Journalism Fights for its Life

In his important year-end post for his site PressThink, New York University journalism professor and critic Jay Rosen warned, "the world has changed and journalists are in the fight of their lives."   Rosen's point is that the way for journalism to earn trust has changed because users now have more choices and more control.  He then provides a thoughtful list of ways is which journalists can win trust through transparency. 

But how does one win the trust of everyone in the era of Trump, who now is a bully with the White House pulpit?  The president proudly claimed in an interview with the Fox Business Channel last October that he "started this whole fake news thing."  Of course, that is not true.  In fact, according to the Washington Post, "President Trump has made 1,950 false or misleading claims over 347 days."  

That the president frequently lies is not fake news, and it is not new news.  A Morning Consult/Political poll last December found that only 36% of those sampled thought the president is honest.  In fact, 51% of those polled believe he is dishonest, while 60% think he is reckless.   Yet his almost daily attacks against the press, mostly false or misleading, have staggered many members of the press.  

The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press.  Freedom House reports that freedom of the press is in decline around the world, including here in the United States.  A record number of journalists have been imprisoned worldwide, including twenty-one on "fake news" charges.  Senator John McCain issued this warning to President Trump in December on Twitter, "@POTUS must understand his harmful rhetoric only empowers repressive regimes to jail reporters and silence the truth."  

Soon after his return to the White House, following a holiday break in Florida, the president launched another fusillade on Twitter against one of his favorite targets, The New York Times.  "The failing New York Times has a new publisher, A.G. Sulzberger.  Congratulations!  Here is a last chance for the Times to fulfill the vision of its Founder, Adolph Ochs, "to give the news impartially, without fear of FAVOR, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved," his first tweet read.  It continued on a second, "Get impartial journalists of a much higher standard, lose all your phony and non-existent "sources," and treat the President FAIRLY, so that the next time I (and the people) win, you won't have to write and apology to your readers for a job poorly done!"  

Clearly the president's claims of fake news and his attacks on news organizations are all a tactic.  If he was innocent of sin, if his White House was free of scandal, if his agenda was popular with the masses, he wouldn't have to protest too much.  But he doth protest an awful lot!  He loves to spin his own alternate reality and lash out at the press.  His communications' staff, assorted acolytes and members of Congress echo his attacks because it is in their own personal interest, and the mainstream media is an easy target.  Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron stoically observed last year, "We are not at war with the administration, we are at work."  

But for more news channels, more news sites online, and the growing amount of users who get their news from social media, opinion is now the currency of the realm.  An enormous amount of Americans get their information from sources they feel agree with their views, i.e., one's that are consistent with their core beliefs.  And some news outlets carefully craft their content to appeal to their likely viewers, and to advance a political agenda.  This has left America so politically divided it is hard for people from different regions or ideologies to agree on basic facts, let alone have an rational and calm discussion.  

More transparency is important, absolutely, but do Sean Hannity's 3.2 million viewers care if he is transparent?   Few of his viewers check around with different sources to get the other side of the argument.  And they don't care that Hannity regularly consults with President Trump, who is a big fan of his program.   Sure, Hannity is not a journalist, but he is on the Fox News Channel.  

The big question is at what point will Americans say enough is enough with the attacks on the press.  At what point will Americans be motivated enough to devote time to study all sides of the issues.  At what point will Americans take the time to be well informed before making decisions about elected officials, as our Founding Fathers had intended when they wrote the First Amendment.  The Fathers wanted to assure that America would not be ruled by a despot, rather that it would always be ruled by the people.  

The press is not perfect, but most major news organizations have a process to assure that all of the facts are fully vetted before they are published, and to assure fairness, impartiality, independence and accountability.  On the other hand, the administration, the Congress, and government agencies are not always transparent and accountable to the people.  That will only happen with a strong and vibrant press.  

Journalists may be in a fight for their lives, due to evolving business models and rapid changes in technology, but their survival is essential for the maintenance of this great democracy.  

Be Not Afraid--Do What's Right

The holiday season is already upon us, but Congressional Republicans are not in a holiday mood.  Because of their recalcitrance in the ongoing negotiations surrounding the pending fiscal crisis, they are on the verge of becoming the Grinch that stole America's economic recovery. 

President Barack Obama, who won November's presidential election decisively, campaigned for raising tax rates on the wealthy, individuals making more than $200,000, and couples making more than $250,000.  One month later, A Washington Post and Pew Research Center poll shows a majority of Americans still supports that position.  The poll also finds that 53 percent of the respondents will blame Republicans in Congress if the two parties fail to reach a budget deal.

But national opinion polls do not influence GOP Congressmen elected in heavily Republican districts.  Many of these members are under the firm control of the Tea Party and Grover Norquist, the conservative founder of Americans for Tax Reform.  They have both threatened to defeat any Republican members who do not toe the less "government-less taxes" party line by supporting more conservative candidates against them in the primaries.   

Republicans have a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives, and conservatives have a strangle hold on these members and their leadership.  So tight is their grip on House Speaker John Boehner that if he were to act against their wishes he may lose his Speakership. 

Bah Humbug! This is just the right time for Speaker Boehner to compromise, and show the majority of Americans that a smoothly and smartly functioning government is possible.  A compromise on the “fiscal cliff” would be a wonderful gift for most Americans, businesses and the global economy.  Such a compromise would also polish up the tarnished image of the Republican Party, except among Tea-Party members.  But even they would benefit from a healthier economy and a more robust recovery.

The Democratic-controlled Senate passed a bill in July that would extend many of the expiring George W. Bush-era tax cuts for middle-income families, while not doing so for wealthy income earners.  Speaker Boehner should call this bill up for a House vote and deliver the two-dozen Republican votes needed to pass it.  The president has repeatedly said he will sign this bill, which would mean certainty and relief for 98 percent of all Americans. 

Subsequently, Republicans can continue to the debate with Democrats the merits of extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, entitlement reform, budget reductions and changes in the federal tax laws.  Each of these are difficult and complicated issues that will take more time to get right.  But why make the middle-class suffer any more hardship; why use them as a political chip in a effort to score political points with a vocal minority of Americans?

Republicans and Democrats both reminisce about how President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill worked together to move America forward.  This relationship, built on mutual respect, was historic.  Both men risked the wrath of their base supporters, but were not afraid to do so.  

Speaker Boehner, you too can make history.  And you can make this a happy holiday season for a majority of Americans. 

  

The Party of War

So desperate are Republicans to overcome a huge gender gap among women that they will instantly seize any opening to drive a favorable story line and raise money.  But these tactical maneuvers are not going to change the uncertainty that even many Republicans feel toward their presumed presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

For voters, one of the underlying concerns with Romney is trust.  He has shown a consistent pattern of changing positions on issues to gain support, or saying anything that he thinks will help him win, especially in negative campaign ads.  He will not let the facts get in his way.  

For instance, earlier this month Romney accused President Obama of waging a war on religion and even worse!  "I think in this country there is a war on religion.  I think there is a desire to establish a religion in America known as secularism.  And I know, based upon reports, that the Obama administration gave this a lot of thought."  Well this charge is patently false, according to senior White House advisers.   And it doesn't make any logical sense.

 

Romney is constantly spinning untruths about President Obama.  “I was disappointed in listening to the president as he’s saying, ‘Oh Republicans are waging a war on women.’” But President Obama never said that.   It was fabricated by the former governor, who then continued,  “The real war on women is being waged by the president’s failed economic policies.”  Right!  Candidate Romney has stated that 92% of the job losses under Obama have been among women.  This charge is misleading because it fails to count the millions of men who disproportionately lost their jobs in the last few months of the Bush presidency.

Distortion, negative campaigning and lies seem to be run of the mill for Governor Romney and his campaign.  His tactics and his campaign positions, including defunding Planned Parenthood, have so turned off women that their support of him is 19%  less than it is for President Obama in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

It is because of this huge gender gap that Governor Romney and his campaign have been seizing every opportunity to strengthen his support among women by increasingly Ann Romney's role.  She has become his executive in charge of women.  Governor Romney recently spoke about his wife on the Fox News Channel, “And she points out that as she talks to women, they tell her that their number one concern is the economy.”

Comments like these are what Hilary Rosen was addressing on CNN when she clumsily stumbled into the "mommy war."  Rosen said, "What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I am hearing.  Guess what?  His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."  Ouch Hilary!  Rosen continued, "She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and how do we worry - and why we worry about their future.  I think, yes, it's about these positions and, yes, I think there will be a war of words about the positions."

And a war of words there is!  The Romney campaign saw an opening and jumped on it.  "If you're a stay-at-home mom, the Democrats have a message for you: you've never worked a day in your life," Romney's senior campaign advisor Beth Myers wrote in a fundraising email titled "War on Moms."  No sooner had the Republicans begun their attack than the super sensitive Obama campaign tossed Rosen under the bus too!  President Obama, Michelle Obama, advisers David Axelrod and Jim Messina all made comments critical of Rosen, who was once a Democratic strategist and has visited the Obama White House more than 30 times.  

This dust up is representative of the hyperbolical, 24/7 media crazed era we live in today.  And it seems that Republicans all too often are prone to characterize conflicts and policy differences in terms of war.  For instance, Republicans accuse President Obama of waging "class warfare" against wealthy Americans because he has proposed increasing their tax rates.  

President Obama's support of the "Buffett rule,” which would have billionaires pay federal tax rates that are no less than their secretaries, has drawn extreme anger from conservatives.  As an example, on Thursday Romney adviser and former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu called it, “a class warfare agenda that President Obama seems to be embarking on in this campaign.”  Republicans would rather cut tax rates for upper income earners and pay for deficit reductions with cuts in government programs that help low and middle income earners.  This conservative fiscal strategy is known as "starve the beast." 

Republicans also claim that increasing the top tax rates will hurt many small businesses and slow the nation's recovery.  They call it a war on small business.   And when it comes to regulating businesses, Mitt Romney's election website is filled with "war-mongering."  "The Obama administration’s war on carbon dioxide—what Time magazine has called “the most far-reaching environmental regulatory scheme in American history”—is the highest-profile EPA effort."  And on energy the website says,  "As the Obama administration wages war against oil and coal, it has been spending billions of dollars on alternative energy forms and touting its creation of “green” jobs. But it seems to be operating more on faith than on fact-based economic calculation."

All this Republican talk of war is meant to deflect attention away from their number one problem: Mitt Romney.   It is also meant to energize and mobilize the party's base.  But conservatives see a flawed candidate--who has held dubious positions on health care reform, abortion and gun control.  So you can bet that Republican strategists are now busy behind closed doors feverishly drawing up their plans for Romney's 2012 campaign.  Of course, using an Etch a Sketch. 

November Madness?

"How do we understand this President and his time in office?" asks actor Tom Hanks in his narration for the documentary "The Road We've Traveled," which the president's reelection campaign released Thursday evening. "Do we look at the day's headlines or do we remember what we as a nation have been through?" Well that all depends on your political point of view.

For supporters of President Obama, the documentary is a well-crafted 17-minute story about a man who has achieved an enormous amount despite difficult challenges.  "Not since the days of Franklin Roosevelt has so much fallen on the shoulders of one president," Hanks says.  It tells of a man who is consistently doing what he believes is best for the country rather than what may be most popular. 

The documentary cites the benefits of the health care reform act, a.k.a. "Obama care", by reminding viewers that the elderly, young adults under 26 years old, and people with preexisting conditions will no longer be without health care. It points to the fact that the controversial stimulus package passed in 2009 added or saved millions of jobs.  The film also highlights the great success of the automobile bail out, which is still criticized by the Republican candidates.  Of course, the documentary spends time detailing the president's actions that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda. 

The timing of the film, released on the normally unlucky "Ides of March", marks the true beginning of the president's reelection effort.  Simultaneous with the film's release, candidates Obama and Vice President Joe Biden sharpened their attacks on their Republican opponents.

On Thursday the vice president said, “Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich — these guys have a fundamentally different economic philosophy than we do.” He continued, “We are for a fair shot and a fair shake. They’re about no rules, no risks and no accountability.”  Speaking of the auto bailout, Vice President Biden then said, “he made the tough call and the verdict is in. President Obama was right and they were dead wrong.”  A few hundred miles away the president criticized at his opponents, “If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they probably must have been founding members of the "Flat Earth Society". They would not believe that the world was round."

But, flat earth or not, recent national polls showed a sharp decline in the president's approval rating.  The latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows Obama's overall approval rating at 41 percent, down 9 percentage points in one month.  The president's rating also slid about 10 percent in a month according to a Washington Post/ABC poll.  Rising gas prices and a slow recovery seem to be dragging the president's numbers down.  The heated debate over contraception and religious rights are not as high a priority to most Americans.

Of course, the man in charge is held accountable for rising gasoline prices, even though they are caused by events that the president has little control over.  Speculators and the fear of war with Iran are driving the prices up.  If all the suggestions that Republicans are making to deal with the problem were enacted they would have little impact on the price.  In fact, the last time gas prices were this high was in July 2008, when George W. Bush was president, and they came crashing down because of the recession that soon followed.  

Here we are in the height of college basketball's exciting tournament known as "March Madness."  Already many fans who have forecast the outcome of the tournament, the "bracketologists," have seen their predictions turn out wrong.  That is because several top-seeded teams have gone down to defeat at the hands of lower ranked opponents. The fact is that any team has a chance of winning on any given day. 

We are still many months away from "November Madness," and the race will not be a slam-dunk for either candidate.  While it is pretty clear that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will be matched up against President Barack Obama, the election will be very close.  Victory will depend on who has the better ground game and passionate voter support.  But, chances are that many voters will be more motivated by "the day's headlines" than "what we have been through" as a nation.      

The Washington Post

Financial pressures are slowly squeezing the life out of news organizations, whether world-wide or local. Regretfully hundreds of quality journalists are losing their jobs and actual news coverage is being reduced. Now even ethical boundaries are being challenged.

Print, web, television and radio organizations are all feeling revenue pressure. The "Great Recession" has had a devastating impact on bottom lines across the board as advertising budgets have been sharply reduced. Already news consumers had been increasingly divided among an ever-growing number of news content providers. Mass media outlets have massively increased to include Yahoo and Google news, news aggregation sites and bloggers.

Traditional media has taken a real thumping. While the venerable news program 60 Minutes finishes among the top ten rated programs each week, its total audience is about half what it was a quarter century ago. Meanwhile the revenue from a commercial spot on the program has also decreased because there is so much news inventory available for advertisers on all platforms. 60 Minutes has just wrapped up what may have been its best season ever editorially, yet it is struggling to stay out of the red.

The Gannett Company, owner of newspapers and television outlets, announced this week that about 1,400 positions would be cut from its community publishing division. The Arizona Republic in Phoenix is cutting 100 positions, The Des Moines Register is laying off 36 and more than 120 positions will be cut at its newspapers in New Jersey. The New York Times has cut staff, and it is having difficulty off-loading the Boston Globe. The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune are fighting for their lives. Sure, all of these companies have focused more on expanding their web presence, but Internet revenues are still very small.

So it is no wonder that those guiding major news organizations would search for alternative sources of income. And it has always been a regular practice for some news organizations to have editorial meetings with newsmakers. For instance, the former Washington Post publisher, Katharine Graham, frequently hosted and personally paid for "salon" dinners at her home for key Washington figures.

So the idea of "Washington Post" salon dinners, held at the publisher's home with the executive editor and key reporters in attendance, seemed like a logical extension of past practice. Except the dinners would be sponsored. In fact, solicitations went out seeking $25,000 from up to two sponsors per event. And the sessions would be "off the record," meaning that information from the dinners could not be used in the newspaper. Kaiser Permanente, a leading health care organization, had verbally agreed to sponsor an off-the-record dinner scheduled for July 21 and co-hosted by the Post's health care reporter.

Most major news organizations have standards and policies to guide their daily practices. One major policy is "conflict of interest." If a reporter or news organization receives money or other valuables from another person, company or organization, it may influence, or appear to influence, their coverage. Credibility and trust are the inviolable bonds that link a news organization with its readers.

The Washington Post's policy reads, "This newspaper is pledged to avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest, wherever and whenever possible." Clearly these dinners were a violation of the newspaper's own standards, as well as common sense. Even if there had been 10 dinners over the course of a year they would have netted well less than $500,000 in total. Publisher Katharine Weymouth, Graham's granddaughter, and Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli are very smart and accomplished journalists. The Washington Post has done a remarkable job covering President Barack Obama's transition, the financial crisis, Capitol Hill and recent world news.

"This episode has left a scar that will be visible for years," wrote Andrew Alexander, the Post's ombudsman, this past Sunday, "and it has badly shaken the newsroom." I believe the Washington Post is still an outstanding newspaper. And while this incident is most unfortunate, it serves notice to journalists everywhere that they must always remain vigilant.