUSD and the City (instead of paying outside consultants to redesign the look) then I would be glad to pay a subscription fee.

As for your Ayn Rand question... Atlas Shrugged should not be required reading for everyone. It takes a certain level of patience and understanding of how the world works to conquer that tome.

Posted by resident, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2009 at 12:26 pm

Ms. Channell-Allen, you bring up an interesting point. Is it not also a fact that when editors run amok (as did Mr. Bing with his "outing" of a writer whose identity was compromised in violation of your policies) they owe the readers an apology? YOU apologized for him, Jeb continues on with business as usual. The result is less credibility for newspapers in general, your in particular.

Posted by Gina Channell-Allen, president of the Pleasanton Weekly, on Apr 21, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Gina Channell-Allen is a member (registered user) of Pleasanton Weekly

Resident, We are trying to have an intelligent conversation about the topic at hand, which is funding of journalism. Please move to the thread that was posted a few weeks ago if you would like to beat that dead horse.


Actually, Gina, Resident makes a valid point. Credibility is key to the survival of any business. If you lose it, arguing that lost ad revenue undermines quality, while true, misses the point.

Hi There :) How about something new to read in your "Publishers Blog?"

What truly is journalism?
What truly is truth?
What is 'is'? (Whoops, dealt with that a couple of administrations ago.)
What it is? (cliché, really)

I think journalists should be paid exclusively on commission -- their pay purely a function of the Editor in Chief's blood pressure... Kick in the blood pressure of the publisher, too, as a bonus.
So, the 'better' the story (for us readers) the more the journalist makes... Of course, journalists may go overboard, and Editor in Chiefs may start dropping like flies from heart attacks.

Well, then, there's a silver lining!

This will create lots of job openings for all those highest paid journalists who were axed because they were the highest paid!

Life is like a circle, you know. (I'm a scholar of Disney..)
The Circle of Strife!!
Lying King!
The New York Times??!

:-)